Yes, Mars Anomalies

[ArMaP]

I was prowling this panorama (yes, probably jpg, but what I found is irrelevant to what format it arrives in, and yes, I have no way to show WHERE in the image(s) it is, but that is not the point, either):

If you can make a circle on the image you can show WHERE in the image did you take that small crop, you're just being lazy.

[ArMaP]

2.  Guess We can say that of ALL the images We see from NASA

If it has JPEG compression artefacts then it was made from JPEG images and not from the IMG files.

[Amaterasu]

If you can make a circle on the image you can show WHERE in the image did you take that small crop, you're just being lazy.

Not so, ArMaP.  I did a SCREEN SHOT of the panorama.  I then brought that into photoshop.  I then processed the SCREEN SHOT with the circle.  The only real info on where is...  Looking slightly south of east somewhere.

Also...  I grabbed the shot last night and crashed.  When I came on this morning, the page had itself crashed, and I could not locate it again.

So.  Enough of where.  Thoughts on the IMAGES?

[ArMaP]

I noticed now that lizard photo is not on this thread, so I will post that information on the right thread, not on this one.

Things are really getting confusing.

PS: the dish-washing machine still leaks.

[deuem]

PS: Is there any file hosting site from which you get good download speeds?

Maybe that is what I wanted when I asked in the Help thread. I used to have a good middle man program that took care of the DL problems and just kept at it till it was done. I got a 8mb connection. the fastest one I have ever had and it is as slow as my original dial up. Drop outs are the problem. The line has a +90% variance.  Ouch!


Amy. Why can't you just open a copy of the photo in Gimp or PS and put a setection around it and then stroke it. That is all I do. It takes a few extra moments.

AMP, sorry the lizard is in the Sky thread. oops? Too many rocks in my head. Lots of dust...

Deuem

[deuem]

I was prowling this panorama (yes, probably jpg, but what I found is irrelevant to what format it arrives in, and yes, I have no way to show WHERE in the image(s) it is, but that is not the point, either): http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/4-billion-pixel-mars-panorama/

Yes it is Number one and also doing a full photo with a circle or box is number 2.

Amy, you have already proved to me that I can not pick out your manipulation work on a very small section and I know it is there. I have both before and afters to compare. Your work just looks a little more bland and cuts into some of the other patterns. But nothing jumps off the page.

So if you can do it after a few minutes [change it] then how does anyone trust anything unless we can go to the master and see what it should be. That puts us on the same starting page.

I have seen so many things go away in better prints it is not even funny anymore. You can spend countless hours doing work, chasing a ghost and drag in world people that then do the same. These are the guide lines all Moon, Space and Mars researchers use now.  See I don't care what you can or not see in a junk photo. I "really do care" if it is still there in the best one.

I do understand that sometimes all we have to work with is junk but that is the same junk for everyone. Like some of the early moon photos. The net chased that crashed spaceship on the moon for a few years before the true hi-res photo came out and everyone was stuck in a hard place. With Mars we know every photo is Higer-Res and they web post the junk files just to look at, not to research.

If you don't change, sooner or later you will go out on a huge limb and it will be cut off and it will hurt very much when you hit bottom.

The best we are going to get out of the mast cameras is 1200 x 1400 or around those numbers. No HD there. By even normal cheap toss away cameras these are on the low end. Why did they send such cheap cameras to Mars? Are we really seeing what they took at or is that a fib. They got more cameras on this rover than a street corner in China, and what, not even one good Hi-res camera. Like I said my Nokia takes higher res photos and it is just as old.

Ok, enough, Deuem

[ArMaP]

The best we are going to get out of the mast cameras is 1200 x 1400 or around those numbers. No HD there. By even normal cheap toss away cameras these are on the low end. Why did they send such cheap cameras to Mars? Are we really seeing what they took at or is that a fib. They got more cameras on this rover than a street corner in China, and what, not even one good Hi-res camera. Like I said my Nokia takes higher res photos and it is just as old.

One of the problems with rovers and other ground-based probes is that they can only communicate with the satellites that do the relaying for 8 minutes each day at a maximum of 8Mbit/s, so they are limited to what they can send, and there's no reason to have 8M Pixel cameras if they are not going to be able to upload the photos.

[deuem]

Wait on that thought. On one of the links you posted I thought I read that it can talk to 4 things. Earth Dirrect. And 3 sats in space around Mars. In the link they even named them. Sorry I have to re-research that. So the 8 minutes a day seems way too little.

I need to go back and dig into the mast cameras agian to see if I can find exact data on them. These cameras can not do any zooming but they have the ability to do a drastic focus change or what we call a depth of field setting. So they can set this function on comand. 2 meters to infinity. Now depending on where the focus lens moves into, it will crop the photo.

Meaning an infinity shot will be wider than a close up focus shot. It narrows the FOV The m-100 reports a scale of 7.4cm/pixel at 1km. [maybe this is the infinity focus range]

On a 1200px wide photo that would set the photo plane at 88.8 meters.  This means that if you had a stick 88.8 meters long and stood 1km away from that camera. The stick should print from side to side in a 1200px sq photo. A narrow FOV. This camera has a 34mm lens, Hence the name M-34.  The other camera has a 100mm lens, hence M-100

The M-34 is 15 degrees and the M-100 is 5.1. this is why we need to know which camera took which photo and wht ArMaP has problems creating sterio photos.

FOV = Field of Vision.

50mm is very close to what the human eye focuses in or around and the best lens to get WYSIWYG

Deuem

[rdunk]

I mean this in a nice/polite way...............but all of this photo related discussion is off point relative to the intentions of the OP. I suggest that maybe the Mod consider moving all of the "photo-how-to" discussion posts to another forum board??

While I don't think intended here, such moving off-topic is generally used by skeptics to "move off topic" relative to anomaly discussions. In this case I do think deuem is seeking a way to get better quality photos to better support the deuem process of photo analysis, and that is good!

As the OP commented, not much real discussion of the posted anomalies in these now 10 pages added to the Mars Anomalies Forum Board! On this board the discussion should be mostly about the credibility, one way or another, of the anomalies (of the which I am a little partial - ) 

[Amaterasu]

Maybe that is what I wanted when I asked in the Help thread. I used to have a good middle man program that took care of the DL problems and just kept at it till it was done. I got a 8mb connection. the fastest one I have ever had and it is as slow as my original dial up. Drop outs are the problem. The line has a +90% variance.  Ouch!


Amy. Why can't you just open a copy of the photo in Gimp or PS and put a setection around it and then stroke it. That is all I do. It takes a few extra moments.

AMP, sorry the lizard is in the Sky thread. oops? Too many rocks in my head. Lots of dust...

Deuem

From one of these panoramas?  Not sure how I would accomplish that.

[ArMaP]

Wait on that thought. On one of the links you posted I thought I read that it can talk to 4 things. Earth Dirrect. And 3 sats in space around Mars. In the link they even named them. Sorry I have to re-research that. So the 8 minutes a day seems way too little.

I think it's only three: Earth, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey. The other (Mars Express) was used only for telemetry data during the descent. And it's 8 minutes for each orbiter, so a total of 16, if they are not visible at the same time.

I need to go back and dig into the mast cameras agian to see if I can find exact data on them. These cameras can not do any zooming but they have the ability to do a drastic focus change or what we call a depth of field setting. So they can set this function on comand. 2 meters to infinity. Now depending on where the focus lens moves into, it will crop the photo.

I don't know if the focusing is automatic or on command, but I don't think a change in focus (even a large one) would make any noticeable cropping on a camera that has the closest focusing at 2.1 metres.

The M-34 is 15 degrees and the M-100 is 5.1. this is why we need to know which camera took which photo and wht ArMaP has problems creating sterio photos.

True, the photos from the M-100 show an area that is 1/3 of that size on the photos from the M-34.

50mm is very close to what the human eye focuses in or around and the best lens to get WYSIWYG

Yeah, I remember from the lessons I got from my sister.

[ArMaP]

On this board the discussion should be mostly about the credibility, one way or another, of the anomalies (of the which I am a little partial - ) 

Does that mean that you don't think that the credibility of the images we are looking at should be discussed? 

[rdunk]

Does that mean that you don't think that the credibility of the images we are looking at should be discussed? 

ArMaP, you treat "image credibility" as if you were thinking that NASA might be adding anomalies to their photos. When a NSA image has a "real anomaly" pictured, you are right - I am not very concerned about "image credibility", when it is a NASA et al photo. If there is a real anomaly there, it is there because they didn't see it first.

You said way back there in this post, "There isn't much to say about them, they look like images of rocks and dust", which was regarding the posted anomalies. Why would you need more credible images?

I do consider that photo analysis is an important tool, particularly where photo resolution makes optical viewing difficult for discernment. In my view, detailed extended discussions on how to do that should be in some sort of specialized forum that is established for addressing such matters, or at least in a more associated forum/forum thread, than in an anomalies post.   

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, you treat "image credibility" as if you were thinking that NASA might be adding anomalies to their photos.

No, I am talking about how much we can rely on what the image shows us, as a second or third generation JPEG may be showing things that were not there and not showing the things that were.

[rdunk]

No, I am talking about how much we can rely on what the image shows us, as a second or third generation JPEG may be showing things that were not there and not showing the things that were.

I have seen no evidence of "real anomalies" showing up in raw images pics that weren't always there. I have seen later raw images that were "changed" that took away anomalies that were in the original pics.

Of course. if NASA can change later pics, they can for sure change the originals too!