I do not know what this white thing is, and right now I won't even make a guess. But when one looks and sees this anomaly, it really does catch your eye. It has some sort of shaft-looking length piece, with a different feature on each end. This anomaly is found in Rover Curiosity photos, sol day 1146. Tthe link to The full pic is:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=1146MR0051900200601717E01_DXXX&s=1146
Here is a screenshot of the Mars surface showing the anomalous white piece, with a locator ring - what is it?? (click on the pic for even better view)
(http://s3.postimg.org/t0z2l70wj/Long_White_Piece_w_Locator_Screen_Shot_2015_11_0.png)
There is also another "different looking piece," in the OP pic, just next the the yellow locater ring, about at the 10:00 o'clock position. It is a short vertical feature, just kinda sticking up there for us to see. Could just be a piece of rock-rod sticking up, but, we are not seeing that type of a vertical rock-rod generally in the area?? :) (simply refer to the OP pic )
You will probably think that I am trying to find a common explanation even more than usual, but when looking at the original image and seeing a similar whiteish streak that is just the Sun shining through two rocks I think this may be the same thing. :)
I don't have any idea of what the other small whitish feature near the yellow line might be.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 04, 2015, 12:21:45 AM
You will probably think that I am trying to find a common explanation even more than usual, but when looking at the original image and seeing a similar whiteish streak that is just the Sun shining through two rocks I think this may be the same thing. :)
I don't have any idea of what the other small whitish feature near the yellow line might be.
Yes ArMaP, I can see what you are talking about. This piece does seem to be a little brighter white,but you could be right about it being sunlight coming through the broken rocks. However, the larger end of this piece, that is nearer to us, does seem to have some sort of "double" white end piece. Just a bit odd looking anyway, and seemingly worth a little discussion!! :).....Thanks for your comment!!
Quote from: rdunk on November 04, 2015, 04:16:17 AM
Yes ArMaP, I can see what you are talking about. This piece does seem to be a little brighter white,but you could be right about it being sunlight coming through the broken rocks. However, the larger end of this piece, that is nearer to us, does seem to have some sort of "double" white end piece. Just a bit odd looking anyway, and seemingly worth a little discussion!! :).....Thanks for your comment!!
sunlight coming through broken rock? there's a rock occluding the white springboard like protrusion. why doesn't that rock have sunlight on it if lights pouring through the top
for a sprinkle of Martian rock salt, ide say it was some kind of miniature Aqua Activity device
funbox
Quote from: rdunk on November 04, 2015, 04:16:17 AM
Yes ArMaP, I can see what you are talking about. This piece does seem to be a little brighter white,but you could be right about it being sunlight coming through the broken rocks. However, the larger end of this piece, that is nearer to us, does seem to have some sort of "double" white end piece. Just a bit odd looking anyway, and seemingly worth a little discussion!! :).....Thanks for your comment!!
ArMaP, I have looked more at this pic, and even with using a magnifying glass, in addition to the normal magnification, I do not see a break in the specific rock(s) needed to let light shine down-through to create this white object. Actually, the area of the rocks at the left-point of this anomaly appears to be pretty much fused together.
Another thing about the look of this feature is, at least the right end of this thing clearly shows to have 3-D characteristics. The very end of it even clearly displays two-part separations. So, no, I think maybe we might should give more consideration for what this might be, other than sunlight. :)
Quote from: rdunk on November 05, 2015, 12:01:12 AM
ArMaP, I have looked more at this pic, and even with using a magnifying glass, in addition to the normal magnification, I do not see a break in the specific rock(s) needed to let light shine down-through to create this white object.
Considering the slope of the brighter area, the rock(s) creating the shadow do not need to be big. I think the a separation the size of the white object to the left of the yellow line between two rocks would be enough to create that effect.
QuoteAnother thing about the look of this feature is, at least the right end of this thing clearly shows to have 3-D characteristics. The very end of it even clearly displays two-part separations. So, no, I think maybe we might should give more consideration for what this might be, other than sunlight. :)
Light projected on a 3D object appears as 3D, as we are looking at the object. If the light was shining on a fork we would see the fork's teeth, like we see the two separate ends of that feature.
PS: I never understood why people use magnifying glasses on a computer screen, that only shows the individual pixels and their components, it doesn't give a better image. ???
Unless there's some vision deficiency that is corrected by the magnifying glass.
Quote: "Considering the slope of the brighter area, the rock(s) creating the shadow do not need to be big. I think the a separation the size of the white object to the left of the yellow line between two rocks would be enough to create that effect:.
ArMaP, I guess maybe one of the more obvious things to notice about this white object is, the left half of this piece is seen as having its left-most point laying on a rock, with its "shaft" suspended above the sand, until we see the right end also laying upon another rock. If this were light-caused, then the light would not be suspended, but would just be on the sand/ground.
Quote: "PS: I never understood why people use magnifying glasses on a computer screen, that only shows the individual pixels and their components, it doesn't give a better image. ??? Unless there's some vision deficiency that is corrected by the magnifying glass".
ArMaP. I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I sometimes use a magnifying glass is..............it can most always makes the features of an object more easily seeable, especially with some of these Mars photos, which often are photographed at significant distances. :)
Looks like a white board with a dovetail joint cut in one end; since we can't physically go there to examine it I just don't see what it matters as anything other than an object to speculate about...
8)
seeker
Quote from: rdunk on November 05, 2015, 02:22:48 AM
ArMaP, I guess maybe one of the more obvious things to notice about this white object is, the left half of this piece is seen as having its left-most point laying on a rock, with its "shaft" suspended above the sand, until we see the right end also laying upon another rock. If this were light-caused, then the light would not be suspended, but would just be on the sand/ground.
How I see it, the area marked in blue in the image below is sand, the rest is rock, so we are seeing the light shining on the sand and on a small part of a rock protruding from the sand.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Marte%208.jpg)
QuoteArMaP. I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I sometimes use a magnifying glass is..............it can most always makes the features of an object more easily seeable, especially with some of these Mars photos, which often are photographed at significant distances. :)
I don't understand how that can show more detail, as this is what I see when I look at the screen with a magnifying glass.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Sam_1801.jpg)
I prefer to zoom in on the image in a image editing program (the browsers use resampling in the zooming).
Quote from: ArMaP on November 05, 2015, 01:06:33 AM
Considering the slope of the brighter area, the rock(s) creating the shadow do not need to be big. I think the a separation the size of the white object to the left of the yellow line between two rocks would be enough to create that effect.
Light projected on a 3D object appears as 3D, as we are looking at the object. If the light was shining on a fork we would see the fork's teeth, like we see the two separate ends of that feature.
PS: I never understood why people use magnifying glasses on a computer screen, that only shows the individual pixels and their components, it doesn't give a better image. ???
Unless there's some vision deficiency that is corrected by the magnifying glass.
so how is it that the tips of the spring board protrusion aren't in shadow like all of the other rock faces angled in that direction ... bounced light from an unseen shiny thing ? :D
funbox
Another thing that pretty much nails this anomaly as being a solid piece, and not sunlight through a crack .............look real closely, and we can see a lump of sand particles which mostly cover the top of the larger doubled white end-piece section. I am posting another screenshot that gives us a little better view of the sand there on top of the end piece.
But in the end, seeker is right! Just no way for us to know what this white anomalous feature is or isn't. It simply is very noticeable when one looks at the pic! :)
(http://s14.postimg.org/74xbr6d3l/Screen_Shot_2015_11_06_at_10_36_03_AM.jpg)
Quote from: funbox on November 06, 2015, 12:21:13 PM
so how is it that the tips of the spring board protrusion aren't in shadow like all of the other rock faces angled in that direction ... bounced light from an unseen shiny thing ? :D
The image I posted explains better what I see.
you see a idyllic roman gardens ,with bath salt blue, bathing waters ?
I don't see your point ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on November 07, 2015, 01:42:07 AM
you see a idyllic roman gardens ,with bath salt blue, bathing waters ?
I don't see your point ?
Did you read the post or did you just look at the image?
Edited to add that maybe I should have said that my post and the image explain better what I see, as it looks like our versions of English are a little incompatible.
I read it , much about sand and protrusions ,, again ill ask why light is missing from the obscuring rock, surely old Sol's not discriminating against certain materials ...
or is She ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on November 07, 2015, 10:14:18 PM
I read it , much about sand and protrusions ,, again ill ask why light is missing from the obscuring rock, surely old Sol's not discriminating against certain materials ...
or is She ?
funbox
Because the face of the rock facing the camera is not facing the Sun, if I knew how to use Blender I could make a 3D representation of what I mean.
Maybe this is a good excuse to learn it. :)
if I knew what you was talking about I could interpret those thoughts into Max
but a sudden and rather uninspected arrival of Gif juice arrived covered in molten ice , so ide thought ide ask you again about the rock who has an aversion to light .. maybe its a vampiric rock >? :D
(http://i.imgur.com/VhcXeO4.gif)
funbox
..........except of coures, IMO it is not sunlight that we see there on the sand. That is made pretty clear by the sand on top of the near end of the anomaly not being white too!! That hwole end piece is white too, except for the sand that lies on tope of it, which should be white too, it this "white" was actually sunlight. But tha lump od sand is not white!! is not white - see the pic!!
Quote from: rdunk on November 08, 2015, 01:08:16 AM
..........except of coures, IMO it is not sunlight that we see there on the sand. That is made pretty clear by the sand on top of the near end of the anomaly not being white too!! That hwole end piece is white too, except for the sand that lies on tope of it, which should be white too, it this "white" was actually sunlight. But tha lump od sand is not white!! is not white - see the pic!!
and sunlight wouldn't if, it was shining through a crack in the top of the cliff face , go all along one side of the spring board , and lighten its very tips
again maybe if there was something on the floor reflecting the light back up towards it , but I see no shiny thing's of the sandbank in front to make such a far fetched theory possible :D
no, im going to plumb with Occam's with this one and hazard that its a white material protruding from the cliffrocks
funclocks
Quote from: funbox on November 08, 2015, 12:43:46 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/VhcXeO4.gif)
That rock marked with red doesn't get direct light because it's facing the camera, like the striated rock behind it.
Imagine having a street from left to right, with the Sun to the left, shining directly along the street. The ground between the buildings on both sides of the street gets direct Sun light, the sides of the buildings facing the street do not.
Quote from: rdunk on November 08, 2015, 01:08:16 AM
That hwole end piece is white too, except for the sand that lies on tope of it, which should be white too, it this "white" was actually sunlight. But tha lump od sand is not white!! is not white - see the pic!!
If I understand what you mean by "lump of sand", it's not white because it's in the shadow.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 08, 2015, 01:21:25 AM
That rock marked with red doesn't get direct light because it's facing the camera, like the striated rock behind it.
what has the camera got to do with anything ?
if a tree farts in the forest does it make a smell ?
funbox
Quote from: funbox on November 08, 2015, 01:25:18 AM
what has the camera got to do with anything ?
First obvious answer, without the camera we wouldn't have the photo. :P
The real answer, because, from the camera's point of view, the light is coming from the left, almost perpendicular to the direction the camera is facing.
Quote
The real answer, because, from the camera's point of view, the light is coming from the left, almost perpendicular to the direction the camera is facing.
please don't tell me you think that the camera can influence the way the lights falling on the rocks.
I think that tree may have followed through..
funbox
I don't thinks it's a visual lighting effect. I think it's something odd.
Quote from: funbox on November 08, 2015, 12:52:10 PM
please don't tell me you think that the camera can influence the way the lights falling on the rocks.
I didn't say anything like that, only someone without a basic understanding of photography would say something like it, why bring that red herring to the conversation?
Quote from: Sinny on November 08, 2015, 01:30:42 PM
I don't thinks it's a visual lighting effect. I think it's something odd.
It could be an odd visual lighting effect. ;)
Quote from: ArMaP on November 08, 2015, 02:12:29 PM
I didn't say anything like that, only someone without a basic understanding of photography would say something like it, why bring that red herring to the conversation?
but you know I don't have a basic understanding of photography :D explain how the lit features within that rock cluster are influenced by the cameras angle ?
lensflares are one thing that springs to mind but they are not in the picture, and are irrelevant in this situation due to they're absence
how is the light interplay excluding the rock obscuring the springboard , I cant see how the camera would play a part ..
funbox
hypothetically if you could stand there inplace of the rover , would you see the same as the camera does ?
Quote from: ArMaP on November 08, 2015, 02:13:09 PM
It could be an odd visual lighting effect. ;)
What might/would make this anomaly "white-sand" would be that if the sunlight thru a crack in the rocks were putting a light-streak on the sand the total length of the white piece. That is because the total area where the white piece is seen is in full shadow - all of it - but, that is not the case.
Another way to realize that this white feature is not "created" by sunlight is to note that where any light would be coming through a crack in the rocks.........the walls of the rock-crack would be at least lightened-up/whitened-up just a little. But in the OP photo, we can see that there is no added light to the rock-walls near the "nose" of this white piece.
No, there is no shadow on this white anomaly anywhere. The rock next to it is not casting any shadow over it, as it too is totally in shadow. Thus the sand on top of the right end of white piece is not in a "shadow of the rock".
I think Sinny nails it too, in saying, "I think it's something odd". :)
If anyone wants to know what sunlight on the sand from a crack in a rock on Mars looks like, here is another screenshot of real sunlight on the sand from the same OP photo. Note that just one of the differences is, we can still see the sand through the light that is on it, and it is not totally white either. Another thing for sure, the light seen on the sand has no "3D appearance", as does the anomalous object in the OP :)
(http://s7.postimg.org/nde5omqnf/Example_of_Sunlight_on_Sand_Screen_Shot_2015_11.jpg)
Quote from: funbox on November 08, 2015, 02:51:48 PM
but you know I don't have a basic understanding of photography :D explain how the lit features within that rock cluster are influenced by the cameras angle ?
They are not, but the direction of the light is almost perpendicular to the direction the camera is facing, so features facing the camera are not getting direct light.
Quotehow is the light interplay excluding the rock obscuring the springboard , I cant see how the camera would play a part ..
It doesn't, see above.
Quotehypothetically if you could stand there inplace of the rover , would you see the same as the camera does ?
Yes, I would see more or less the same thing.
QuoteThey are not, but the direction of the light is almost perpendicular to the direction the camera is facing, so features facing the camera are not getting direct light.
only in cartoons would we have this , or wafer thin rocks with no to little 3dimensionality, I doubt that obscuring rock is wafer thin and facing us.
im surprised you never went with some sort of calcite deposit, although I doubt then the board would be not be to good for performing triple somersaults with four and a half twists
give the it's some credit ;D
funbox
Quote from: rdunk on November 08, 2015, 04:58:49 PM
What might/would make this anomaly "white-sand" would be that if the sunlight thru a crack in the rocks were putting a light-streak on the sand the total length of the white piece.
That's what I think.
QuoteThat is because the total area where the white piece is seen is in full shadow - all of it - but, that is not the case.
Why is it not the case?
QuoteAnother way to realize that this white feature is not "created" by sunlight is to note that where any light would be coming through a crack in the rocks.........the walls of the rock-crack would be at least lightened-up/whitened-up just a little. But in the OP photo, we can see that there is no added light to the rock-walls near the "nose" of this white piece.
But if the light is slightly behind the plane where the face of the rock is, that face would not get any direct light.
QuoteNo, there is no shadow on this white anomaly anywhere. The rock next to it is not casting any shadow over it, as it too is totally in shadow. Thus the sand on top of the right end of white piece is not in a "shadow of the rock".
What I think you call "the sand on top of the right end of the white piece" (you haven't explained what you mean by that, it would help if you could post an edited image showing what you mean) is, to me, sand that is on the shadow projected by the rock behind it, and that shadow extends up to the white area.
QuoteIf anyone wants to know what sunlight on the sand from a crack in a rock on Mars looks like, here is another screenshot of real sunlight on the sand from the same OP photo.
It was that part of the photo that made me think the white "piece" is just light shining on the sand. :)
QuoteNote that just one of the differences is, we can still see the sand through the light that is on it, and it is not totally white either.
The angle between the slope and the light is not the same, making the way the light shines on it different, and the "white piece" isn't white either.
The brightest pixel on the right-most part of the "white piece" has an RGB value of (136,121,100), while an area of the sand has a value of (150,125,85), as you can see in the image below, so the "white piece" is not even brighter than the sand near it.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Image4.png)
QuoteAnother thing for sure, the light seen on the sand has no "3D appearance", as does the anomalous object in the OP :)
The "anomalous object" doesn't look like an object to me. :)
PS: I updated my version of Blender and I will try to make a 3D model of what I see, but has Blender has a slightly unusual user interface and I haven't worked with 3D editing software for several years it may take some time. :)
Quote from: funbox on November 08, 2015, 05:37:10 PM
only in cartoons would we have this , or wafer thin rocks with no to little 3dimensionality, I doubt that obscuring rock is wafer thin and facing us.
Sorry, I don't understand how that sentence is an answer to me saying that the rock face is not getting direct light. ???
Could you rephrase it? Thanks in advance.
Quoteim surprised you never went with some sort of calcite deposit, although I doubt then the board would be not be to good for performing triple somersaults with four and a half twists
That's because you think that I am trying to find an explanation that makes the "white piece" being something natural, while I am talking about how I see it. If I saw it as something else I would say it, if I didn't have an idea of what it may be I would say it too, as I have said in other situations.
QuoteThey are not, but the direction of the light is almost perpendicular to the direction the camera is facing, so features facing the camera are not getting direct light.
are you saying the rock is flat as a pancake and directly facing the camera ? the obscuring rock ? because it looks very close to the springboard to me, it should have a little line of light if it was a ray of light through cracks at the top of the outcrop
Quote
That's because you think that I am trying to find an explanation that makes the "white piece" being something natural, while I am talking about how I see it. If I saw it as something else I would say it, if I didn't have an idea of what it may be I would say it too, as I have said in other situations.
I think I was making a Joke :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on November 08, 2015, 06:23:38 PM
are you saying the rock is flat as a pancake and directly facing the camera ?
No, that the rock has a face facing the camera and that face is what we see on the photo.
Quotethe obscuring rock ?
???
Quotebecause it looks very close to the springboard to me, it should have a little line of light if it was a ray of light through cracks at the top of the outcrop
If it's light coming from the top and slightly from behind the face of the rock facing the camera, the only thing we getting light should be the top of the rock and the sides facing the Sun, but we do not see those sides.
QuoteI think I was making a Joke :D
At least you tried, but I don't think you succeeded. :P
ArMaP said, "You haven't explained what you mean by that, it would help if you could post an edited image showing what you mean)"
But I did ArMaP - in reply #11 on the 1st page. I posted that pic to emphasize my discussion of the blob of sand on the top of the flat very different double white piece on the near end. There is a "blob" of sand on the near end of this anomaly that stretches from about that close-by rock nearly to the end edge of this white object. This sand blob is clearly there, even though it too is in the overall shadow. Of course the double white edges of this white object are still visible, even with the sand on the top side.
For simplicity, I will post another screenshot of this, with a locater to make it sooooo clear what blob of sand I am referring to! :)
(http://s30.postimg.org/gbx9gspi9/Blob_of_Sand_Screen_Shot_2015_11_08_at_2_28_18_P.jpg)
Quote from: rdunk on November 08, 2015, 08:44:28 PM
But I did ArMaP - in reply #11 on the 1st page.
I know, but my problem is that, in cases like this, words are usually not enough, the image you posted now is exactly what I had in mind.
Thanks, now I'm sure what you're talking about. :)
QuoteThis sand blob is clearly there, even though it too is in the overall shadow. Of course the double white edges of this white object are still visible, even with the sand on the top side.
How I see it, the "blob" of sand is really there and in the shadow, while the whiter areas are also sand but in the light, that's what I tried to show on the image I posted with the blue area, in that image the area marked in blue was supposed to show the sand areas.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Marte%208.jpg)
Here's my extremely crude attempt at showing what I think we see on that photo. :)
This image shows better the several pieces I used to make the scene.
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Image7.jpg)
The blocks represent the rocks, the slopping areas the sand.
This is the above image rendered.
(the strange pattern on the top of the large block is the result of having two superimposed blocks, I haven't learned how to do boolean operations with the 3D primitives. :)
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Image6.jpg)
Is that really what the photo shows? I don't know, but that's what it looks like to me.
PS: I only noticed now that I forgot one rock, but I don't think that one is relevant.
PPS: I can send the Blender file to anyone that wants to play with the scene. :)
Thanks for your comments ArMaP!! But, I don't get much from your handmade representations of the OP photo! So, I will stick with the real Rover photos, and know we can see what we see on the Mars surface with them, whatever that white thing is!! :))
Quote from: rdunk on November 09, 2015, 06:34:57 AM
But, I don't get much from your handmade representations of the OP photo!
I know, I will not leave my day job. :P
QuoteNo, that the rock has a face facing the camera and that face is what we see on the photo.
so my previous comparison to a pancake that's facing us, is what you think were perceiving ?
I don't think that rock obscuring the springboard is 2dimensional enough to be excluded from light, if it was flat , its top edge would show some of the highlight that continues past it along the springboard
to me it looks like it has enough gradients on it surface to suggest its not a thin rock with its flat face facing the camera
Quotethe obscuring rock ?
yes the obscuring rock blocking the view of the springboard shaped rock and your asserted lit highlight that travels its length and includes its tips
QuoteAt least you tried, but I don't think you succeeded.
wanna test this Calcite springboard ive just made ? :D
funbox
Quote from: funbox on November 09, 2015, 12:03:43 PM
so my previous comparison to a pancake that's facing us, is what you think were perceiving ?
No, no need for a pancake style rock.
QuoteI don't think that rock obscuring the springboard is 2dimensional enough to be excluded from light, if it was flat , its top edge would show some of the highlight that continues past it along the springboard
to me it looks like it has enough gradients on it surface to suggest its not a thin rock with its flat face facing the camera
The rock marked in red in the image below (the one I forgot to add on my 3D scene)?
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Image8.jpg)
It's in the shadow of the rack marked in green, no need for it to be a thin rock.
Quotewanna test this Calcite springboard ive just made ? :D
No thanks.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 09, 2015, 08:57:25 PM
No, no need for a pancake style rock.
The rock marked in red in the image below (the one I forgot to add on my 3D scene)?
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r66/armap/Image8.jpg)
It's in the shadow of the rack marked in green, no need for it to be a thin rock.
No thanks.
so how then are none of the faces on the green rock not receiving light , in a similar vein to the springboards tip.
this one's even a stretch for me ArMaP , you're testing my credulity here :D
funbox
Just to confirm that this OP anomaly is not a "lens flare" sort of thing, I have looked for, and found, another Rover Curiosity photo of it. The other pics I have posted in this thread were taken by the Mast Cam/right. I did find now a similar photo, taken by the Mast Cam/left. While the Mast/Cam/left photo is not quite as good, the OP anomaly can still be clearly seen there. And it still does look like a 3D object - rather than a ray of sunlight on the ground.
An additional reason for our pretty much knowing this "white object" is not simply a ray of sunlight on the surface is, even if it were a "break of a shadow", we should still see very specific sunlight/shadow lines there on the ground - just as we see in other instances of sunlight/shadow presentations.
Plus still, the double-sided nearest end of this anomaly, that we can clearly see in the posted prior photos, confirms this to be a 3D object, and not a shadow break.
Simply for reference, here is the Mast Cam/left link and screenshot.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01146/mcam/1146ML0051900190501653E01_DXXX.jpg
(http://s24.postimg.org/4v0ipr9dx/Screen_Shot_2015_11_10_at_11_59_17_AM.jpg)
Quote from: funbox on November 10, 2015, 10:21:10 AM
so how then are none of the faces on the green rock not receiving light , in a similar vein to the springboards tip.
The left and top sides of the green rock is getting direct sun light, don't you see it? ???
Quote from: rdunk on November 10, 2015, 06:25:17 PM
Just to confirm that this OP anomaly is not a "lens flare" sort of thing, I have looked for, and found, another Rover Curiosity photo of it.
That was the first thing I did, but when I saw the low quality of that photo I ignored it. It looks like that feature is relatively far away from the camera, as it appears too small on both photos, specially in the one from the camera with shorter focal length (the left camera).
QuoteAn additional reason for our pretty much knowing this "white object" is not simply a ray of sunlight on the surface is, even if it were a "break of a shadow", we should still see very specific sunlight/shadow lines there on the ground - just as we see in other instances of sunlight/shadow presentations.
I don't understand what you mean by "sunlight/shadow lines", could you explain it? Thanks in advance. :)
QuotePlus still, the double-sided nearest end of this anomaly, that we can clearly see in the posted prior photos, confirms this to be a 3D object, and not a shadow break.
As I said before (and as I tried to show with my 3D sketch that turned out to be just a waste of time), I think the double-sided end is a real 3D object (most likely a rock, or maybe two), jutting out of the sand.
I should have thought of this in the beginning. :)
I used this site (http://curiosityrover.com/) to see where the camera was pointing to when the photo was taken, to see if that area could appear in another photo, and, as seen in this page (http://curiosityrover.com/imgpoint.php?name=1146MR0051900200601717E01_DXXX), it's pointing to an area the rover already traversed.
Knowing this, I searched for the sol in which the rover was on that area or near it, and found a sol with several photos, sol 1110. Looking through the photos on that sol I found a photo of the area from the OP photo, this one.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01110/mcam/1110MR0049410090601221E01_DXXX.jpg
(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01110/mcam/1110MR0049410090601221E01_DXXX.jpg)
Any questions? :)
"Any questions? :)"
No, no questions right now! However, I do have suspect about some of the considerable "differences" in these two photos. Even some of the rocks are shown very differently in the two pics - almost as if someone has purposely messed with the photo where the anomaly is not there. I do have a major reason for one of the differences that would make it impossible for the white anomaly to appear as it does in the other (original) pic . Will address that tomorrow afternoon. :)
QuoteAs I said before (and as I tried to show with my 3D sketch that turned out to be just a waste of time), I think the double-sided end is a real 3D object (most likely a rock, or maybe two), jutting out of the sand.
not a waste of time for you , how much did you learn ?.. o ,when doing Boolean operations , make sure your mindfull of your operands. what's cutting what , what's merging and what's being discarded :D
funbox
Quote from: ArMaP on November 10, 2015, 08:34:21 PM
The left and top sides of the green rock is getting direct sun light, don't you see it? ???
yes , but the comparative was
Quotein a similar vein to the springboards tip.
none of the faces on the green rock , that are parallel with the tip , are lit
funbox
Quote from: ArMaP on November 11, 2015, 01:06:19 AM
I should have thought of this in the beginning. :)
I used this site (http://curiosityrover.com/) to see where the camera was pointing to when the photo was taken, to see if that area could appear in another photo, and, as seen in this page (http://curiosityrover.com/imgpoint.php?name=1146MR0051900200601717E01_DXXX), it's pointing to an area the rover already traversed.
Knowing this, I searched for the sol in which the rover was on that area or near it, and found a sol with several photos, sol 1110. Looking through the photos on that sol I found a photo of the area from the OP photo, this one.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01110/mcam/1110MR0049410090601221E01_DXXX.jpg
(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01110/mcam/1110MR0049410090601221E01_DXXX.jpg)
Any questions? :)
looks like you got to the tip of this one :D a quirk of light and shadows , intermingled with a few broken pieces of Stratified's
that second picture can be so useful at times
but then like in times of spokey thing , they just add more to the mystery
good shot matey
funbox
Quote from: funbox on November 11, 2015, 11:47:26 AM
not a waste of time for you , how much did you learn ?
Not much, most of the time was spent trying to learn how to use Blender's strange user interface. :)
Quote.. o ,when doing Boolean operations , make sure your mindfull of your operands. what's cutting what , what's merging and what's being discarded :D
I'm used to Boolean operations, only in code, as I work as a programmer. :)