Red Dragon Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Are you sure that's a picture of mars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keldyn Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 It would seem that 30 years ago NASA was not ready for the world to see green things on Mars: Those green markings are nothing more than darker zones of rock which are periodically covered and uncovered during seasonal dust storms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted January 15, 2004 Author Reviews Share Posted January 15, 2004 Those green markings are nothing more than darker zones of rock which are periodically covered and uncovered during seasonal dust storms. that "may" be true but unless people have been there you can't say for sure and yes that is a picture of mars, from what has been said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartan Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Interesting about the sky though, cause if you look at the latest panarama picture available at the mars site, they have edited the sky to be all one color....meaning no hues or variations like in a normal sky, also the horizon is jagged in places also indicating a poor edit. Now I'm not saying they are covering anything up or anything, most likely they simply poorly cleaned up the image.....still it is a little strange why they felt it was needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeR Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 this has got to be the dumbest thread ever.....get a freaking telescope for $200 and look at Mars...you will see its RED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotabigtruck Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Two words: color correction. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perochan Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 this has got to be the dumbest thread ever.....get a freaking telescope for $200 and look at Mars...you will see its RED. give me $200 and I will prove it to you. If not, STFU and let ppl post their thought. :devil: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeR Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 give me $200 and I will prove it to you. If not, STFU and let ppl post their thought. :devil: no I won't waste of Neowin bandwith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tartan Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Interesting about the sky though, cause if you look at the latest panarama picture available at the mars site, they have edited the sky to be all one color....meaning no hues or variations like in a normal sky, also the horizon is jagged in places also indicating a poor edit. Now I'm not saying they are covering anything up or anything, most likely they simply poorly cleaned up the image.....still it is a little strange why they felt it was needed. Example of image. If you run color picker over the skyline, it's all exactly the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poind Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Suppose it's debatable exactly how things would appear to the human eye if on Mars. NASA has nothing to gain by altering colors. The planet can have things appear red due to dust, soil, reflections, general atmosphere, etc. If you run images through an "earth-assumption" based color-corrector, you may well get less red in the sky. Doesn't mean that's what you'd see if you were there personally. Indeed, underwater photos can be color-corrected and appear much more "normal", even as things would appear if taken out of the water, but due to color affected by water/light refraction, things when actually viewed underwater can have significant blue haze unless a flash is used. Suppose I'd simply say it might be interesting if a flash is ever used on various Mars photos to counteract other effects likely occurring. For the most part, the reddish tint you see is very probably how things would appear to your own eye should you set foot on where and when the pictures are taken. Again, there would be zero NASA interest in distorting photos being presented as other than how they were taken, especially when it comes to color balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted January 15, 2004 Author Reviews Share Posted January 15, 2004 Oh and this is also interesting source got friends in an observatory ? punch in that long/lat co-ordinates and see the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrk Reviews Posted January 15, 2004 Author Reviews Share Posted January 15, 2004 Suppose it's debatable exactly how things would appear to the human eye if on Mars. NASA has nothing to gain by altering colors.The planet can have things appear red due to dust, soil, reflections, general atmosphere, etc. If you run images through an "earth-assumption" based color-corrector, you may well get less red in the sky. Doesn't mean that's what you'd see if you were there personally. Indeed, underwater photos can be color-corrected and appear much more "normal", even as things would appear if taken out of the water, but due to color affected by water/light refraction, things when actually viewed underwater can have significant blue haze unless a flash is used. Suppose I'd simply say it might be interesting if a flash is ever used on various Mars photos to counteract other effects likely occurring. For the most part, the reddish tint you see is very probably how things would appear to your own eye should you set foot on where and when the pictures are taken. Again, there would be zero NASA interest in distorting photos being presented as other than how they were taken, especially when it comes to color balance. how can you say there is "nothing" nasa has to hide from us by altering pictures if you dont work at nasa to veruify this :p It's the same with any gov organisation, there's always information to hide to keep public eye out of a critical matter be it national security or ground breaking evidence that requires more investigation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leedogg Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Questions answered HERE The Pancam does not make a color picture directly. Instead, it records light versus dark in shades of gray. As with other CCD cameras used in high-end astrophotography, such as on the Hubble Space Telescope, a series of filters are applied to gather multiple images that are then blended together.In the most basic application of this process, three images are gathered of a scene, one each recording red, green and blue light. Those are then put together. Really cool read. The camera taking these shots is a 1 Megapixel camera!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linsook Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Questions answered HEREReally cool read.? The camera taking these shots is a 1 Megapixel camera!!! hmmm i saw on discovery about the cameras...... each ccd is 1 megapixel.... they have hundreds which take individual pics.. so its #ccd's * 1 megapixel or did i hear that all wrong? edit: i am wrong.... its panoramic abilty "allows the cameras to generate stunning panoramic image mosaics as large as 4,000 pixels high by 24,000 pixels around, equivalent to a 96 megapixel image." so yea, it is just a 1 megapixel ccd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keldyn Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Oh and this is also interestinghttp://marsanomalyresearch.com/2001/20/ima...erlakes-80k.jpg source got friends in an observatory ? punch in that long/lat co-ordinates and see the above lol It is far more likely that what you are seeing in those pictures are nothing more than silt beds. Any water found to be on mars is locked up in its polar caps. The "creeks" and "river beds" are probably left over from glacial ice flows that have melted. Scientists believe that at one point in time there may have once been water running on Mars surface but it has long since vanished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimplyPotatoes Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Oh and this is also interestinghttp://marsanomalyresearch.com/2001/20/ima...erlakes-80k.jpg source got friends in an observatory ? punch in that long/lat co-ordinates and see the above how did they get that from http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/mc09.html ... and how can you see a "hidden creek system" lol :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoove Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 Ofcourse NASA has enough reason to hide or cover up things for the public. In order to get enough future funds for next projects this mission better be a succes for NASA. What if it turns out that nothing can be found on Mars and that there are billions of dollars wasted on a mission that didn't give us any extra information besides the info we already had? Bush announced extra funds for more (NASA) projects, in order to promise he needs money, A LOT of money. Showing nice results of the Mars mission helps alot in getting more funds. I'm not saying that NASA is covering up evidence, but don't say they have no reason to do that. It's all about the money! That's reason enough to cover up things that might have a bad influence on the money you get. Is it ethical correct......... probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poind Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 how can you say there is "nothing" nasa has to hide from us by altering pictures if you dont work at nasa to veruify this :pIt's the same with any gov organisation, there's always information to hide to keep public eye out of a critical matter be it national security or ground breaking evidence that requires more investigation Alrighty then.... How would NASA benefit from simply altering color balance of photos taken? Also, *were* they to alter color balance, are there not a significant number of scientists who would be able to discredit things across any number of organizations/countries whereby NASA credibility would be blown to heck were it found photos were knowingly manipulated? There is nothing NASA would have to gain by altering color balance of photos, and one heck of a lot it could lose should such be proven/discovered at any time. Anything NASA might have to "hide" for "national security" you're plain and simple not going to hear of. Photos released to the public are expected to be reviewed by anyone around the world, and they'd be idiots to knowingly manipulate things like color balance, from which I can imagine nothing they'd have to gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts