How color/colour blind was our spendy MESSENGER?

On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting moon like terribly hot,
especially by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hottest throughout
midday and of course much hotter towards the equator and obviously
cooler as you migrate towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet within a
fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good potential for a
little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter Olympics?). Too
bad that our crack NASA MESSENGER team has had such crappy CCD cameras
and otherwise such **** poor mirror optics that so terribly degraded
their DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the mineral hue/color
saturation. Perhaps they should have ductaped a few of those free
cell phone cameras to that probe.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerF...rcury_Ice.html
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."

"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."

A darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part a rather
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of nearby Venus do not have
any extra thermal trauma from any pesky moon of such horrific mass,
like that physically dark sucker that has been somewhat recently
keeping Earth so extra toasty from the inside out, plus affecting each
and every cubic meter of our thin crusted surface, our rising oceans
and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and subsequently thawing us
out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever see, not to mention
what humanity has been contributing towards AGW.

Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's quite
unlikely that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old
water as any surface ice or salty brine, that is unless such h2o were
sequestered within substantial polar geode pockets offering a thick
enough basalt shell or otherwise protected by whatever thick layer of
polar mineralogy solids.

Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind on us. Out of 1,213
images, thus far we've got all of two (possibly three) extremely
pastel and somewhat fuzzy color images to work with.

Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.

I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those extremely interesting pixels I'd
previously discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and
behold there's not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited
and somewhat fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a
closer look-see. Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes
wasn't using radar imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been
at least 4 confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft and fuzzy pastel kind of way, whereas at least
this limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever manage to tell us the whole
truth about such things.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2

Of one such pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic range)
and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5

(if you happen to like seeing mineral color, do it once again at +50
Saturation and 0 Lightness, and then crank up the contrast to suit)

For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)

Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)

There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric and/or magnetosphere related pixel artifacts. Of course
the raw image itself would have been so much better off if we were
ever given access to having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data
to work with. Replacing the color black with most any other color,
such as a given medium/dark gray does the trick for this next
interesting extraction of better appreciating planetology, mineralogy
and atmospheric science.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.

Here's another pair of those extremely pastel colour images, except
this time all of the extended atmospheric artifacts have been
artificially removed, leaving us with only the thin atmosphere that's
hugging to that physically dark surface, as seen only by giving this
one a maximum hue saturation and as using much as +40 Lightness
(you'll also need to zoom way in).
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...Prockter07.jpg

Of one more example of where a free cell phone CCD would have
accomplished a whole lot better DR and hue saturation job on behalf of
recording that physically dark (0.12 albedo) mineralogy of the planet
Mercury.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/...ercuryInDetail

If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset of
perpetual denial, then perhaps you should not even be posting
anywhere within Usenet science, or contributing into most any other
public space/astronomy/astrophysics or geology/planetology related
forums, especially since so many of you folks seem to lack those most
basic of digital image observationology skills, as most of you good
folks don't seem to even realize when you're being snookered and
summarily dumbfounded to death by your own kind.
. - Brad Guth

Obviously you have superior visual and cognitive abilities,to see
these things that the other 6.5+ billion of us don't!
On Feb 2, 10:45*pm, BradGuth phoned home:

eyeball wrote:

Obviously you have superior visual and cognitive abilities,to see
these things that the other 6.5+ billion of us don't!

And of course it goes without saying that you speak for the other 6.5
billion people. It's just common sense! Why can't people see that?

On Feb 3, 8:32 am, kT wrote:
eyeball wrote:
Obviously you have superior visual and cognitive abilities,to see
these things that the other 6.5+ billion of us don't!

And of course it goes without saying that you speak for the other 6.5
billion people. It's just common sense! Why can't people see that?

The incest mutated likes of "eyeball" has become our mainstream status
quo.

Braille intelligence is common place withing their borg collective, of
what has to suit their Old Testament mindset, or else.

The mineralogy of Mercury is nearly as coal dark and nasty as our
moon, and those CCD cameras and mirror optics of our spendy MESSENGER
mission should not have had any problems in having recorded such.
Wonder why our NASA and of their brown-nosed minions simply isn't
allowing the colorful truth(s) to emerge?

At the albedo of 0.12, Mercury is not a light gray planet, any more so
than the rich mineralogy and cosmic deposits upon our moon of 0.11 is
all that gray.
- Brad Guth

I speak for the non-assholes.
On Feb 3, 11:32*am, kT wrote:
eyeball wrote:
Obviously you have superior visual and cognitive abilities,to see
these things that the other 6.5+ billion of us don't!

And of course it goes without saying that you speak for the other 6.5
billion people. It's just common sense! Why can't people see that?

Come on team MESSENGER, give us at least one good composite close up
using the maximum DR and full color saturation of that physically dark
planet of Mercury.

Don't tell us that our cell phone cameras are offering better quality
imaging than
your spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes has to offer.
. - Brad Guth


On Feb 2, 7:45 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting moon like terribly hot,
especially by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hottest throughout
midday and of course much hotter towards the equator and obviously
cooler as you migrate towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet within a
fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good potential for a
little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter Olympics?). Too
bad that our crack NASA MESSENGER team has had such crappy CCD cameras
and otherwise such **** poor mirror optics that so terribly degraded
their DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the mineral hue/color
saturation. Perhaps they should have ductaped a few of those free
cell phone cameras to that probe.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerF...tions/Mercury_...
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."

"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."

A darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part a rather
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of nearby Venus do not have
any extra thermal trauma from any pesky moon of such horrific mass,
like that physically dark sucker that has been somewhat recently
keeping Earth so extra toasty from the inside out, plus affecting each
and every cubic meter of our thin crusted surface, our rising oceans
and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and subsequently thawing us
out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever see, not to mention
what humanity has been contributing towards AGW.

Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's quite
unlikely that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old
water as any surface ice or salty brine, that is unless such h2o were
sequestered within substantial polar geode pockets offering a thick
enough basalt shell or otherwise protected by whatever thick layer of
polar mineralogy solids.

Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind on us. Out of 1,213
images, thus far we've got all of two (possibly three) extremely
pastel and somewhat fuzzy color images to work with.

Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.

I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those extremely interesting pixels I'd
previously discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and
behold there's not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited
and somewhat fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a
closer look-see. Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes
wasn't using radar imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been
at least 4 confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft and fuzzy pastel kind of way, whereas at least
this limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever manage to tell us the whole
truth about such things.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2

Of one such pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic range)
and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5

(if you happen to like seeing mineral color, do it once again at +50
Saturation and 0 Lightness, and then crank up the contrast to suit)

For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)

Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)

There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric and/or magnetosphere related pixel artifacts. Of course
the raw image itself would have been so much better off if we were
ever given access to having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data
to work with. Replacing the color black with most any other color,
such as a given medium/dark gray does the trick for this next
interesting extraction of better appreciating planetology, mineralogy
and atmospheric science.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.

Here's another pair of those extremely pastel colour images, except
this time all of the extended atmospheric artifacts have been
artificially removed, leaving us with only the thin atmosphere that's
hugging to that physically dark surface, as seen only by giving this
one a maximum hue saturation and as using much as +40 Lightness
(you'll also need to zoom way in).http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...Prockter07.jpg

Of one more example of where a free cell phone CCD would have
accomplished a whole lot better DR and hue saturation job on behalf of
recording that physically dark (0.12 albedo) mineralogy of the planet
Mercury.http://bp3.blogger.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/...ABT4/BLtXCZz13...

If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset of
perpetual denial, then perhaps you should not even be posting
anywhere within Usenet science, or contributing into most any other
public space/astronomy/astrophysics or geology/planetology related
forums, especially since so many of you folks seem to lack those most
basic of digital image observationology skills, as most of you good
folks don't seem to even realize when you're being snookered and
summarily dumbfounded to death by your own kind.
. - Brad Guth

Apparently, forever color blind and even DR(dynamic range) limited it
is for our team Messenger.
. - Brad Guth


BradGuth wrote:
On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting moon like terribly hot,
especially by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215�F (hottest throughout
midday and of course much hotter towards the equator and obviously
cooler as you migrate towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly cold (as little as 80 K/-316�F and colder yet within a
fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good potential for a
little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter Olympics?). Too
bad that our crack NASA MESSENGER team has had such crappy CCD cameras
and otherwise such **** poor mirror optics that so terribly degraded
their DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the mineral hue/color
saturation. Perhaps they should have ductaped a few of those free
cell phone cameras to that probe.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerF...rcury_Ice.html
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."

"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."

A darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part a rather
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of nearby Venus do not have
any extra thermal trauma from any pesky moon of such horrific mass,
like that physically dark sucker that has been somewhat recently
keeping Earth so extra toasty from the inside out, plus affecting each
and every cubic meter of our thin crusted surface, our rising oceans
and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and subsequently thawing us
out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever see, not to mention
what humanity has been contributing towards AGW.

Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's quite
unlikely that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old
water as any surface ice or salty brine, that is unless such h2o were
sequestered within substantial polar geode pockets offering a thick
enough basalt shell or otherwise protected by whatever thick layer of
polar mineralogy solids.

Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind on us. Out of 1,213
images, thus far we've got all of two (possibly three) extremely
pastel and somewhat fuzzy color images to work with.

Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.

I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those extremely interesting pixels I'd
previously discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and
behold there's not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited
and somewhat fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a
closer look-see. Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes
wasn't using radar imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been
at least 4 confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft and fuzzy pastel kind of way, whereas at least
this limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever manage to tell us the whole
truth about such things.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2

Of one such pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic range)
and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
� Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5

(if you happen to like seeing mineral color, do it once again at +50
Saturation and 0 Lightness, and then crank up the contrast to suit)

For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)

Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)

There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric and/or magnetosphere related pixel artifacts. Of course
the raw image itself would have been so much better off if we were
ever given access to having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data
to work with. Replacing the color black with most any other color,
such as a given medium/dark gray does the trick for this next
interesting extraction of better appreciating planetology, mineralogy
and atmospheric science.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.

Here's another pair of those extremely pastel colour images, except
this time all of the extended atmospheric artifacts have been
artificially removed, leaving us with only the thin atmosphere that's
hugging to that physically dark surface, as seen only by giving this
one a maximum hue saturation and as using much as +40 Lightness
(you'll also need to zoom way in).
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...Prockter07.jpg

Of one more example of where a free cell phone CCD would have
accomplished a whole lot better DR and hue saturation job on behalf of
recording that physically dark (0.12 albedo) mineralogy of the planet
Mercury.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/...ercuryInDetail

If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset of
perpetual denial, then perhaps you should not even be posting
anywhere within Usenet science, or contributing into most any other
public space/astronomy/astrophysics or geology/planetology related
forums, especially since so many of you folks seem to lack those most
basic of digital image observationology skills, as most of you good
folks don't seem to even realize when you're being snookered and
summarily dumbfounded to death by your own kind.
. - Brad Guth