Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Images on Mars


M-Albion

Recommended Posts

It should be obvious to anyone that any image processing step is a trade off. Any action we take is a trade off between what was and what the end product is. There might be gains, but there are also losses.

Let's make this simple. To produce an anaglyph, two images are combined. Actually, it is two or more.  For example, IIRC an array of 64 cameras was used to take a photo. The photo was 64 views of a group of people behind a hedge. The final image was reduced to show only the 3-d portion of the image behind the hedge. It showed the group of people as they were standing sans hedge. In this example, the final image has reduced the information from the original 64 images. Saying this is just an information loss is somewhat vague. The final image did show the group of people with correct spatial resolution and correct colors. That was a result of the large number of images that could be combined to produce the final image. The portions of the final image that were not covered by a sufficient number of the original images had portions that were inferred rather than determined from the images.

So that should provide a very strong hint to those pushing 3d images as to the issue with the anaglyphs.

It should be noted that in many VEs, virtual environments, the view that is seen by the eyes is computed for eyes 50cm apart. In some systems a 2-d view is presented and other factors such as parallax and obscuring provide the information to the visual system to  infer depth.

Anaglyphs are fun, but at what cost? What is lost in making an anaglyph?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread's goin' really well, M-A.  Not a single supporter.  I'd have taken the hint in the previous closed thread... when even Seektruth calls you out as a troll, you should know you are in that sewerage pond way beyond your depth...  :D :D :D 

As I've pointed out, and Overlord neatly summarised in a one line reply:

Quote

if you look at the source pic and compare them he zoomed in until it was blurry and used several filters including a texture and a 3-d effect.

..thus completely invalidating anything that followed, including the stupid use of 3D.

100% percent waste of time.  100% bullmanure.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, stereologist said:

Anaglyphs are fun, but at what cost? What is lost in making an anaglyph?

To try to make this worthwhile... :D

Theoretically, providing the source images are UNcompressed, and that they are fully resolved at pixel-level (ie 'high resolution'), and that the anaglyph method doesn't involve color filtering or polarisation or other similar methods, then nothing should be lost.

As M-A's image fails on ALL those counts, and he has not shown us the original uncompressed images, nor has he given us information on all the post-processing, nc. the 3D methodology and justification, then everything is lost....

I've posted this example earlier, to show how it should be done:
pointless3d.thumb.jpg.d717f9325bd31169e8be88713acddba1.jpg
- it is admittedly suffering very slightly from compression effects (UM resaves it), but I think it should be very clear (pun intended) that it is at much higher resolution
- it uses a non-lossy 3D method (cross-eye, 6"/150mm manual separation) that has no effect on the resolution of the source images 
- there is no post processing except a very minor contrast adjustment
- there should be no issues with color balance, as it was obviously taken in daylight, using a SONY (a57) RGGB sensor set to 5500K white balance
- I can even supply the full size originals (in RAW form if you want), if anyone asks..

Now look again at what M-A is posting .... and try not to laugh (or cry).

 

 

To use that image above, position yourself square onto the screen at a reasonable viewing distance, then relax your eyes and slowly cross them, until the two images create a third (merged) one in the middle.  With a bit of practice you should be able to 'lock' onto the 3d image.  The perspective effect is slightly exaggerated as I used a wider separation than that of a normal set of eyes.  Also - here's a test for your observation skills - as I took the second image a few seconds after the first, there are a couple of small glitches - the moving clouds, and where some palm fronds have moved in the wind..  

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2020 at 5:00 AM, M-Albion said:

A very excellent vid, thanks for posting. It's a pity the vid shows only variances of "orange" for the surface and planetary images, but nonetheless super for getting up front and personal with the rover Perseverance. The air drone though, I have my doubts about.

If you want proof however, you'll need 3D red/cyan glasses. Very cheap and enormously rewarding.

Do you accept that Mars has had the moniker The Red Planet since Roman times at least?

Are you willing to go to your local astronomy club and look through a telescope at Mars and report back to us the colour you see?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

To try to make this worthwhile... :D

Theoretically, providing the source images are UNcompressed, and that they are fully resolved at pixel-level (ie 'high resolution'), and that the anaglyph method doesn't involve color filtering or polarisation or other similar methods, then nothing should be lost.

As M-A's image fails on ALL those counts, and he has not shown us the original uncompressed images, nor has he given us information on all the post-processing, nc. the 3D methodology and justification, then everything is lost....

I've posted this example earlier, to show how it should be done:
pointless3d.thumb.jpg.d717f9325bd31169e8be88713acddba1.jpg
- it is admittedly suffering very slightly from compression effects (UM resaves it), but I think it should be very clear (pun intended) that it is at much higher resolution
- it uses a non-lossy 3D method (cross-eye, 6"/150mm manual separation) that has no effect on the resolution of the source images 
- there is no post processing except a very minor contrast adjustment
- there should be no issues with color balance, as it was obviously taken in daylight, using a SONY (a57) RGGB sensor set to 5500K white balance
- I can even supply the full size originals (in RAW form if you want), if anyone asks..

Now look again at what M-A is posting .... and try not to laugh (or cry).

 

 

To use that image above, position yourself square onto the screen at a reasonable viewing distance, then relax your eyes and slowly cross them, until the two images create a third (merged) one in the middle.  With a bit of practice you should be able to 'lock' onto the 3d image.  The perspective effect is slightly exaggerated as I used a wider separation than that of a normal set of eyes.  Also - here's a test for your observation skills - as I took the second image a few seconds after the first, there are a couple of small glitches - the moving clouds, and where some palm fronds have moved in the wind..  

Wow, neat effect!

It took only about five seconds for me to see the 3-D image.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of anaglph's is well known by both NASA and ESA for many reasons, all logical and very effective. Never - "including the stupid use of 3D" as quoted from the above post.

ESA https://www.esa.int/esearch?q=anaglyphs+

and,

NASA https://www.uahirise.org/anaglyph/

The use of 3D red/cyan productions are indeed both valid and scientifically acceptable.

Edited by M-Albion
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, M-Albion said:

The use of anaglph's is well known by both NASA and ESA for many reasons, all logical and very effective. Never - "including the stupid use of 3D" as quoted from the above post.

ESA https://www.esa.int/esearch?q=anaglyphs+

and,

NASA https://www.uahirise.org/anaglyph/

The use of 3D red/cyan productions are indeed both valid and scientifically acceptable.

You  say that "The use of 3D red/cyan productions are indeed both valid and scientifically acceptable."  You are making an inference which is not warranted. Although an anaglyph is useful for representing information as are stereograms, plots, tables, etc. They are not as you might be suggesting scientific. They are visualizations which provide some use.

And what is lost when making them? What common technique is used in the anaglyphs which distorts them?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA uses high resolution anaglyphs for example, in the production of topographic maps of the surface.

Here being discussed, about 3D images on Mars: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/3d-moon.html

I've noticed that the people crying "yuck" about anaglyph imaging are the one's which do not have a pair red/cyan glasses!

https://www.amazon.com/BIAL-Red-Blue-Glasses-Glassese-Anaglyph/dp/B01GCP9PTI/ref=sr_1_7_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=3d+anaglyph+glasses&qid=1601238633&sr=8-7-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExMzA5MlJHNzUxQlAwJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMzM1MzExMVRZWE9RTkJHUEtZQiZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNjM1NTI0MlNFOUJOQVdYVE5YSCZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX210ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=

 

Here's why seeing is believing of the same Martian crater, in 2D and in 3D

Once you see this image in 3D, you'll understand WHY our orbiter's are fitted with stereo cameras.

]c3BVC7.png

atrT9w.png

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stereologist said:

And what is lost when making them? What common technique is used in the anaglyphs which distorts them?

I know the full answers to these two questions - some of it is in my post above - some is even hinted in M-A's 'response'... What does NASA use anaglyphs for, did you say, M-A?  :D  Was it identification of martian gorillaz?  Does his example of those two images in any way justify his use of other images to find teddy bears, gorillaz, kitty cats, ad infinitum?

I'll ask a variant of Stereo's questions.

1. What post-processing techniques or issues cause the most creation of false detail, including false 3D perspective detail?

2. How can you avoid those issues?  (Hint - as posted above, pretty much everything you have done to that image has caused problems, and there are other issues that stem from your choice of source imagery..)

Are you STILL not learning anything, M-A?  Are you STILL not noticing that you have not a single supporter here?

Readers should note how instead of simply answering the questions posed by Stereo and me, M-A just dodges and posts more of the same.  That's what pretenders do.  That's what garbage peddlers do.  That's what those with the very tightest tinfoilhats do...  That's what those who have chosen the wrong hobby for their (deliberate?) lack of knowledge, do.

I shall refrain from helping M-A to answer, given his proclivity to ignorance and abuse.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, M-Albion said:

NASA uses high resolution anaglyphs for example, in the production of topographic maps of the surface.

Here being discussed, about 3D images on Mars: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/3d-moon.html

I've noticed that the people crying "yuck" about anaglyph imaging are the one's which do not have a pair red/cyan glasses!

https://www.amazon.com/BIAL-Red-Blue-Glasses-Glassese-Anaglyph/dp/B01GCP9PTI/ref=sr_1_7_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=3d+anaglyph+glasses&qid=1601238633&sr=8-7-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExMzA5MlJHNzUxQlAwJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMzM1MzExMVRZWE9RTkJHUEtZQiZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNjM1NTI0MlNFOUJOQVdYVE5YSCZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX210ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=

 

Here's why seeing is believing of the same Martian crater, in 2D and in 3D

Once you see this image in 3D, you'll understand WHY our orbiter's are fitted with stereo cameras.

 

 

As we see here there is a terrible misunderstanding of how contour maps are made. They are NOT  made with anaglyphic images.

Claiming that this is the case is a big fat LIE.

Here is another statement of BS: "one's which do not have a pair red/cyan glasses". That has nothing to do with the issues being discussed except to the incompetent.

Here is another piece of incompetence: "Once you see this image in 3D, you'll understand WHY our orbiter's are fitted with stereo cameras."

No the orbiters are NOT fitted with stereo cameras. Only those clueless about stereographic images would suggest that. I've already hinted quite strongly that would not be the case.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see what  is happening when it comes to 3-d images. It requires 2 image that are separated. How far apart do the two images need to be taken? That depends on the acuity of the eye and the distance to the object that is to be shown in 3-d.

http://scecinfo.usc.edu/geowall/stereohow.html

Quote

Stereoscopic vision works most effectively for distances up to 18 feet.  Beyond this distance, your brain starts using relative size and motion to determine depth.

As I previously mentioned, virtual environments that show 3-d worlds such as a CAVE show your eyes images as if your eyes were 2 feet apart to increase the sense of a 3-d environment.

The Mars rovers had the two cameras a large distance apart because the cameras do NOT have the visual acuity of the human eye. This allows the navigators to see their environment carefully as they determine a safe passage for the rover.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

gee all images that are not man made :)

The images below all show the results made by the so named Rock Abrasion Tool that were on board both the Opportunity and Spirit.

There tool drills the surface of Mars and reports the composition etc.

w2v3XW.jpg

4UYfFx.jpg

Cqovoc.png

The RAT drills the rock surface and is about 80mm in diameter

In the image below, shows a comparison to Barringer Crater in Arizona and a similar process possibly used crater in the Martian surface, except the diameter across is roughly 9kmI

In this instance "size does matter"

lMgZVH.jpg

3D image of Barringer Crater

]fWtKpf.jpg

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about holes and other natural things on earth that appear man made?

Seems we can get all fantasy based let our imaginations run wild and come up with all kinds of stories but we need proof which isnt here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see we are into a joke session seeing that round things are round.

Let's see the glaring failures in this thread need to be listed:

  • Satellites have stereo cameras - no they don't
  • Anaglyphic images are used to make contour maps - no they are not
  • Lack of red-blue glasses is why people are pointing out all of the blunders - LOL
  • Anaglyphic images are one way of making a visualization - but the issue is at what cost.
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2020 at 12:39 AM, Peter B said:

Do you accept that Mars has had the moniker The Red Planet since Roman times at least?

Are you willing to go to your local astronomy club and look through a telescope at Mars and report back to us the colour you see?

G'day M-Albion

Any thoughts on the above questions?

In fact, if I've got it right, Mars is low in the western sky shortly after sunset. At least, I saw a distinctly coloured object in the western sky just after sunset, and then confirmed my suspicion by checking a sky map.

So if you go outside shortly after sunset and look to the west (clouds allowing), you might like to tell us what colour you think Mars is when using an Eyeball Mark 1. You could then follow that up by having a peek through binoculars or a telescope.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2020 at 1:53 PM, M-Albion said:

 So you ask. "How could you claims be accurate considering that"?

A valid question and I can only respond by saying is it not possible that life, even intelligent life, could spawn..  but be so different, we would find it near impossible to comprehend. Academia has boundaries and the parameters are set. The temptation to Cross the Rubicon is tempting though.

Please take the time to watch Anton Petrov, he's a young  Russian scientist with a fascination of Mars, An entertaining watch.

There are many "Troughs" on mars many kilometers deep and as long as 300 kilometers long and 70 miles wide, Hebes Chasma for example, could be something like a 300 mile long atmospheric aquarium!

 

 

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. That's not what he is saying.

He is saying that oxygen levels in certain areas fluctuate, and are both higher and lower than expected. For the warmer part of the year, more oxygen is detected, for the colder parts of the Martian year, they are lower than expected. Now a mean average of oxygen levels in the Martian atmosphere comprises about 0.16%. elevated levels may reach triple that. 

Still not even one percent of the atmosphere. That won't sustain life, and for half the year, there is almost no oxygen.

And the photos you have shown are not specifically focused on craters or canyons. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Looks like a rock, to me.

It looked like a rock to me too.

In 3D it doesn't look like a rock, but you need to see close up.

Edited by M-Albion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, M-Albion said:

It looked like a rock to me too.

In 3D it doesn't look like a rock, but you need to see close up.

You can't see it close up, it's blurry and out of focus. I can take a picture of a boulder strewn field here on earth and you can imagine, through the pareidolia effect, a great many things--this is no different. The internet is full of stuff like this where people see what they want to see on Mars. I would love for something like this to be genuine, but anything that require imagination and a belief system is suspect. Nothing I've seen, thus far, is even remotely convincing and persuasive. There may be something to found, under the hurtling moons of Barsoom, but not as yet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

You can't see it close up, it's blurry and out of focus. I can take a picture of a boulder strewn field here on earth and you can imagine, through the pareidolia effect, a great many things--this is no different. The internet is full of stuff like this where people see what they want to see on Mars. I would love for something like this to be genuine, but anything that require imagination and a belief system is suspect. Nothing I've seen, thus far, is even remotely convincing and persuasive. There may be something to found, under the hurtling moons of Barsoom, but not as yet.

 

1 hour ago, M-Albion said:

It looked like a rock to me too.

In 3D it doesn't look like a rock, but you need to see close up.

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. That's not what he is saying.

He is saying that oxygen levels in certain areas fluctuate, and are both higher and lower than expected. For the warmer part of the year, more oxygen is detected, for the colder parts of the Martian year, they are lower than expected. Now a mean average of oxygen levels in the Martian atmosphere comprises about 0.16%. elevated levels may reach triple that. 

Still not even one percent of the atmosphere. That won't sustain life, and for half the year, there is almost no oxygen.

And the photos you have shown are not specifically focused on craters or canyons. 

 

5 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. That's not what he is saying.

He is saying that oxygen levels in certain areas fluctuate, and are both higher and lower than expected. For the warmer part of the year, more oxygen is detected, for the colder parts of the Martian year, they are lower than expected. Now a mean average of oxygen levels in the Martian atmosphere comprises about 0.16%. elevated levels may reach triple that. 

Still not even one percent of the atmosphere. That won't sustain life, and for half the year, there is almost no oxygen.

And the photos you have shown are not specifically focused on craters or canyons. 

Yes I understand what he is saying.

Hebes Chama in 3D is over 5 miles deep.

More on this TROUGH wth images taken by both ESA and the MRO

Awesome!

LMxwgd.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, M-Albion said:

 

 

 

Yes I understand what he is saying.

Hebes Chama in 3D is over 5 miles deep.

More on this TROUGH wth images taken by both ESA and the MRO

Awesome!

LMxwgd.png

 

What do you understand about the magnetic field of Mars?

If you understand what he said, why do you think there are oxygen troughs in craters and canyons? That's not at all what he says. That seems to be a wild extrapolation from him saying oxygen levels fluctuate more than expected during seasons?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't agree with much of anything MA has posted, I suppose Unsolved Mysteries is the correct place to put it for debate.  I don't agree with those who have stated the thread should be closed.  Sometimes fiction threads are fun to read through.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, M-Albion said:

 

The onboard stereo camera on the MRO

E3W3sg.jpg

The High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera is a 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in) reflecting telescope, the largest ever carried on a deep space mission, and has a resolution of 1 microradian (μrad), or 0.3 m (1 ft 0 in) from an altitude of 300 km (190 mi). In comparison, satellite images of Earth are generally available with a resolution of 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in), and satellite images on Google Maps are available to 1 m (3 ft 3 in).[34] HiRISE collects images in three color bands, 400 to 600 nm (blue-green or B-G), 550 to 850 nm (red) and 800 to 1,000 nm (near infrared or NIR).[35]


Red color images are 20,264 pixels across (6 km (3.7 mi) wide), and B-G and NIR are 4,048 pixels across (1.2 km (0.75 mi) wide). HiRISE's onboard computer reads these lines in time with the orbiter's ground speed, and images are potentially unlimited in length. Practically however, their length is limited by the computer's 28 Gigabit (Gb) memory capacity, and the nominal maximum size is 20,000 × 40,000 pixels (800 megapixels) and 4,000 × 40,000 pixels (160 megapixels) for B-G and NIR images. Each 16.4 Gb image is compressed to 5 Gb before transmission and release to the general public on the HiRISE website in JPEG 2000 format.[18][36] To facilitate the mapping of potential landing sites, HiRISE can produce stereo pairs of images from which topography can be calculated to an accuracy of 0.25 m (9.8 in).[37] HiRISE was built by Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.