Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

Lars_J · 2004-02-11 10:37:23

dickbill,
The main MER page is not updated frequently, but the raw image section is updated 2-3 times per day:
[http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/

It's always fun to browse around there - not everything is posted there, and not in the same quality that JPL has access to (due to JPG compression) - but frequently many press-release images can be glimpsed there 24-48 hours before they are "officially" released.

[http://www.atsnn.com/story/30048.html]This website has a good explanation of what the fileneames mean, and how to interpret them.

dickbill · 2004-02-11 11:43:31

[http://www.atsnn.com/story/30048.html]This website has a good explanation of what the fileneames mean, and how to interpret them.

thanks Lars, this one is excellent.

There is also an update about how the hematite can form, very informative for those who can read french. The author is Nirgal, at :
[http://www.nirgal.net/chroniques/chroni … diani.html]http://www.nirgal.net/chroniques/chroni … diani.html

In short, I won't translate all, but he describes 6 ways to form hematite.
He begins to notice that the hematite formed by biological process, where the iron oxyde Fe2+ dissolved in water is oxydized by the oxygen produced by photosynthetic bacteria in oxyde Fe3+, is not very likely, because there is no quartz detected in Meridiani. Quartz is almost always associated with that kind of hematite.
The hematite formation that fits better the situation in Meridiani is the secondary hydrothermalism, when hydrothermal waters flow through volvanic ashes and leaves behind them the hematite.

SohoBoy · 2004-02-11 12:00:15

With all this stuff going on, I'm just wondering if anybody else is finding it hard to keep up with everything? Maybe I'm just slow.

I find the back and forth site navigation required to get at the hi-res raw images at NASA extremely tedious.

far better is [http://www.lyle.org/mars/]http://www.lyle.org/mars/ which is also posting everything. Click the "Raw by sol' links at the left of page. the hi res images when you get to them can then be navigated sequentially by clicking the thumbnails at the top of page, rather than the up and down the heirarchy business at [http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/

lyle.org also have an automated system which is generating all possible stereo and pseudocolour images. Heres a nice [http://www.lyle.org/mars/imagery]recently added example. I think that might be Spirits next target rock 'Whitey' at the bottom of frame, but don't quote me.

Keith Laney, professional digital image processor, and amateur anomaly hunter, is putting up some excellent colour composites on [http://www.keithlaney.com/]his web site.

Personally I think he's doing a better job with the colour images than NASA is. For example compare [http://www.keithlaney.com/OCI/O8.jpg]Keiths version of Snout (aka Stone Mountain) with the [http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA05235.tif]official NASA version (NB TIFF image, 3Mb)

I know which one I prefer the look of - and notice how much more detail there is in the shadow areas (e.g the 'spheres on stalks' under snout) in Keiths version which is just gone in the NASA version...hmm... NASA still seems to be adding an overall orange colour cast to some of their images in the interest of 'accuracy' - whatever that means. Unfortunately all it it does is mask subtle colour differences in the images which can provide useful information. I prefer the more Earth like look even if it isnt so 'accurate'

if you fancy having a go at producing your own colour images from the raw sources, heres [http://www.keithlaney.com/spirit_color_ … ration.htm]Keiths explanation of whats involved, and a [http://www.ominous-valve.com/pancam.html]colour chart at lyle.org. Required is some image editing software where you can manipulate the R, G, B colour channels individually. The key is understanding the NASA filenames, which indicate which of the RGB channels the RAW image needs to reside in

Lars_J · 2004-02-11 12:44:26

Keiths site is very cool, and the images may "look" more aestetically pleasing - but he still does a good amount of guesswork when it comes to de-normalize (or adjust for exposure) the wavelength channels.

We can all play around in photoshop to enhance images (color, contrast, and more...) so they look more pleasing to us - but personally I'm interested in how it really looks on Mars. And until JPL released all the "meta"-data for the raw channel images - which will include exposure and normalization information - I trust that the JPL imaging guys will give us the most accurate view.

But pretty pictures are nice too...

Link · 2004-02-11 13:19:12

Just for fun, UFO alert! Sorry if this is old news.

See the dot just above the horizon, center right.

[http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … 0L0M1.HTML]UFO

[http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page3 … heme=light]Blow up of UFO

There are a lot of nuts out there!

Link

Mad Grad Student · 2004-02-11 18:31:47

C'mon, I find it hard to believe that anyone could have thought that was a UFO. No, that photo was shot too late to catch the real UFO, Spirit and her backshell prior to touchdown. Now that she's landed, Spirit has become, what, a URO (Unidentified Roving Object)? Then again, it's only unidentified to the invisible observer at Gusev Crater, and there are labels all over the thing.

Congratulations on going 70 feet, but when you really think about it, 70 feet!? A human could cover 70 feet in about ten minutes, studying nearly everything he/she saw in some detail. Seriously, I'm not sure that we really should be celebrating a rover going 70 feet. If Spirit makes it to the Columbia Hills by the end of summer, though, that might be something to celebrate (Imagine those panoramas!). :;):

Stu · 2004-02-11 23:36:34

Interesting insight here into what it's like to be working at JPL on the Rovers...

[http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotligh … ife01.html]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotligh … ife01.html

1smlstp · 2004-02-12 01:01:51

SohoBoy,
The "W" shaped thing does look out of place on the outcrop. It looks as if it covers several layers, like it came long after the outcrop was formed. It has a thick, drooping appearance like lava or mud. I would like to see a close up of that. And thanks for the links especially to lyle.org. I think it will be a LOT easier getting all the new images now that I can get them all in one fell swoop. Thanks.

Lars,
The link to the filename conventions is excellent. There is a LOT of good information there. I think it'll take me a couple of days just to read through it all. Thanks.

Nirgal82 · 2004-02-12 11:06:57

I heard Hoagland on Coast to Coast last night.
He was blabberin on about this dot over the horizon. This guy ruins his credibility more and more everyday. (although what hurts his credibility to the legitimate science community, boosts it for his followers)
He says that there's probably one person somewhere along the line that is distorting the information and nobody's watching him/her. That the missions have been comprimised. He believes that dot is something intelligent in origin. And he is angry at the mission team for not investigating it. He also mentioned how the team decided to pass up other sites to investigate, like the magic carpet, and so on. Hes upset that now the engineers have moved the rover away from the "scene of the crime" regarding the speck in that navcam image. First of all how do you suppose we could investigate that any further, even if action were taken as soon as someone noticed the speck? Secondly, if we were to drive the rover like Hoagland would prefer, the poor thing would be fried out permanently not 10 feet from the lander after examining 100 + rocks that he thinks are collaborating with NASAs great evil conspiracy...
"A whole planet is being stolen from us," Hoagland stated last night. Its hard to understand how a man who was once so respected can have turned into a looney. He has given up science for wild speculation. Hes gotten to the point where even Percival Lowell would say "hey relax, you're seeing things."

-Matt

Josh Cryer · 2004-02-12 11:24:23

That's a cute link Stu, thanks posting it.

I feel like the NASA guys almost with the little sleep I've been having.

Haven't read much Mars news lately, going to try to sink all of this stuff in and watch the NASA conference (which 1smlstp said should be starting in about 35 minutes or so, just to give you guys a heads up).

Nirgal82 · 2004-02-12 12:04:25

Umm, this interview with the ISS crew is wearing rather thin...are they delaying the conference

-Matt

Josh Cryer · 2004-02-12 12:09:24

Nah, it just got delayed by about 15 minutes (so in about 10 minutes from now we should have the briefing). No harm, no foul. And that ISS interview was rather cute anyway.

It's really great to see the kind of outreach those guys do, pretty much daily as far as I know (every day I've looked at NASA TV around 9PM PST they've had a briefing). Gives me the warm fuzzies.

Nirgal82 · 2004-02-12 12:15:17

Here goes...

-Matt

Nirgal82 · 2004-02-12 12:43:39

Wow, that was some really great atmospheric data!
We experienced a martian convection cell.
This is the sort of real hard data that can eventually help streamline terraforming simulations and calculations...
-Matt

Link · 2004-02-12 13:12:50

The 3d stereopictures at [http://www.lyle.org/mars/]http://www.lyle.org/mars/ , is it just me, or is the blue/cyan spaced to far apart. I have to look severely cross eyed to get 3d effect.

Link

1smlstp · 2004-02-12 23:45:25

For everybody that missed Thursday's MER Press Breifing, like me, C-SPAN did not archive it. But they are re-running it on C-SPAN2 at 4:13AM EST (1:13AM PST, 9:13AM UTC). That's about three and a half hours from now.

EDIT
Hope everybody got to see it. The next news conference will be Tuesday, Feb 17, at 10:00AM PST (1:00PM EST, 6:00PM UTC).

SohoBoy · 2004-02-13 07:38:01

Is NASA deliberately 'sexing up' its own images to make them more interesting to the press?

this query is prompted by the appearance of a very odd version of one of the recent Opportunity Microscopic imager images on the Mars section of NASA's [http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Mars]Planetary Photojournal website. This site would appear to have the print media as its target audience, as all the images are presented as TIFFs, the industry standard format for book, magazine and newspaper production. A selection of the more interesting NASA photos and illustrations are archived here. The image in question is entitled "A Sharp Look at Robert E Full Resolution: TIFF (2.076 MB) here it is . I suggest you download it.

[http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA05276.tif]http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA05276.tif

and here is the same raw image ( there are several to chose from with slightly different planes of focus, but this wiil do) on the Mars rover website in JPEG format

[http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … 33M2M1.JPG]Opportunity Sol 15 micro image, Robert E

at this stage the best procedure is to layer both images up in a single Photoshop doc for easy comparison.

What do we immediately notice?

Despite being billed as a " Sharp look at Robert E" the photojournal TIFF is anything but. Its smaller and softer. A lot of the outer image that is present in the JPEG is cut off by the oddly irregular black border in the TIFF. Why? A carefull look at the image reveals the answer. Weirdly, it looks like its been processed through an HDTV video graphics system. The image is interlaced, as can be seen by zooming in on the irregular black edge or the right edge of the sphere, where the givaway single pixel 'combing' effect can be seen - looks like a microscale castle crenellation running vertically. this can be seen along all high contrast vertical edges in the image. Every even line of pixels in this image is offset one pixel horizontally from every odd line. This is precisely the sort of artefact introduced by video processsing that Photoshops 'De-interlace' filter is designed to remove. And so it does.

Thats not the worst of it. examine the center of the edge of the top layer in the TIFF. What do you see. Something that looks like a small octopus. In the TIFF image the objects 'eye' is at x 1060 y 123. It appears to have 3 'tentacles' lieing to its right. The shorter fatter bottom tentacle lies along the edge of the layer , and gives the appearance of squirting a line of black 'ink'. call this tentacle one. Above this are two thinner curved tentacles separated from tentacle 1 by an obvious gap. tentacle 2's shadow is casting down into this gap. tentacles 2 and 3 have a similar regular tube appearance terminated by a slightly bulbous biforked structure... a bit like a claw.

Now examine this 'fossil' in the raw jpeg. It doesn't look anything like the tiff. the top tentacle 3 doesn't even exist. in its place is a rather vague convex oval dimple. there is a hint of tentacle 2 but with nothing like the defintion seen in the tiff. which is odd, as overall the TIFF has less definition than the RAW jpeg. There is no hint of the line of black 'ink' squirting out to the right along the edge of the layer.

looking at the top rock layer as a whole, in the TIFF it looks as if it has been swirled and smeared, the same effect as may be obtained by applying Photoshops 'Liquify' effect. If you overdo this effect you end up with highly characteristic pointed 'pinch outs' and indeed one of these can be seen at x 1070 y64 in the TIFF. The typical smearing of fine detail which occurs when using Liquify can also be seen by comparing the dark pits/grit sitting in a shallow concavity on the horizontal surface of the top rock layer which have a normal appearance in the JPEG but a quite smeared in the TIFF

What to make of this. The manipulation of the octopoid feature seems quite deliberate. The appearance of tentacle 3, its similarity to tentacle 2 and especially the appearance of a gap between tentacle 1 and 2 where before was just a crease points towards deliberate image artworking. Gaps between objects in images dont just appear, you have to insert them. The overall swirling of the top right hand corner in the TIFF gives it the appearance of being more 'organic' than it really is. None of the other three corners of the image show such 'swirly' distortion, and this points to deliberate intent.

This looks like a propaganda piece by NASA to promote interest in the Mars space program. People will see this image in the press and think "hmm that looks interesting...Is that a fossil?... or maybe they won't, but unconciously the 'organic alien' theme will come across.

The wonder is how they thought they could get away with something so blatently a bit of artworking when none of the other Micro photo TIFFS at NASA Photojournal look anything like this. The TIFFs of the brushed surface of Adirondack, and the soil microphotos are in everyway in accordance, both in terms of appearance and resolution with the `Raw images at the Mars Rover site.

I am not happy. Explanations and/or excuses on the back of an envelope, please

Lars_J · 2004-02-13 09:14:15

I hate to state the obvious... But haven't you noticed that the tiff image (also available on JPEG form on the MER website: [http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … B019R1.jpg]here) is a rendering of a 3D model of the cliff face - and not a photo?

That's why the edges aren't straight - because they used the microscopic imager to take multiple images at different distances, using the data to compile a 3D model of the cliff face, then a composite of all the images was projected over the 3D model as a texture. This gives them the ability to examine the shape of the rock more throuroughly. The "liquify" look of parts of the image is due to the lack of sufficient precision of the 3D model at some edges - and it also explains the "stepped" look at the edges of the model.

It's really just a more detailed kind of work like what they are doing in this image, having mapped part of the crater in 3D: [http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … B019R1.jpg]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery....9R1.jpg

SohoBoy · 2004-02-13 10:35:59

I hate to state the obvious... But haven't you noticed that the tiff image (also available on JPEG form on the MER website: [http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … B019R1.jpg]here) is a rendering of a 3D model of the cliff face - and not a photo?

No I didnt.

And thats not how the image is being billed at NASA Photojournal on the
[http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA05276]page describing the image

It's being billed as a composite of several exposures..

Apart from which, what would be the point of mapping a 2D image onto a 3D wireframe, and then saving out a 2D image which has exactly the same POV as the 2D original? all you end up with is a copy which has less information than the orginal image, not "A sharp look at Robert E'

The criticisms still stands. The extreme change in appearance of the 'octopus' object in question implies that somebody has been 'creative' with this image.

None of the raw images to my eye provide any indication that the TIFF is anything other than a bit of creative speculation. Look at the raw jpegs yourself, and follow through the argument in my first post. Those 'tentacles' shown in the TIFF don't exist.

Many busy editors are going to be picking up this image from NASA photojournal, cropping it and publishing it without realising what it is. not an original but a 'creative' composite.

I see that the image is also being offered without any explanation of what it is, or credit, at the Mars Rover site.

[http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/ … 0212a.html]http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery....2a.html

Stu · 2004-02-13 13:36:36

Among the fascinating new images available from ESA's MARS EXPRESS (I hope everyone has seen the stunning new shots of Olympus Mons?!?!?!) is this one of Gusev crater...

[http://www.esa.int/export/externals/ima … usev_p.jpg]http://www.esa.int/export/externals/ima … usev_p.jpg

More green streaks... this has been raised before and has still to be explained. Anyone got any ideas..?

Palomar · 2004-02-13 13:51:56

Among the fascinating new images available from ESA's MARS EXPRESS (I hope everyone has seen the stunning new shots of Olympus Mons?!?!?!) is this one of Gusev crater...
[http://www.esa.int/export/externals/ima … usev_p.jpg]http://www.esa.int/export/externals/ima … usev_p.jpg
More green streaks... this has been raised before and has still to be explained. Anyone got any ideas..?

*Hi Stu: Nice that you posted this, as I'm about to skip over to the ESA site for more Express pix.

Yeah, that green; Jim Burke brought the issue up in another thread recently.

Minerals?

--Cindy

Lars_J · 2004-02-13 13:59:11

Apparently the Gusev images from Mars Express were not color corrected properly - the new images released are much less green: [http://www.dlr.de/mars-express/images/2 … te_900.jpg]http://www.dlr.de/mars-ex....900.jpg

Other great Mars Express images:
[http://www.dlr.de/mars-express/images/1 … 00-072.jpg]Top of Olympus Mons
[http://www.dlr.de/mars-express/images/1 … 20-300.jpg]Olympos Mons again, perspective view (3 mb)

dickbill · 2004-02-13 14:01:28

It's being billed as a composite of several exposures..
Apart from which, what would be the point of mapping a 2D image onto a 3D wireframe, and then saving out a 2D image which has exactly the same POV as the 2D original? all you end up with is a copy which has less information than the orginal image, not "A sharp look at Robert E'

If it's a composite of several pictures, it's possible that the edges in each picture didn't match exactly pixel by pixel, due to a slight different optical parallaxe on the edges, and because of that, they couldn't be superimposed without introducing a lot of blurring. The fact that the edges seem to follow the topography may be a result of that optical out-of-axis effect.
I think the camera doesn't focus like in a conventional camera, right ? instead, to focus, the arm holding the camera advances, doing so, the distance from the lense with the surrounding surface change, and so the angle changes. So the cutted edges that follow the topography just show that : high angle difference of the objects at the periphery depending of their distance, forbidding any proper superimposition and requesting to remove these blurry edges.
On the center however, the pixels of each picture, even if they show an out of focus area, could be superimposed, because the distance camera lense-object changes, but not much the angle.
And of course, the picture can be contrast enhanced.

But I don't think that it's a 3d representation either. The shades (shading ?) match completely in each picture. In a virtual 3d object, the lighting might be completely different and you see completely different shades unless you place a virtual source of light at the exact place that would give an exactly identical result with the original 2d picture.

I don't see an octopus by the way, I see a sea-star shape on the upper right corner of the .tif picture.

Let's face it, it's not a fossilized sea bed full of corals, it's volcanic ash compacted. Doesn't mean the search is over.

SohoBoy · 2004-02-13 14:39:49

I don't see an octopus by the way, I see a sea-star shape on the upper right corner of the .tif picture.

In the TIFF image the object i'm talking about - 'eye' is at x 1060 y 123

compare with [http://www.lyle.org/mars/imagery/1M1295 … 1.JPG.html]a raw image

...and not to be outdone [http://www.lyle.org/mars/imagery/2P1299 … 1.JPG.html]Spirit finds an eroded layered rock - no balls

...and yes, according to NASA TV the oddly distorted Microphoto is the first frame of a 3D fly around. Its decription at NASA photojournal is misleading

Lars_J · 2004-02-13 15:11:05

But I don't think that it's a 3d representation either. The shades (shading ?) match completely in each picture. In a virtual 3d object, the lighting might be completely different and you see completely different shades unless you place a virtual source of light at the exact place that would give an exactly identical result with the original 2d picture.

But it's not a lit by any virtual light. It's just using a texture made from the various microscopic imager exposures. There is no "shading" involved. Being 3D does not imply virtial lights and shading. What they are doing here is analogous to what in the 3D community is called "baking a texture light map".

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-02-11 10:37:23

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#152 2004-02-11 11:43:31

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#153 2004-02-11 12:00:15

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#154 2004-02-11 12:44:26

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#155 2004-02-11 13:19:12

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#156 2004-02-11 18:31:47

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#157 2004-02-11 23:36:34

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#158 2004-02-12 01:01:51

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#159 2004-02-12 11:06:57

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#160 2004-02-12 11:24:23

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#161 2004-02-12 12:04:25

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#162 2004-02-12 12:09:24

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#163 2004-02-12 12:15:17

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#164 2004-02-12 12:43:39

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#165 2004-02-12 13:12:50

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#166 2004-02-12 23:45:25

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#167 2004-02-13 07:38:01

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#168 2004-02-13 09:14:15

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#169 2004-02-13 10:35:59

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#170 2004-02-13 13:36:36

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#171 2004-02-13 13:51:56

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#172 2004-02-13 13:59:11

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#173 2004-02-13 14:01:28

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#174 2004-02-13 14:39:49

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

#175 2004-02-13 15:11:05

Re: Spirit & Opportunity *3* - ...continued from previous threads

Board footer

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads

Re: Spirit & Opportunity 3 - ...continued from previous threads