A White Thing In The Mars Sand

[ArMaP]

but you know I don't have a basic understanding of photography 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.

how 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.

hypothetically 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.

[funbox]

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.

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

funbox

[ArMaP]

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.

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.

Why is it 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. 

But if the light is slightly behind the plane where the face of the rock is, that face would not get any direct light.

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".

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.

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.

It was that part of the photo that made me think the white "piece" is just light shining on the sand.

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.

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.

Another 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.

[ArMaP]

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.

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

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.

[funbox]

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.

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

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

funbox

[ArMaP]

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.

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

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.

I think I was making a Joke

At least you tried, but I don't think you succeeded. 

[rdunk]

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! 

[ArMaP]

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.

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.

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.

[ArMaP]

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.

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.


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.

[rdunk]

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!!

[ArMaP]

But, I don't get much from your handmade representations of the OP photo!

I know, I will not leave my day job. 

[funbox]

No, 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

the 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

At least you tried, but I don't think you succeeded.

wanna test this Calcite springboard ive just made ?

funbox

[ArMaP]

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.

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

The rock marked in red in the image below (the one I forgot to add on my 3D scene)?



It's in the shadow of the rack marked in green, no need for it to be a thin rock.

wanna test this Calcite springboard ive just made ?

No thanks.

[funbox]

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)?



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

funbox

[rdunk]

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