Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Science

First Stereograms of Mars from Spirit 402

Posted by michael
from the gladly-the-cross-eyed-bear dept.
An anonymous reader writes "NASA has made the first stereo image pairs from Spirit available. I've made stereo anaglyphs and arranged the full-size images side-by-side for stereo viewing. These are from the low-res black and white hazard avoidance camera, but still very cool. Anxiously awaiting the first stereo pairs from the panoramic cameras!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Stereograms of Mars from Spirit

Comments Filter:
  • by Taboo (263223) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:10AM (#7878143)
    I've been crossing my eyes for half an hour and I still can't see any damn beagle!
    • by deek (22697) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:49AM (#7878945) Homepage Journal
      • I've been crossing my eyes for half an hour and I still can't see any damn beagle!
      That's because it's a sailboat! [imdb.com] ... deek
  • But how do I get this to work with Maestro?
    • Re:Maestro (Score:3, Informative)

      by LiquidCoooled (634315)
      you dont yet, they will release detailed imagery and data updates packages as it they are constructed.

      Check back on their website - they estimate about one update per week.
  • Extremely cool (Score:5, Informative)

    by ebob (220513) * on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:15AM (#7878173) Homepage
    The parallel approach works for me and it's very cool. Much better than the ugly red/blue tint that you get with the anaglyphs. The cross-eyed approach just makes my eyes hurt.

    You just have to let your eyes relax and just sort of nudge the two images into convergence.

    The only problem is convincing your friends and family that it works and trying to instruct them how to do it.

    • I always thought the letting-your-eyes-relax (vergence movement) so that the two images overlap binocularly (a la random dot stereograms) WAS the cross-eyed approach. But you seem to describe it as the "parallel approach" Can you elaborate?
      • Re:Extremely cool (Score:2, Interesting)

        by FlunkedFlank (737955)
        Yeah, I always thought that too! The interesting thing about this set of images and that once you can see the parallel images in 3D you can look over a bit and see the cross-eyed images as well, and they're inverted 3D. (furthest point closest.) Seeing that made me realize the difference between the two techniques: the ordering of the images. In the parallel technique I think the proper image is going to each eye (right to right, left to left), but in the cross-eyed approach it's reversed. (I think, anyway,
      • Re:Extremely cool (Score:5, Informative)

        by helix400 (558178) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:44AM (#7878380) Journal
        If you put your finger 3 inches from your eyes, and stare at it, your eyes will look and feel crossed. That's how it will sorta feel if you do the cross-eyed method. If you stare far away, say, at a distant landmark, your eyes do the opposite of crossing, they spread out. This is sorta how parallel feels.

        For more detail, the parallel is where your left eye looks at the left image, and your right eye looks at the right image (which is why they call it parallel, if you were to draw lines from your eyes to the picture they're looking at, you'd have to parallel lines).

        The cross-eyed is the opposite. If you were to draw lines from eyes to picture, you'd see them cross.

        In my opinion, cross-eyed method is easiest. If you can cross you eyes on two images, and you have enough eye control to force one "phantom" image to lay on top of another "phantom" image (from your other eye), bingo, it'll automatically work. It also has the nice bonus of being able to "touch" what you see. It also lets you cross-eye stuff many many inches apart, while parallel only lets you do maybe 3 inches max.
      • Re:Extremely cool (Score:5, Interesting)

        by YU Nicks NE Way (129084) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:45AM (#7878388)
        Most people preferentially free fuse cross-eyed: the right eye focuses on the left-hand image and vice versa. Some people, however, can free fuse in parallel: the right eye focuses on the right-hand image, the left eye on the left-hand image. Colleagues of mine who could do both told me that parallel fusion gave them less of a headache than cross fusion.

      • I'm going to gauchely reply to myself and say you must be right....doing the magic eye style reconvergence thing looks MUCH better on the second and third images (makes more optical "sense") -- the ones the page descibes as intended for "parallel approach" viewing---than on the first two, which the page describes as intended for "cross-eyed approach" viewing. I must have had my L/R info switched. And, on introspection, it makes sense that magic eye approach involves refocusing past the plane of the pictu
      • Re:Extremely cool (Score:3, Informative)

        by EvanED (569694)
        There are good explanations here, but a picture is worth a thousand words, so... http://www.vision3d.com/3views.html
        • Re:Extremely cool (Score:3, Insightful)

          by uberdave (526529)
          Thanks for that link [vision3d.com]. It has taught me how to view cross eyed stereograms. It is a little wobbly and out of focus for me at first, but after about 5-10 seconds (and getting shorter with practice) the images come into focus and I get a nice 3d image.

          I prefer the parallel viewing method. However that method has an built in weakness. Images can only have a separation of about 50-60mm. Wider than that, and the eyes have to look beyond parallel. The cross eyed version does not have this weakness.
    • Most people already KNOW how to read those pictures by looking 'at infinity' making their eyes see in parallel directions. It's a simple concept. The problem is that it's not actually phyisically possible for many people, myself included. The problem is that there often is NO way for them to put the aim of their eyeballs under conscious control. Those muscles can't be moved directly like a bicep can. For some of us, those muscles are involuntary. We just think "I want to look, *there*, and some low-l
  • Damn it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pyro226 (715818) <Pyro226 AT hotmail DOT com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:18AM (#7878189) Journal
    Damn it, I was almost being productive. But now I have to run around looking for my red and blue glasses.
  • by DigiShaman (671371) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:19AM (#7878194) Homepage
    Everytime I look at those new images, I can't help but just think how simple it would be to just send a craft over there and do a maned mission.

    Surly it would be a lot easer then for sailers to sail around the world in the 1500s in comparison today. I think the technology is there, all we need is some human drive with those willing to risk their own life. Of course, the US...which based all of our major achivements is based on risk. But now days, the mere thought of death will totally can a project.

    Personally, I would love to take a trip to mars. To hell with the "risks". To me, it would be worth it!!

    • by m00nun1t (588082) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:30AM (#7878279) Homepage
      It's amazing how simple things seem when you don't have to do it.

      You're in management, right? ;)
    • One way is easy. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:47AM (#7878402)
      A one way trip I am sure would be do-able. Leaving out the "get back home" part makes things MUCH more simple. However, even if the line of volunteers was a mile long, todays policitally correct enviornment and would not let the brave souls make the trip. I think NASA should throw the idea of a "one-way mission to Mars(TM) in three years" into the news and see what happens.

    • A risk is inherent in such a task, there are problems making it a manageable risk and what levels are acceptable. 90%? 10%? 50%? 1%? People can complain about the possibility that the project would only kill people purely by trying this. People die all the time, and while not doing interesting things. I'd just like to know what the benefits will be.

      Making sure that someone can get there, without being irradiated, with enough food to last the round trip (or one way, and send the return trip food ahea
    • Imagine if your spaceship was the Beagle 2, and not this NASA ship.

      We mock what we don't understand.

      • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bravehamster (44836)
        Imagine if your spaceship was the Beagle 2, and not this NASA ship.

        We mock what we don't understand.


        Imagine if Beagle 2 was a manned mission. We'd sure as hell at least know what happened. And the majority of failed mars missions have failed because there was something wrong that couldn't be fixed by remote. If there was someone on hand to reach over and tweak the long-range antenna, I'm positive the percantage of successful missions would be much higher.

        • Re:Well... (Score:3, Funny)

          by XO (250276)
          It's the damn martians! They keep shooting down our probes!! This one must have landed near an unsettled area.
    • I suppose a lion [abc.net.au] or a horse [danheller.com] might have more luck than a dog [beagle2.com]
  • No, really, I did! But then the evil martian creatures came and ate them up, I guess i'll just have to wait for the next applejacks cereal box that has those glasses for me. Sad =\
  • Other 3-D sets (Score:5, Interesting)

    by imac_mafia (560917) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:20AM (#7878198) Homepage
    Hmm. I submitted my own 3-D composites, but mine were rejected and these accepted. But if you'd like to see more of Mars in 3-D, my own stereoscopic pairs are posted here on Re:zine [rezine.org] (Sunday, Jan. 4th, 'Mars In 3-D!'). The last of the four is artificially colorized using color samples from previous Mars expedition photos. Enjoy!
    • by Blahbbs (587167) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:30AM (#7878280)
      My mind thanks you.... My eyes curse you.
    • Ditto. I didn't submit it as a topic, just posted in the last discussion: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=91495&cid=7873 622

      SO which one of us was REALLY first?

  • by Unregistered (584479) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:22AM (#7878210)
    I was looking at those while installing windows2k. After crossing my eyes to see thhose, i tried to read the ms EULS and i'm now blind. thanks /. and ms.
  • by Quill_28 (553921)
    OK, I really don't care/know that much about astronomy, etc.
    But these pictures are just cool looking.
  • anaglyph (Score:2, Informative)

    by sharph (171971)
    I do have 3-D glasses. I don't understand why hes using JPEGs. They just introduce ghosting. Especially with the darker ones.

    PNGs are good for this sort of thing.

    I believe JPEG also has a RGB mode which will eliminate ghosting.
    • I don't understand why hes using JPEGs.

      Maybe because he's posting many dozens of images on a single page on a slashdotted server?

      • You can squeze PNGs pretty tight if you know what you're doing.

        Plus if he can handle this, PNGs shouldn't be a problem.
  • Stereo images (Score:5, Informative)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:22AM (#7878221) Homepage Journal

    If you have an nvidia card with the latest 3D stereo drivers you can run 3D LCD shutter glasses (assuming your monitor can run ~120 hz or better) and view JPS images in "real" 3D. All JPS images are are 2 JPGs side by side which the viewer splits in half and displays one half at a time per screen refresh.

    I've made a few of my own JPS images simply by taking two pictures with my digital camera a few centimeters offset and combining the two resulting JPGs into one JPS file.
  • Geek Pr0n (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quirk (36086) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:23AM (#7878224) Homepage Journal
    heavy breathing, drooling and a tingling sensation...pure geek pr0n
  • Okay, where can I get some blue and red 3D glasses in this day and age? Preferably some big retail store so I don't have to go through mail order. Does someone know of a cheap book at Borders or Barnes and Noble with a pair of glasses in them?

    • You can get this DVD [amazon.com] about the dark side of technology (or really bright, depending on how you think of it.)

      I, for one, like the Mars technology better.

    • Re:I'll ask (Score:4, Informative)

      by Yaztromo (655250) <yaztromo@NoSPaM.mac.com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:34AM (#7878325) Homepage Journal
      Okay, where can I get some blue and red 3D glasses in this day and age?

      The August 1998 issue of National Geographic came with two pairs, ironically enough to view stereo images as taken by NASA's last successful Mars lander, Pathfinder.

      That's what I used to view the current images. So if you know someone with a National Geographic collection dating back that far you can borrow them, or if you're really keen you can head down to your local library, find the issue in question (hopefully with at least one pair of the glasses still inside), take it to an available library internet terminal, bring up the page in question, and view away.

      Yaz.

      • So if you know someone with a National Geographic collection dating back that far you can borrow them, or if you're really keen you can head down to your local library, find the issue in question (hopefully with at least one pair of the glasses still inside), take it to an available library internet terminal, bring up the page in question, and view away.

        I just used a Tostitos bag and a coat hanger.

        Please don't mod me as funny...

    • Okay, where can I get some blue and red 3D glasses in this day and age?

      As luck would have it, I saw Spy Kids 3D yesterday. I knew there had to be a reason why I subjected myself to that. And now I know: free 3D glasses for viewing images from Mars!

      i.e. ask your local cinema. They probably have a whole box of the things just lying around in a store room.

  • by lynxuser (737950) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:24AM (#7878232)
    In the age of HDTV, MPEG4, and THX; I am glad to know that stereo images still play a role in science. *g*
  • Where did they buy this thing, the 1960s? Jeez, once you spend the first 9 $crillion, you'd think they'd throw in the extra ten bucks for color navigation cameras!
    • This camera undoubtably has a set of filters on it which permit it to image in a variety of wavelengths. Color images will come, they will take individual red, green, blue exposures and combine them. They can probably image all the way from near ultraviolet to low infrared.
    • Nav pictures need to come back quickly and accurately over a very slow link, just in case. And the quality needs to be enough to navigate by, and no more. (cause more quality = longer transmission times, thus less photos to nav by). Don't worry, the high quality color cams will be really fantastic when they get going. One thing at a time.
    • IANARS, but I would bet that the bandwidth for transmitting data is the main constraint, not the cost of the navcams.
  • Judging by the way they "hurt" to focus on (I can usually do stereograms with little difficulty), I'd guess these result from the camera rotating about an axis behind the field of view (thus making them divergent rather than convergent pairs). But do they at least match the human 6.5cm separation, or something radically different?
  • Not to be a party pooper or anything , but I made stereo images earlier on today.

    Posted 1-28 gmt [slashdot.org]

    as did someone else shortly after (who put together a website)

    posted 4-46 [slashdot.org]

    sad thing is that the guy that made the website did a better job of the one that hit the headlines.

    The poster is getting credit for First stereogram pairs when someone else got their first.( I made the first one posted on slashdot) and the other guy made more images, a website and an article first but got rejected...

    nick....
  • A FAKE?!?!? (Score:4, Funny)

    by crazyhorse44 (242315) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:30AM (#7878278)
    It looks like they dropped this Mars explorer out somewhere between Palmdale and Lancaster, CA. In fact... I think I can make out a meth-lab trailer in the distance.

  • Anaglyphs? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:30AM (#7878281)


    Isn't that what they call tatoos on your...

  • by Thagg (9904) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:33AM (#7878310) Journal
    I had found a page of the raw images from Spirit earlier today, and every picture from the rover was one of a pair -- it makes sense, because all the cameras are stereo cameras. It was really quite interesting to see the images in 3D as it showed that the ground has gently rolling hills (dune-like) and is not nearly as uniformly flat as it appears in the monocular images.

    Note that the cameras are about a foot apart in most cases, about 5 times the spacing between your eyes, so the 3D is exaggerated by the same amount (alternatively, you can think that it makes the world look 5 times as small.) It's amazing what the third dimension gives you.

    Sadly, the amount of JPEG compression on these early images adds a huge amount of noise, that isn't apparent in the single images but makes the stereo pair look very noisy indeed. One would hope that once the high-gain antenna is configured, they can start sending far less compressed images.

    The other sad thing is that I lost the URL of the raw images page :(

    thad
  • by FlunkedFlank (737955) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:33AM (#7878315)
    ... that you can see the extent to which the airbags are still inflated, and get a sense of which egress route is better than others. At least one of those airbags is still quite puffed up.

    I prefer the parallel images to the cross-eyed ones. Crossing your eyes just hurts, but relaxing them and focusing them offscreen doesn't at all, you can do it forever practically if you can get a lock on the right amount to relax.

  • Hah, you're not catching me with that disguised link to goatse.cx in 3D!

    Surely I can't be the only person who thought that when reading the story?

  • by Dag Maggot (139855) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:44AM (#7878384) Homepage
    Take two toilet paper spindle tubes and place one over each eye. Then put the tubes in contact with each image. This ensures that each eye is only viewing the correct image.

    When your wife/GF comes in asks what the hell you are doing- tell her you are looking for martians on the Intra-Web. Watch her leave the room- quickly.
  • Can anyone explain the difference between parallel and cross eyed stereo vision?
    • by Decimal Dave (411182) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:17AM (#7878558)
      The cross-eyed pairs are where your left eye looks at the right picture and your other eye looks at the left picture. On the linked story page, these are the two left-most images.

      I think the parallel stereograms (left image->left eye, right image->right eye) are easier and more comfortable to view because there is less perspective distortion as each eye can be directly in front of the part it needs to see. The two center images on the page make a parallel stereo pair. To view these, just look at some imaginary point several feet behind your display. When you do this, everything close to you will appear in double. Relax your eyes and adjust them so the two stereo images converge (you may have to tilt your head a little to get them perfectly horizontal). When the images overlap enough, your eyes will automatically "lock on" and a glorious patch of 3D will appear!
    • Can anyone explain the difference between parallel and cross eyed stereo vision?

      For the parallel ones, you use your left eye to look at the picture on the left and your right eye to look at the picture on the right. Since normally, both eyes look at the same place, you need to let your eyes drift apart.

      For the crosseyed ones, you use your left eye to look at the picture on the right and your right eye to look at the picture on the left. I.e., you cross your eyes slightly.

  • by BortQ (468164)
    Yippee, the very first images to be available.

    Forgive me if I wait for the best or some interesting ones before I bother to look.

  • by blair1q (305137) on Monday January 05, 2004 @12:51AM (#7878426) Journal
    Didn't Popular Science publish 3-D photos taken by the Viking mission to Mars [nasa.gov]in the 1970s?

    Oh, by the way, here's the link I found that page at [nasa.gov]. Just leave the Karma on the dresser.
  • by MajorDick (735308) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:02AM (#7878481)
    Well, as I posted before I cant see these things without a Stereoscope, if you dont have an antique stereoscope lying around like I do

    I found this HERE [yesmag.bc.ca] and HERE [funsci.com] is a bit better one (more like mine:)

    The second one gives a couple of different types , the 3x9 is for using cards like I made for mine or viewing the old cards from before like 1900 ish.

  • Jiggy-Vision (Score:5, Informative)

    by boatboy (549643) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:08AM (#7878513) Homepage
    I've created a quick Jiggy-Vision view [danielroot.com] of one of the sets.
  • that thinks mars looks kinda boring? It really just looks like desert or something. It would be nice if the photo's were color so you could get some feeling of what it really looks like. On the plus side, maybe Nasa will get a picture of that Beagle rover that crashed or whatever.
  • Tips For Viewing (Score:2, Informative)

    by aldheorte (162967)
    The first images are not very good ones to start with. I suggest browsing down to the first set of images that do not have parts of the rover in them (a set of small hills on the horizon). Also, try resizing the browser so that only the two images you are trying to combine are in view and place the browser on a plain background such as a reasonably uncluttered desktop. Try both the cross-eyed and parallel set of images if you do not know your method - you'll know when you have it right because there will
  • Bounce Impacts? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ambit (208647) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:20AM (#7878574)
    Shouldn't we be able to see some kind of impacts from the craft bouncing along the surface? Or would wind have destroyed them already?
  • Obviously fakes. Taken in the desert right next to the old moon landing set. I hear that if you zoom in really close on the rover you can see the SCO trademark too.
  • by teklob (650327) on Monday January 05, 2004 @01:39AM (#7878653)
    NASA posted an image gallery? The battle is set now The might of a slashdotting vs the awsome power of NASA's servers who will win? compulsively refresh their page to find out
  • by ashkar (319969) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:02AM (#7878746)
    Quicktime VR available on SpaceRef here [spaceref.com].
  • by Stevyn (691306) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:13AM (#7878791)
    I love it. It's the year 2004. We have sucessfully landed another probe on mars, and we're all hunting around in our junk drawers for 50's style 3D glasses.

    I just hope we don't find any life on mars with this mission or we'll all be looking for tin foil to wrap around our heads.
  • by mOoZik (698544) on Monday January 05, 2004 @02:23AM (#7878844) Homepage
    I believe the original poster is mistaken, or I'm not seeing it. The little square images are parts of the mosaic which comprise the panorama. They are NOT taken with the stereo camera as far as I can tell.

    • You're right, you're just not looking hard enough. Or maybe you went to the nasa link, where they're not so well arranged. The little images ARE the ones that were assembled into a panorama. The link to the guy's site has them all organized into stereo pairs (I assume they just used all left or all right to make the pan).

      The pairs are arranged like this:

      (Right Cam) (Left Cam) (Right Cam) (red/blue)

      You can cross your eyes and look at the first two, or use cardboard tubes and look at the second two,
  • by dekashizl (663505) on Monday January 05, 2004 @08:28AM (#7879956) Journal
    I've been poking around for hours trying to find photos, information, etc., and realized that it's very hard to find the good stuff, but that a LOT of it is out there. So I made this page (address below) and will continue to maintain it. It has (among other things) links to:
    • history on ALL past Mars attempts (those poor soviets...)
    • *many* JPL and NASA pages, diagrams, videos, and photos
    • info on sterescopic photos
    • Sterescopic layout of Spirit's first round of photos
    • Quicktime VR of the Spirit's panoramic view
    • etc.
    Here is the page:
    2004 Mars Exploration Rover Mission History and Highlights:
    http://axonchisel.net/etc/space/mars-exp-rover-hig hlights.html?s=sd [axonchisel.net]
  • Nav Cam (Score:3, Informative)

    by SmilingBoy (686281) on Monday January 05, 2004 @09:31AM (#7880255)
    These are from the low-res black and white hazard avoidance camera
    In fact, all but the bottom ones are from the Navigation cameras, which sit on top of the mast as well, just inside of the Hi-Res Panorama Camera. The Nav Cam has a resolution of 512x512, but these pictures were taken with 256x256. The Panorama Cam has a resolution of 1024x1024.
  • by amightywind (691887) on Monday January 05, 2004 @09:32AM (#7880258) Journal

    Any new pictures of the Martian landscape are very cool, but I have to question the choice of the landing site. Gusev Crater may be very interesting in a macro sense, it probably contains lacustrine sediments. But are these sediments accessable to the rover which has landed in the middle of a featureless plain? I doubt it. It is more likely that it will just sample the ubiquitous dust and rock ejecta, again. There may be no significant exposures of the stratigraphic section nearby. When will one of these missions truely explore the fantastic landscape revealed from orbit?

Mr. Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing.

Working...