|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php Pat Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast. Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or much less that of dynamic range. I wonder what the problem is, as to why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal. .. - Brad Guth |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
On Apr 9, 2:38 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php Pat Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast. Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or much less that of dynamic range. I wonder what the problem is, as to why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal. . - Brad Guth Hmmm, how unfortunate as to what a few honest words of such a simple question can so easily close down and otherwise slam the doors shut on a given topic. Why exactly is there so much fear of the truth? .. - Brad Guth |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
On Apr 9, 5:38*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php Pat Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast. Yes Guth, it sort of looks like the top of your head... Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or much less that of dynamic range. *I wonder what the problem is, as to why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal. Bullcrap! The first few images from Mercury were B&W and you bitched. The next images from Mercury were color and just fine. Had the imaging team not done a quick-look and waited until color images had come out you would have had nothing to bitch about. Back to your stall... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
On Apr 10, 1:16*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 9, 2:38 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php Pat Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast. Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or much less that of dynamic range. *I wonder what the problem is, as to why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal. . - Brad Guth Hmmm, how unfortunate as to what a few honest words of such a simple question can so easily close down and otherwise slam the doors shut on a given topic. Why exactly is there so much fear of the truth? You flatter yourself and are clueless how mission teams function. There was nothing sinister or odd about getting a quick-look image out, well, quickly. You saw the quick-look Mercury images and then saw the images which had a time to get color processed like the Phobos image was, and thought something just HAD to me amiss. You are what is amiss! And if you think that Mercury being .36 AU to the sun should look like coal, then you sort of really don't get albedo, nor solar output nor physics in general. Go back to your fantasy writing and leave science to the rest of us. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
On Apr 10, 10:59 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Apr 10, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 9, 2:38 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php Pat Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast. Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or much less that of dynamic range. I wonder what the problem is, as to why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal. . - Brad Guth Hmmm, how unfortunate as to what a few honest words of such a simple question can so easily close down and otherwise slam the doors shut on a given topic. Why exactly is there so much fear of the truth? You flatter yourself and are clueless how mission teams function. There was nothing sinister or odd about getting a quick-look image out, well, quickly. You saw the quick-look Mercury images and then saw the images which had a time to get color processed like the Phobos image was, and thought something just HAD to me amiss. You are what is amiss! And if you think that Mercury being .36 AU to the sun should look like coal, then you sort of really don't get albedo, nor solar output nor physics in general. Go back to your fantasy writing and leave science to the rest of us. Even I reprocessed those damn few MESSENGER color images of Mercury, and as such they looked at least ten fold better and offered loads more informative mineralogy data than anything team Messenger had to offer at the time of long since, and to think I didn't even have to artificially fudge one damn thing. There was however a rather huge lack of initial color saturation and of not hardly 10% the worth of dynamic range to begin with. Can you explain why? BTW, coal has an albedo of roughly 0.1, and the Mercury average albedo of 0.12 is only 20% less than being dark as coal. Other than a vie of its dark side, I didn't see much of anything even remotely close to an average of 0.12 (12% reflective), unless I cranked up the PhotoShop contrast in order to compensate for the otherwise **** poor DR worth of those MESSENGER images of Mercury. I guess those NASA mirror optics were actually so downright crappy, is why those images of Mercury turned out looking so pastel and otherwise pathetic. I've got a cell phone camera that would have accomplished better color saturation and superior DR/contrast. .. - Brad Guth |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
On Apr 10, 10:52 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Apr 9, 5:38 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php Pat Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast. Yes Guth, it sort of looks like the top of your head... Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or much less that of dynamic range. I wonder what the problem is, as to why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal. Bullcrap! The first few images from Mercury were B&W and you bitched. The next images from Mercury were color and just fine. Had the imaging team not done a quick-look and waited until color images had come out you would have had nothing to bitch about. Back to your stall... Is that why you and others of your silly kind still can't post a good MESSENGER frame of color saturation and of a full DR worthy image of Mercury? .. - Brad Guth |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
On Apr 10, 5:27*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:59 am, Eric Chomko wrote: On Apr 10, 1:16 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 9, 2:38 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php Pat Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast.. Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or much less that of dynamic range. *I wonder what the problem is, as to why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal. . - Brad Guth Hmmm, how unfortunate as to what a few honest words of such a simple question can so easily close down and otherwise slam the doors shut on a given topic. Why exactly is there so much fear of the truth? You flatter yourself and are clueless how mission teams function. There was nothing sinister or odd about getting a quick-look image out, well, quickly. You saw the quick-look Mercury images and then saw the images which had a time to get color processed like the Phobos image was, and thought something just HAD to me amiss. You are what is amiss! And if you think that Mercury being .36 AU to the sun should look like coal, then you sort of really don't get albedo, nor solar output nor physics in general. Go back to your fantasy writing and leave science to the rest of us. Even I reprocessed those damn few MESSENGER color images of Mercury, and as such they looked at least ten fold better and offered loads more informative mineralogy data than anything team Messenger had to offer at the time of long since, and to think I didn't even have to artificially fudge one damn thing. So , what are you sceptical of then? There was however a rather huge lack of initial color saturation and of not hardly 10% the worth of dynamic range to begin with. *Can you explain why? Because the first images were processed very quickly. Brad you do understand that all space images come down in black and white (grayscale) and then the color gets added later right? Sometimes even false color (vegetation done in red, for example) is provided to better illustrate difference. Another example is making ice blue and clouds white rather than making the visible white for both even though that is what cloulds and ice look like to us in the visible spectrum. They can exploit the thermal differences and also use reflectance, etc. BTW, coal has an albedo of roughly 0.1, and the Mercury average albedo of 0.12 *is only 20% less than being dark as coal. *Other than a vie Coal has an albedo of 0.1 from what distance? of its dark side, I didn't see much of anything even remotely close to an average of 0.12 (12% reflective), unless I cranked up the PhotoShop contrast in order to compensate for the otherwise **** poor DR worth of those MESSENGER images of Mercury. There was nothing wrong with the MESSENGER images. Did you see the previous Mercury mission (Mariner 10) images? Did you compare those to MESSENGER's images? I guess those NASA mirror optics were actually so downright crappy, is why those images of Mercury turned out looking so pastel and otherwise pathetic. *I've got a cell phone camera that would have accomplished better color saturation and superior DR/contrast. Right. Did ever consider why Mercury would look pastel and washed out? Did you expect a vibrate red, orange, green or yellow like we see from Jupiter and Saturn? What color is Venus, Brad?? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
On Apr 10, 5:31*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:52 am, Eric Chomko wrote: On Apr 9, 5:38 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php Pat Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast. Yes Guth, it sort of looks like the top of your head... Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or much less that of dynamic range. *I wonder what the problem is, as to why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal. Bullcrap! The first few images from Mercury were B&W and you bitched. The next images from Mercury were color and just fine. Had the imaging team not done a quick-look and waited until color images had come out you would have had nothing to bitch about. Back to your stall... Is that why you and others of your silly kind still can't post a good MESSENGER frame of color saturation and of a full DR worthy image of Mercury? Mercury is the closest planet to the sun and it has no atmosphere. I suspect that the yellowish tint is mostly due to being so damn close to a G-2 star! Otherwise it would be sort white-ish gray like our moon. What you want from images from Mercury is not true science. Hell you want a pink false-color image? You can't even add false color to the damn thing because it has no atmosphere and lacks any serious temperal differences other than night and day side and that varies so slowly you can't even get a composite like they get from the much faster spinning gas planets. Sorry to disappoint, Brad, but what you see in Mercury is all that there is. Don't blame the MESSGENGER. hahahahahahahahaha |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Phobos in color and 3D
On Apr 11, 11:59 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Apr 10, 5:31 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 10, 10:52 am, Eric Chomko wrote: On Apr 9, 5:38 pm, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery wrote: New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php Pat Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast. Yes Guth, it sort of looks like the top of your head... Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or much less that of dynamic range. I wonder what the problem is, as to why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal. Bullcrap! The first few images from Mercury were B&W and you bitched. The next images from Mercury were color and just fine. Had the imaging team not done a quick-look and waited until color images had come out you would have had nothing to bitch about. Back to your stall... Is that why you and others of your silly kind still can't post a good MESSENGER frame of color saturation and of a full DR worthy image of Mercury? Mercury is the closest planet to the sun and it has no atmosphere. I suspect that the yellowish tint is mostly due to being so damn close to a G-2 star! Otherwise it would be sort white-ish gray like our moon. Good grief, our moon at 11% reflective is NOT "sort white-ish gray". What you want from images from Mercury is not true science. Hell you want a pink false-color image? You can't even add false color to the damn thing because it has no atmosphere and lacks any serious temperal differences other than night and day side and that varies so slowly you can't even get a composite like they get from the much faster spinning gas planets. Sorry to disappoint, Brad, but what you see in Mercury is all that there is. Don't blame the MESSGENGER. hahahahahahahahaha I can't even believe you'd be such a certified born-again LLPOF, of such a bigoted brown-nosed minion clown, that you clearly are. Hitler was none better, but then we supposedly got rid of that *******. .. - Brad Guth |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Phobos Question | heksie | UK Astronomy | 6 | January 26th 08 08:37 PM |
ASTRO: And yet again a M27 in color (my very first color image!) | DvandenH | Astro Pictures | 10 | September 21st 07 10:23 PM |
MWBR 2.71 K linked to color Color of the Universe is silverywhite like the element plutonium (JohnsHopkins) | Archimedes Plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 3 | March 25th 04 07:17 AM |
Investigate Phobos | George Prehmus | Research | 1 | July 13th 03 03:00 PM |