a martian oddbox

[funbox]

I know that layer doesn't appear on other mounds, but that doesn't mean it's not a layer.

If the mounds were created on different occasions in different ways they would look different.

PS: I'm still looking at a 3D image of that area to try to identify those features on a satellite photo.

but then if an intermediating deposition/accretion event happened, wouldn't the darkened layer be obliterated , given that the three mounds/cones/triangulared's are roughly the same height

to further add to the puzzle the long platform behind the pyramid has its stratified darkened stripe raised much higher than it lower situated cougher '0mids ...

I do look forward to seeing the 3d sats though

funbox

[funbox]

interesting region ,

*adjusted  for background*



funbox

[ArMaP]

but then if an intermediating deposition/accretion event happened, wouldn't the darkened layer be obliterated , given that the three mounds/cones/triangulared's are roughly the same height

to further add to the puzzle the long platform behind the pyramid has its stratified darkened stripe raised much higher than it lower situated cougher '0mids ...

I do look forward to seeing the 3d sats though

One of the reasons I'm trying to get a 3D image from that area is because from these photos it's hard to understand what's close to the camera and what's far away, and looking at satellite photos it looks (to me) like there were different occasions, some with depositions of sediments, some with removal.

[funbox]

One of the reasons I'm trying to get a 3D image from that area is because from these photos it's hard to understand what's close to the camera and what's far away, and looking at satellite photos it looks (to me) like there were different occasions, some with depositions of sediments, some with removal.

interesting , are you suggesting mount sharp is/was volcanic ? or are you referring to another deposition event ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

interesting , are you suggesting mount sharp is/was volcanic ? or are you referring to another deposition event ?

The way you misinterpret the things I say is interesting, what made you think that I was thinking about volcanism? I don't see what I said that could be interpreted that way.

No, I am talking about deposition and removal of sediments by water.

[funbox]

The way you misinterpret the things I say is interesting, what made you think that I was thinking about volcanism? I don't see what I said that could be interpreted that way.

there are only clarifying questions ArMaP, why are you asserting im making statements about what you say ? almost as interesting no ?

now I know your talking about water deposition , ill ask how the middle "cone" got excluded from the layer?

that's the part I have trouble envisioning

funbox

[ArMaP]

there are only clarifying questions ArMaP, why are you asserting im making statements about what you say ? almost as interesting no ?

Because you, again, talk about things I didn't say, and that confuses me.

now I know your talking about water deposition , ill ask how the middle "cone" got excluded from the layer?

that's the part I have trouble envisioning

And that's the part I am trying to understand also, by looking at the satellite images.

[funbox]

Because you, again, talk about things I didn't say, and that confuses me.
And that's the part I am trying to understand also, by looking at the satellite images.

if you give me the link to the sat map to the region, ill use it in 3dsmax and overlay 3d geometry .. that should give you an indication of distances, it might take a few days though

funbox

[ArMaP]

if you give me the link to the sat map to the region, ill use it in 3dsmax and overlay 3d geometry .. that should give you an indication of distances, it might take a few days though

Do you have any way of converting an anaglyph into a 3dsmax scene? I haven't found any 3D file of that region yet.

[funbox]

there are many ways, from using as displacement maps *after rejigging in Photoshop* to using as a kind of template to model from, coupled with the photos taken from the surface , the topography can be relatively accurately replicated

hence the several days

although using the sats as a displacement map may speed things up as I consider further


funbox

[funbox]

for instance

an un altered version of me used as displacement



you see how it works ?

funbox

[funbox]

etc etc ..



funbox

[ArMaP]

I was thinking about something better than displacement maps made with the photos, as difference in colour and light/shadow will give different results.

[funbox]

I was thinking about something better than displacement maps made with the photos, as difference in colour and light/shadow will give different results.

indeed, that's where the Photoshop jigging comes into play, from the surface picture we can identify the mounds , once we have one more or less arcuratly heighted , the rest fall intoplay like dominoes

we need to identify at least one mound on both satalite and surface photos , interplolation can then be achieved with features on the satalite that coreespond to hight , ie shadow lengths , shaded faces , sun direction etc

add a sun to the scene . time ..

some level of accuracy can be achieved ..

ehm, the links if you please

funbox

[funbox]

the satellite photos will have to be converted to black and white, as the images above, white indicates height , black is low . I propose creating a black and white map to indicate such features on the satellite images

we can then use varying shading of white to black to fine tune the topography using the original as a overlay to do so

couple in with what we can see of the terrain in the surface pictures .. yes I think it will be accurate enough for further speculation

funbox