a martian oddbox

[ArMaP]

It may be useless to YOU but just about everyone else recognizes that adding a little color to high light the object in question, zooming it, and adjusting contrast are valid methods to show an object

I was not talking about highlighting something, and the problem appears when people resize the photos and change the brightness and/or contrast and ignore the original and base their opinions on the altered version of the image.

I have seen many people doing that.

No  in the sense to highlight the object in question so those with poor vision, bad monitors and other vision defects can better see what you are showing

Is that supposed to be "tampering"?

I thought it was a language problem and that I was using a wrong definition, but it looks like everyone has their own definition of "tampering".

As long as the ORIGINAL is also included people like yourself can go look for them selves

That's why I asked, as I always do when I'm not sure. 

[funbox]

It may be useless to YOU but just about everyone else recognizes that adding a little color to high light the object in question, zooming it, and adjusting contrast are valid methods to show an object

NASA does it all the time

No  in the sense to highlight the object in question so those with poor vision, bad monitors and other vision defects can better see what you are showing

As long as the ORIGINAL is also included people like yourself can go look for them selves

ive tried a multitude of variations on those sentences and concepts, although ive stoped at learning Portuguese ,

i could put up images of m42 before and after processing , sometimes the difference is breath taking when contrast and curves are altered

ArMaP at least is a little less strict on the zooming ,, what was it around 300% ArMaP ?

Mr Shift has a 100% or piss off policy

funbox

[ArMaP]

ArMaP at least is a little less strict on the zooming ,, what was it around 300% ArMaP ?

What zooming?

[funbox]

the usable zoom that you can use before these 350kilobyte jpgs become mush

but then its all dependent on which part of the picture your zooming , the distinction becomes more apparent, the further to the horizon you get .near forgrounds , as exampled here get a bit more zoom allow-ability in my humble

[ArMaP]

the usable zoom that you can use before these 350kilobyte jpgs become mush

Any zoom is good if there's no resampling, it's the resampling that mixes the JPEG artefacts with the rest of the image.

[rdunk]

The discussion in this thread is what bothers me just a leeeeeeeeeeeetle bit, when it is being done in an anomaly OP thread!

I do understand that it might not be intentional - (I say that gracefully), but, as is easiLy seen, the majority of the back and forth here is out there in la la land, going over the endless issues of general photo stuff, and for the most part ignoring the anomalies. I know that such discussion is a tool in the "skeptic's bag, but I am not suggesting that is the reason for it here. However, in any event, just one of the things off-anomaly subject discussion like this does, is discourage other parties from actively participating, even if they might want to.

Yes, there is photo tampering by NASA (et al who-evers) all over the place in their photos, covering up stuff, and adding shadows to hid anomalous objects, when the shadows are so obviously wrong in their situational existence. But, there often do remain objects in the NASA photos that are worthy of discussion, and are obviously anomalous objects that warrant attention directly - very often we can see just enough.............!

The technical discussion relative to photos, might be better served in a direct on-subject OP??

[funbox]

this discussion has replayed itself countless times, for instance, those anomalies and the general dishevelled look about many of the pictures we get back from the rovers , can be, lets say, teased away to unveil the geometry and light interplays below , sometimes this is effective at removing the noise clutter these pictures are sometimes prone to

other times not , with me, I play it by ear , if pixelization or compression artefacts can be removed to take away noise and doesn't interfere in the geometric anomaly being shown. let it ride

@ArMaP
all dependant on the size of the anomaly I guess

funbox

[ArMaP]

I do understand that it might not be intentional - (I say that gracefully), but, as is easiLy seen, the majority of the back and forth here is out there in la la land, going over the endless issues of general photo stuff, and for the most part ignoring the anomalies.

When the discussion is about possible anomalies in photos I don't see how technical issues related to photography are "in la la land".

I know that such discussion is a tool in the "skeptic's bag, but I am not suggesting that is the reason for it here. However, in any event, just one of the things off-anomaly subject discussion like this does, is discourage other parties from actively participating, even if they might want to.

Well, I see it, as expected, from a different point of view, as to me, just posting photos with possible anomalies ignoring the technical part discourages people interested in a real discussion.

Yes, there is photo tampering by NASA (et al who-evers) all over the place in their photos, covering up stuff, and adding shadows to hid anomalous objects, when the shadows are so obviously wrong in their situational existence.

See, that's why the technical part shouldn't be ignored.

The technical discussion relative to photos, might be better served in a direct on-subject OP??

Maybe, but I'm not good at that, I'm much better at answering than at starting an explanation on my own.

[ArMaP]

other times not , with me, I play it by ear , if pixelization or compression artefacts can be removed to take away noise and doesn't interfere in the geometric anomaly being shown. let it ride

I agree, but we should not forget that the "doesn't interfere" is a relative thing.

The image you posted, for example, as the features are relatively big when compared to the 8x8 blocks they are not much affected by the JPEG compression, but the resizing does mix the artefacts with the data, as you can see by comparing your image to a "pixel resize" version from the original below.





You can see that, for example, the darker rectangular block in the middle of the image becomes slightly "disguised" by the resampling and looks more like a feature of the object than a JPEG artefact, as it looked like in the original.

all dependant on the size of the anomaly I guess

Yes, that's why I usually do not even bother with anomalies that are too small.

[funbox]

ok well do a test here is one ive taken from the thumbnails and enhanced by many methods



lets see what it turns into when we see the full-size jpgraw

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/01082/mcam/1082MR0047611100600336I01_DXXX.jpg

funbox

[ArMaP]

I hope we get a full size version, sometimes we never get them.

PS: it looks like a panorama it's on its way.

[funbox]

no doubt ArMaP , as feast for the eyes as usual

funbox

[Gigas]

Uh-Oh, a dead system lord





This shell like anomaly had an appearance on outer limits once. It carried an alien intelligence that when a warm body closed in to look, would invade the host and take over.





That 1995 outer limits show was called caught in the act and had Alyssa Milano as Hannah Valesic pick up a shell similar to the one on mars.

[zorgon]

I know that such discussion is a tool in the "skeptic's bag, but I am not suggesting that is the reason for it here. However, in any event, just one of the things off-anomaly subject discussion like this does, is discourage other parties from actively participating, even if they might want to.

Nah ArMaP is just being ArMaP  He wouldn't be here if we didn't have some things that stump him (by his own admission )  He tends to be over nit picky and doesn't look at things like we do and 'fill in the blanks between the lines" like we do

Most anomaly threads contain ALL the info and pictures in the first few posts... which is all MOST people read in ANY thread (a truth that can be seen in the replies )  Even I don't have time to read all the posts in a multi page thread

So I will look at page 1 and 2  for the facts  then skip the opinion comments until someone needs a reply from me (usually notified of this via pm)

Same thing back at ATS   The OP is the focus... then a few good replies that add more info... after that all you get is the "Wow Cool object" or "Good find!" comments and the skepto bunkers screaming "Fake" or "Pareidolia" or calling you names

So no worries that it scares people off.  Most people already are on one side or the other. It is rare that you convince someone new to change their mind

ArMaP works hard at finding the originals and providing clear copies. I do not always agree with his interpretation but hey  after several years of arguing over true color on Mars we came to an agreement over REAL color and he too says Mars skies are blue

I am also trying to find the HAND that he found on Mars

[zorgon]

Yes, there is photo tampering by NASA (et al whoever) all over the place in their photos, covering up stuff, and adding shadows to hid anomalous objects, when the shadows are so obviously wrong in their situational existence. But, there often do remain objects in the NASA photos that are worthy of discussion, and are obviously anomalous objects that warrant attention directly - very often we can see just enough.............!

But see there is a problem with that

IF NASA is covering up everything and editing all the photos, then there would be no point searching for ANY anomalies other than over lay artifacts Because if they were covering stuff then they would not let you find anything

Also if that were true then SOMEWHERE must exist the unedited copies otherwise there would be no point in taking them in the first place.

So if we are using NASA public images to seek anomalies  but at the same time say that those images are tampered with... then we are on a fool's errand

Since we cannot get access to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND of images supposedly taken by China India ESA and Japan... I would agree there are things they do not want us to see

Also the Rovers have algorithms that are capable of hiding signs of civilizations in the photos Cornell Univ published a paper which I posted way back on ATS about that. At the time it was TREASON to have a copy of those algorithms

NASA then tosses it right in your face