|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Jay
Jay Windley wrote: He simplifies away many of the problems of digital imaging. He applies basically ad hoc methods (or uses others' data to which ad hoc methods have been applied) without justifying or explaining them. And then when the actual observations fail to match up to his simplified version, he cries foul. He doesn't for a minute let you think that his explanation of the imaging problem might be wrong. Your argument is identical with Hoaglands, but with opposite conclusions proving how much of a kook you are. That's exactly how Hoagland wants you to approach his material. He wants you to skim it and come away with the notion that with all that fancy language and "analysis", he must have something to say. Exactly like your 'fancy language image analysis'. Oh, sure -- he reports some legitimate findings every so often, The kook admits that Hoagland can be correct? just so he can't be totally dismissed. Whats the matter, the blue sky getting in the way of your pink Martians? But the stuff he claims as exclusively his turns out to be smoke and mirrors. Looking into the kook mirror I see. When you dig, you find that the "analyst" claiming false-color skies has taken the raw data through each filter, obtained from NASA, and tried to duplicate NASA's photo reconstruction. Every image taken by Viking and released by NASA shows not only a blue sky, but they do not have the exceptionally poor quality resolution and contradictory colors released by the current mission. He has the green component (535 nm) and the blue component (482 nm). But instead of a visible red component (ca. 650 nm) he has used the near-infrared component (753 nm). Instead of trying to reconstruct a defensible approximation of the visible spectrum (which can be -- and commonly is -- done using the first three wavelengths I mentioned), he has merely "promoted" the infrared to the red. A filter centered at 753 nm will not have a bandwidth sufficient also to pick up visible red at 650 nm, which is the wavelength corresponding to the three-color reconstruction method the author has used, i.e., the "red" in Photoshop. NASA would have been faced with a similar problem: how to turn infrared into red. As has been repeated said, getting true color images from random, exotic slices of the spectrum -- visible and otherwise -- is very difficult. Even the standard RGB color system doesn't always get it right, even for Earth's sky. Whatever algorithim NASA used to generate a red-end signal from the infrared obviously "pinkified" the sky too much. Obviously not in other images released by NASA and shown at international conferences. Below is more fancy foot work by this obvious kook. But to say this is evidence they are "lying" about the color of the sky is pure garbage. You still don't explain why the Martian sky is blue in the Viking images according to your pink Martian 'wavelengths' bs. NASA doesn't claim the color in that picture is spot-on. Yes they do, in fact they claim the pictures to the most accurate possible in every image released, funny the colors of the sky on Mars go from orange, to dusty red, to white, to blue, to dusty yellow, depending on which web site has 'corrected' the images. Nor in any of the photos where L2 data has been transformed into visible red. The author goes on to argue that the sky has been painted over in the image, with some false color. No that was your argument. You said 'wavelengths' make everything appear pink on Mars. But when faced with the released image of the blue sky, you now claim that this is 'an argument that the image was painted over'. Stay on the same page if possible please. He notes that the noise in the original images hasn't been preserved in the final image. The original data is obviously noise, regardless of where it comes from. It's not inappropriate simply to filter the noise in the original signals and then do the color correction from there. That *is* an adjustment to the image, but it's not a lie. Is the image *more* correct with noise in it? More fancy footwork in order to avoid the inescapable conclusion. Hoagland's "wrong lander color" arguments are just the same. As is your pathetic attempts to 'explain away' the blue sky on Mars? His comparison to the shot taken in the lab uses the same red, green, and infrared bands, and is therefore not really a true-color image. The shot in the lab is not a 'true' color image? What a kook. It's pinkified because the 650 nm signal had to be inferred from 752 nm data. That's why it's labelled an "approximate" true color image. It is exactly as I said -- the photograph you're seeing is taken by a camera seeing a different spectrum that what your eyes naturally see. http://www.enterprisemission.com/ima...t/mercolor.jpg Now the question is not why different versions of the photos are available from NASA or from any other source or why you can plausibly create these different versions. Oh ofcourse not, another that doesn't compute with your pink Martians must not be considered. The question is whether NASA is *deliberately* doing this in order to deceive. And what other purpose would turning up the red filter acomplish other than to decieve? And all this time we thought Martians would look green, but Jay has corrected us to see the proper pink pigmentation. The question of filters and wavelengths is sufficiently hairy in this imaging context to allow room for interpretation, for differences of opinion, and for equally justifiable technical approaches in different cases. Ah now you aren't so sure about Martians being pink after all. In fact, it's sufficiently hairy in normal Kodak terrestrial photography to make this a concern for photographers trying to get color reproduction right. But Hoagland doesn't buy any of this. To him it *has* to be deliberate deception. Yes well why don't you write into Hoagland and explain to him why Martians are pink instead of green. I am sure you will give him something to laugh about. When you study Hoagland's past, you see why he leaps to that conclusion. Again its not about science anymore, its about the person. Kook tactic number 1. With Hoagland it's all about making NASA look bad. That is a lie, NASA looks bad without any outside help. NASA committed the unpardonable sin of failing to realize Richard Hoagland's genius when Hoagland was working closer with them, and now Hoagland is making them pay. Hoagland demands to be recognized, and if he can't do it within NASA he'll do it against NASA. The only way Hoagland can make the "NASA is lying" hypothesis stick is if he makes it seem like reconstructing these photos is child's play, that any yutz with Photoshop and a spare afternoon can do it. That way NASA's "failure" to have One True Color Scheme seems suspicious. Its not suspicious in the least, NASA has informed everyone that 'getting accurate color images is very difficult, even though a color palette would serve no useful purpose'. But that only washes if Hoagland's readers don't know anything about how true color is approximated in imaging using "slices" taken at key points along the visible spectrum, or how difficult it is to get accurate visible spectrum data when some of those samples are taken from outside the visible range. We need those wavelengths for science, but they aren't the best for National Geographic covers. Your pathetic lesson is beginning to sound more and more anxious, I wonder why? | And to borrow from one of my other posts: Why don't they have a color | palette on all landers? Spirit and Opportunity have color palettes, No they don't. but they don't appear in every photograph They don't appear in any image whatsoever. because you can't simultaneously point the camera at the palette and at what you're interested in. Well that explains why NASA said, a 'color palette would serve no useful purpose', and now that Jay has clarified for all to see why Mars is more accurately pink, we should all disregard those blue sky images as faulty science, and all those websites with images showing Mars with a green and grey landscapes to be deliberate hoaxes. Ofcourse don't forget the recent image of Mars taken by Hubble which shows a blue atmosphere and white polar caps, Jay has now informed us that those are 'faulty' color images. What a kook! |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
dude wrote:
I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color palette on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of the palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the palette would tell us the equivalent back on earth. Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end the debate? Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration targets for its "Pancam". See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html. -- Odysseus |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Odysseus" wrote in message ... dude wrote: I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color palette on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of the palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the palette would tell us the equivalent back on earth. Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end the debate? Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration targets for its "Pancam". See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html. And just so the mad "scientist" can understand: "How do we make sure the colors are correct? The MER team has taken a two-part approach to this problem. First, we calibrated the cameras before launch to determine how each filter will respond to sunlight reflected off Martian rocks and soils. Second, because we don't know how or if the cameras ' response will change after the turmoil of launch and landing on Mars, we carry with us a calibration "target" that has known grayscale and color properties. By imaging the target and getting its color balance correct, we will be assured that subsequent images of the landing site will have their colors properly displayed." Another big lie of the assclowns of the world exposed. Everything else is just nitpicking. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Wally Anglesea" wrote in message news "Odysseus" wrote in message ... dude wrote: I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color palette on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of the palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the palette would tell us the equivalent back on earth. Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end the debate? Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration targets for its "Pancam". See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html. And just so the mad "scientist" can understand: "How do we make sure the colors are correct? The MER team has taken a two-part approach to this problem. First, we calibrated the cameras before launch to determine how each filter will respond to sunlight reflected off Martian rocks and soils. Second, because we don't know how or if the cameras ' response will change after the turmoil of launch and landing on Mars, we carry with us a calibration "target" that has known grayscale and color properties. By imaging the target and getting its color balance correct, we will be assured that subsequent images of the landing site will have their colors properly displayed." Another big lie of the assclowns of the world exposed. Everything else is just nitpicking. Then what is the debate about? with color calibration doesn't that end the whole debate??? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"dude" wrote in message ... "Wally Anglesea" wrote in message news "Odysseus" wrote in message ... dude wrote: I seem to remember that the Mars lander in the mid 90s had a color palette on it to compare the colors with. Since we knew the color value of the palette it didn't matter what white looked like on Mars because the palette would tell us the equivalent back on earth. Don't the modern landers have something similar? Wouldn't that end the debate? Sure they do. A "MarsDials" and a mini-DVD, provided by the Planetary Society, are attached to each rover and include colour-calibration targets for its "Pancam". See http://www.planetary.org/mars/tpr_marsdial.html. And just so the mad "scientist" can understand: "How do we make sure the colors are correct? The MER team has taken a two-part approach to this problem. First, we calibrated the cameras before launch to determine how each filter will respond to sunlight reflected off Martian rocks and soils. Second, because we don't know how or if the cameras ' response will change after the turmoil of launch and landing on Mars, we carry with us a calibration "target" that has known grayscale and color properties. By imaging the target and getting its color balance correct, we will be assured that subsequent images of the landing site will have their colors properly displayed." Another big lie of the assclowns of the world exposed. Everything else is just nitpicking. Then what is the debate about? with color calibration doesn't that end the whole debate??? Mad ":scientist" isn't interested in debate, or science, or the truth. There is no debate. He just has a huge conspiracy chip on his shoulder. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Windley" wrote in message ... "dude" wrote in message ... | | I just hope you don't buy the "Magic Bullet" theory. That would | make me nervous...... But you seem to be trying to change the subject and talk about some other conspiracy theory, and trying to put words in my mouth about it. That makes *me* nervous. I'm not about to delve into the Warren Commission and lone gunmen. Sorry, I was just throwing in some fun stuff there. I didn't really want to go off on a tangent... | To make a valid argument you should list what | Hoagland says is the reason for the mismatch in color Hoagland says the reason is because NASA is lying and secretly manipulating photographs behind the scenes. Does he have any proof? No, he just has a straw man argument based on ramshackle attempts at image analysis. He simplifies away many of the problems of digital imaging. Would including a regular analog camera help at all for just getting the Martian sky color? He applies basically ad hoc methods (or uses others' data to which ad hoc methods have been applied) without justifying or explaining them. And then when the actual observations fail to match up to his simplified version, he cries foul. He doesn't for a minute let you think that his explanation of the imaging problem might be wrong. | I've looked at his website for only a short time and don't feel | like digging through his explanations.. That's exactly how Hoagland wants you to approach his material. He wants you to skim it and come away with the notion that with all that fancy language and "analysis", he must have something to say. Oh, sure -- he reports some legitimate findings every so often, just so he can't be totally dismissed. But the stuff he claims as exclusively his turns out to be smoke and mirrors. When you dig, you find that the "analyst" claiming false-color skies has taken the raw data through each filter, obtained from NASA, and tried to duplicate NASA's photo reconstruction. He has the green component (535 nm) and the blue component (482 nm). But instead of a visible red component (ca. 650 nm) he has used the near-infrared component (753 nm). Instead of trying to reconstruct a defensible approximation of the visible spectrum (which can be -- and commonly is -- done using the first three wavelengths I mentioned), he has merely "promoted" the infrared to the red. A filter centered at 753 nm will not have a bandwidth sufficient also to pick up visible red at 650 nm, which is the wavelength corresponding to the three-color reconstruction method the author has used, i.e., the "red" in Photoshop. NASA would have been faced with a similar problem: how to turn infrared into red. As has been repeated said, getting true color images from random, exotic slices of the spectrum -- visible and otherwise -- is very difficult. Even the standard RGB color system doesn't always get it right, even for Earth's sky. Whatever algorithim NASA used to generate a red-end signal from the infrared obviously "pinkified" the sky too much. But to say this is evidence they are "lying" about the color of the sky is pure garbage. NASA doesn't claim the color in that picture is spot-on. Nor in any of the photos where L2 data has been transformed into visible red. The author goes on to argue that the sky has been painted over in the image, with some false color. He notes that the noise in the original images hasn't been preserved in the final image. The original data is obviously noise, regardless of where it comes from. It's not inappropriate simply to filter the noise in the original signals and then do the color correction from there. That *is* an adjustment to the image, but it's not a lie. Is the image *more* correct with noise in it? Hoagland's "wrong lander color" arguments are just the same. His comparison to the shot taken in the lab uses the same red, green, and infrared bands, and is therefore not really a true-color image. It's pinkified because the 650 nm signal had to be inferred from 752 nm data. That's why it's labelled an "approximate" true color image. It is exactly as I said -- the photograph you're seeing is taken by a camera seeing a different spectrum that what your eyes naturally see. http://www.enterprisemission.com/ima...t/mercolor.jpg Now the question is not why different versions of the photos are available from NASA or from any other source or why you can plausibly create these different versions. The question is whether NASA is *deliberately* doing this in order to deceive. The question of filters and wavelengths is sufficiently hairy in this imaging context to allow room for interpretation, for differences of opinion, and for equally justifiable technical approaches in different cases. In fact, it's sufficiently hairy in normal Kodak terrestrial photography to make this a concern for photographers trying to get color reproduction right. But Hoagland doesn't buy any of this. To him it *has* to be deliberate deception. When you study Hoagland's past, you see why he leaps to that conclusion. With Hoagland it's all about making NASA look bad. NASA committed the unpardonable sin of failing to realize Richard Hoagland's genius when Hoagland was working closer with them, and now Hoagland is making them pay. Hoagland demands to be recognized, and if he can't do it within NASA he'll do it against NASA. The only way Hoagland can make the "NASA is lying" hypothesis stick is if he makes it seem like reconstructing these photos is child's play, that any yutz with Photoshop and a spare afternoon can do it. That way NASA's "failure" to have One True Color Scheme seems suspicious. But that only washes if Hoagland's readers don't know anything about how true color is approximated in imaging using "slices" taken at key points along the visible spectrum, or how difficult it is to get accurate visible spectrum data when some of those samples are taken from outside the visible range. We need those wavelengths for science, but they aren't the best for National Geographic covers. | And to borrow from one of my other posts: Why don't they have a color | palette on all landers? Spirit and Opportunity have color palettes, but they don't appear in every photograph because you can't simultaneously point the camera at the palette and at what you're interested in. But since there is a palette can't they just calibrate the camera and go or are you saying for the most accurate interpretations they would need that in every shot? Thanks for the informative response though, they can't accuse you of just being a blind debunker now......... -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"dude" wrote in message ... | | Then what is the debate about? with color calibration doesn't that | end the whole debate??? You would think. Let me try to state the problem a little more clearly. The cameras on spacecraft are more generally constructed than cameras we commonly use. We've discovered that we can approximate nearly every color the human eye can see using different amounts of only three colors: certain wavelengths each of red, green, and blue. And so we can create film or other kinds of light-recording technology that respond only to those wavelengths, greatly simplifying color photography. Each "component" is represented as an intensity -- a sort of black and white photograph. If we color each of those component images with its original color -- e.g., the data from 650 nm in a certain shade of red -- we can get back the original colors, or close enough. But for science, which is what these spacecraft cameras are designed for, we want more than just those three wavelengths for research. We want to record light not only in the visible range, but in the infrared and ultraviolet as well. So we have filters that just let in those wavelengths. We get intensity maps for them too. But for those wavelengths that are outside the visible spectrum, can we use them to try to make an image that contains the colors as we see them with our eyes? The answer is a definite maybe. Some of the photos that NASA has released don't have a visible red component. They have an infrared component instead. NASA tries to infer from the infrared component what the red component, 100 nanometers shorter, would look like. The author that Hoagland quotes just read back the 750 nm data at 650 nm with no correction. No matter what NASA might have done right or wrong in transforming infrared to red, that author is wrong -- he made no correction whatsoever. NASA knows that no amount of computer mumbo-jumbo will turn data from 750 nm (near infrared) to perfectly faithful data at 650 nm (visible red), so they label the photos as "approximate true color". There are different ways to try to reconstruct a true color photograph from data taken at "weird" wavelengths, and none of them is perfect. This isn't generaly a problem for consumer photography because the films we use have been thoroughly standardized for visible light photography. But scientists will, for example, combine data from different wavelengths together in the computer and come up with an image that isn't exactly a color image, but which reveals things of scientific interest, like what the chemical composition of a certain rock is. That's not a "true color" image because the colors are telling you different information -- the colors in these images are the results of a formula that combines different wavelength data. "True color" is any image that tries -- however ineptly -- to get to what you would see with your natural eyes. But you can't see in the infrared, so it wouldn't be fair to "shift" that infrared data into the visible spectrum. But the data is near enough to the visible spectrum that a good guess may come of it. I bring up Hoagland's past not to make the argument that he's a crackpot and therefore -- without further investigation -- his ideas should be discounted. I bring it up to explain why Hoagland is so unwilling to sympathize with the problems of creating true-color images from data that is not within the visible spectrum. For data that was taken in the "standard" wavelengths, the color calibration chart should be sufficient to assure us that a reconstructed photo is appropriate. But because the calibration system behaves slightly differently for non-visible light, it's not a straightforward tweaking of the knob to get a faithfully colored image. Hoagland has been out to get NASA for many years. This explains why he is making such a big deal out of this. Rather than acknowledge that the problem is not a simple, straightforward combination of raw data elements that can go wrong or be subject to different schools of thought, he goes right for the jugular and accuses NASA of deliberately attempting to deceive people. His bread and butter for the past several years has been the Face on Mars, transparent domes on the Moon, and other accusations of widespread coverup at NASA. His arguments have to be taken with a grain of salt. -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"dude" wrote in message ... | | Would including a regular analog camera help at all for just getting the | Martian sky color? Possibly, but even regular analog cameras require color correction. There's a funny story about that from the old Star Trek series. They were doing makeup tests for the Orion dancing girl (the green chick) and the lab was unwittingly "correcting" her skin tone, infuriating the makeup artists. If you go back to the shot comparing the lander in the lab with the lander on the Mars surface, you can see that the strap is the wrong color in the onsite shot. You know it's supposed to be a certain color, and you can tweak the knobs until it comes out that color. But the problem is that the data that is supposed to render it the correct color -- that energy at 650 nm -- simply isn't there. Making the strap yellow (or whatever it's supposed to be) by the calibration chart biases the whole image uniformly. You haven't really accounted for that missing data. You've just adjusted the tint knob Another bit of movie magic: Back when we used blue screens to make traveling mattes, part of the process involved removing the blue film element -- which of course was perfectly white where the blue was and was thus useful in making the mattes. But to get the blue data back in the foreground image without spoiling the separation, the green component was printed with blue printing lights, and this approximated the original foreground colors. The green element would be black where the blue had been in the original scene, so it wouldn't print. But the colors would never come out exactly they way they were supposed to. You can't substitute green for blue without wrecking something. But it was deemed close enough for the general public, and you just knew not to allow certain colors in the foreground elements. | But since there is a palette can't they just calibrate the camera and go or | are you saying for the most accurate interpretations they would need that in | every shot? To be scrupulously accurate we'd need it in every shot, because the incident wavelengths can change over time. Light on earth changes wavelength between sunny and overcast for example. Most people just aren't that picky about exact color. It's only important if you're trying to get perfect visible light shots. That's what most of the public is interested in, but that's not necessarily what the scientists want to see. They're happy working with the raw elements. | Thanks for the informative response though, they can't accuse you of just | being a blind debunker now......... You're welcome. I may be wrong on occasion, but I'm not blind. -- | The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
s.com... Jay Jay Windley wrote: He simplifies away many of the problems of digital imaging. He applies basically ad hoc methods (or uses others' data to which ad hoc methods have been applied) without justifying or explaining them. And then when the actual observations fail to match up to his simplified version, he cries foul. He doesn't for a minute let you think that his explanation of the imaging problem might be wrong. Your argument is identical with Hoaglands, but with opposite conclusions proving how much of a kook you are. No, this does not "prove" anything. Nor does your incessant yelling of, "kook" prove anything. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"dude" wrote in message
... Would including a regular analog camera help at all for just getting the Martian sky color? They might have a heck of a time finding a 24Hour Photo on Mars to develop the film. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA is coming along just fine now. | Cardman | Policy | 2 | July 8th 04 07:33 PM |
Pres. Kerry's NASA | ed kyle | Policy | 354 | March 11th 04 07:05 PM |
Space Access Update #102 2/9/04 | Henry Vanderbilt | Policy | 1 | February 10th 04 03:18 PM |
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 4th 03 10:14 PM |
NASA Testing K9 Rover In Granite Quarry For Future Missions | Ron Baalke | Technology | 0 | October 31st 03 04:45 PM |