RocK? Or Anomaly With Applied Shadow

[ArMaP]

If you notice, your "revised photo" has been lightened, and thus has removed all of the existing shadows in this photo.

It's not a "revised photo".

When they get the photos from the rover they convert them to JPEG in an automated process that results in too much contrast.

Also, the original images have a colour-depth of 12 bits per pixel, resulting in 4096 shades of grey instead of the 256 8 bits per pixel allow in JPEG and most image files.

The image I posted is brighter than the image without applying the radiometrical correction, this is how it looks when converted directly from IMG to PNG.


You can use your favourite image editing program to make the image lighter and see that it will result in more or less the same thing I posted.

Sorry ArMaP, that is not what the released NASA photo presents.

This is a NASA photo. 

IMO, for what I see, there is likely no actual rock there, but rather simply a shadowed area, and something else.

How would you explain that?

For sure that lower protruding piece is something solid, as it does have a shadow under it, but it does not appear to be a "rock" either.

Are you talking about the same protruding piece as I was? It doesn't sound like it, as the one I was talking about is part of the big rock.

If this were an actual rock, it would certainly be pretty much "out of character" with all else around this photo area, wouldn't it?

What are you expecting to see on Mars, billiard balls? 

Rocks are not made to a specific standard, an odd looking rock that looks out of place is something common on Earth, you just have to look around.

[rdunk]

This is a NASA photo. 

As are the OP pics and others that I posted!!

"How would you explain that?"

It simply looks like an applied shadow - especially as it also has a sticking out object near the bottom of the "shadow".

"Are you talking about the same protruding piece as I was? It doesn't sound like it, as the one I was talking about is part of the big rock".

There is no other sticking out or protruding piece on this "shadowed" feature, as you suggested earlier. What you marked is what we can see through the "shadow".

"What are you expecting to see on Mars, billiard balls? 
Rocks are not made to a specific standard, an odd looking rock that looks out of place is something common on Earth, you just have to look around".


This is the comment I expected to get from you, obviously. Now you want us to compare all of the Earth rocks to the Mars rocks!!

Then you "take a look around" here in this photo - not so common with every other "rock" we see in this photo, and neither are the other two significant pieces we can see right there near our featured "shadow" - one is just in front of it, and the other seems to be behind it. Actually, the one behind this "shadow" may be sticking out on both sides, with a seeable very sharp vertical/perpendicular edge on our right end of it!!....................... my guess is, whatever is behind this "shadow" is precisely what the protruding feature is attached to - as it is extending at that very level!!

[ArMaP]

As are the OP pics and others that I posted!!

Yes, but the way you wrote it it almost sound like you were saying that the photo I posted was not a NASA photo.

There is no other sticking out or protruding piece on this "shadowed" feature, as you suggested earlier. What you marked is what we can see through the "shadow".

What I marked is the more or less horizontal face of the protruding piece. As it's almost horizontal it gets some light, while the almost vertical face facing the camera doesn't.

Now you want us to compare all of the Earth rocks to the Mars rocks!!

No, I said nothing like that, don't start implying that I said things I didn't say, please.

Then you "take a look around" here in this photo - not so common with every other "rock" we see in this photo, and neither are the other two significant pieces we can see right there near our featured "shadow" - one is just in front of it, and the other seems to be behind it.

The second biggest rock, slightly to the right (from the camera's point of view) of the biggest rock looks to be the same type of rock.

Actually, the one behind this "shadow" may be sticking out on both sides, with a seeable very sharp vertical/perpendicular edge on our right end of it!!

Could you draw what you mean? I don't understand your explanation.

[rdunk]

Quote ArMaP
Actually, the one behind this "shadow" may be sticking out on both sides, with a seeable very sharp vertical/perpendicular edge on our right end of it!!
Could you draw what you mean? I don't understand your explanation.


Ok, I will add other markers to the existing photo.

[Pimander]

No, sorry rdunk, but you have definitely lost me here.  If that area was deliberately shaded then why would they leave the more interesting feature you have just highlighted.  It just makes no sense to me.  Unless I've missed something obvious (not for the first time). :

I mean, this discussion is about this.



Dynas "snake" looks more anomalous to me.

[ArMaP]

Ok, I will add other markers to the existing photo.

Without explaining what those markers are supposed to be they do not help much. 

[rdunk]

Pimander said, "If that area was deliberately shaded then why would they leave the more interesting feature you have just highlighted"?

Hey Pi, no way to know why! Over the NASA photo years, we have seen many NASA artificial "shadows", and there has often been enough left that makes it clearly to be an anomalous piece/object/intelligent design. In this photo, the most obvious clearly anomalous item is the lower protruding piece that comes out of the blackened area that I showed by encircling and now with directional outline.

The protrusion does stretch out above the surface, with underlying shadow. What is it - since we cannot see its source of origin we cannot know or even begin too guess!!

And no, the discussion was/is not about the photo ArMaP (and you) posted, rather it was about the photo(s) I posted. ArMaP's photo is much lighter/brighter, and shows almost no shadows anywhere. 

[Pimander]

The protrusion does stretch out above the surface, with underlying shadow. What is it - since we cannot see its source of origin we cannot know or even begin too guess!!

There is shadow under the rock next to it too.....

And no, the discussion was/is not about the photo ArMaP (and you) posted, rather it was about the photo(s) I posted. ArMaP's photo is much lighter/brighter, and shows almost no shadows anywhere. 

But ArMaP's is the same image but converted to a format that retains important detail missing from the one you posted.  It has 20 times as many "colours" so you can see that the dark part (shadow) is not just a monotone shadow.  ArMaP's image shows that the dark shadow actually contains shades that show the surface of a rock.

ETA:  ArMaP has seen far better anomalous images.

[rdunk]

Without explaining what those markers are supposed to be they do not help much. 

These are the drawing which you requested! The markers represent the shapes of what I see there in the pic. The red lines are to present what is behind the shadowed area, and also represent directional lines of the above surface protruding piece!!

[rdunk]

Pimander said, "But ArMaP's is the same image but converted to a format that retains important detail missing from the one you posted.  It has 20 times as many "colours" so you can see that the dark part (shadow) is not just a monotone shadow.  ArMaP's image shows that the dark shadow actually contains shades that show the surface of a rock".


If NASA wants to release new pics, then I will consider them. Otherwise, I will continue to use and comment on what they have released. I do not give much consideration to known "skeptic changes" made to photos released by NASA - ever. 

[ArMaP]

And no, the discussion was/is not about the photo ArMaP (and you) posted, rather it was about the photo(s) I posted. ArMaP's photo is much lighter/brighter, and shows almost no shadows anywhere. 

The photo is the same, the only difference is that you are basing your opinion on a bad copy and refuse to accept the better one.

Not the best way of doing it, I think.

[ArMaP]

These are the drawing which you requested!

I know, and I thank you for that, but just throwing some lines without saying what you think each one of those are doesn't help me understand what you mean.

The red lines are to present what is behind the shadowed area, and also represent directional lines of the above surface protruding piece!!

The red line on the left is to the left of one rock (there 4 rocks in the image you posted), the red line on the right is along the right side of the biggest rock and the yellow ellipse is around another rock that is in front of the biggest rock.

I posted the animated GIF so it would be easier to understand the relative positions of the several rocks, and now I will post it again, but with the radiometrically corrected images and a faster frame rate.



To further help get the idea, here's a direct view (or cross-eye, I never remember which one this is) version


and an anaglyph.

[ArMaP]

If NASA wants to release new pics, then I will consider them.

These are NASA photos.

Otherwise, I will continue to use and comment on what they have released.

Doesn't look like it, it looks like you will continue to use what you think helps your point of view and ignore the better data.

I do not give much consideration to known "skeptic changes" made to photos released by NASA - ever. 

Psst, don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. I suggest you learn something about these photos before commenting more about them.

Here's a page that can help you learn something, if you are really interested in the truth.

[rdunk]

ArMaP said, "Psst, don't look now, but your ignorance is showing. I suggest you learn something about these photos before commenting more about them".

"Psst", your "skepticism mechanics" is showing. If the photos NASA posts were no good, NASA would not post them. For you, it is always "find a way" to make everything look less anomalous, or get the discussion going a different direction. As I said, I will continue to work with what NASA posts, as always! Of course, you have proven no "eye" for what it takes to see anomalous objects anyway!! So, nothing you say ever adds positively to these discussions at all, for me, because you are a hard-over skeptic.

The day that you finally admit to seeing a real anomaly, I might BEGIN to see your input in a different way!

[Pimander]

"Psst", your "skepticism mechanics" is showing. If the photos NASA posts were no good, NASA would not post them.

I thought you said they were doctored and no good?

As I said, I will continue to work with what NASA posts, as always!

Then you need to understand the images.

Both images discussed here - the one you posted and the one ArMaP posted are not the original digital image.  Do you understand that?

The one you posted is a JPEG format converted from the original.  The one ArMaP posted is a png format converted from the original.

The original image file is a PDS (Planetary Data System file).  This is the format NASA use to transmit image data and they confusingly give the files the suffix .img (even though that is the same as one commonly used outside space science for disk images).

PDS files are uncompressed.  That means that all of the information the Curiosity Rover camera records is in the file.  That is the number of colours and the full resolution of the image are stored in the file.

When NASA convert the PDS/img file to JPEG the files are compressed into a smaller size and lots of the data (think detail) is lost because the maths used to shrink the file into a small package cannot be decompressed and retain all the information from the original.  The file you are working with may have been released by NASA but it isn't the best image available.  They do this partly so that the images are a sensible size for storage and for transmitting over the internet.

The image ArMaP posted is a conversion of the original into a lossless compression format (png).  This means that the data that NASA lost when converting to JPEG is not lost in ArMaP's  .png making it a more reliable version of the original data.  A png cannot be compressed more than a certain amount because it would lose data.

If you don't believe that the img is the original you could convert it yourself to a png and even JPEGs of different sizes (different amounts of compression).  If you do that you will see that the less you compress a JPEG the better the image (although practically speaking, the resolution of the screen means compression above/below certain parameters make no difference to the naked eye)

Do you understand now?