Colorization of Mars Images? 784
ares2003 writes "There is no scientific reason, why JPL is colorizing Mars in that dull red tint as in their press release images. In the latest panorama image, there is a hint, that they deliberately altered the colors, as the blue and green spots on the color calibration target (the sundial) suddenly converted to bright red and brown. Source of original images: 1, 2 - (for highres replace "br" with "med"). At normal weather conditions, as we have at the moment, there should be a blue sky on Mars and earthlike colors. Furthermore the sky looks overcasted on the pictures as it cannot be considering the sharp shadows on the sundial. If the sky was overcast, then because of diffuse lighting, there would be no shadows. A few years ago, I did an investigation about that very same topic for the Viking and Pathfinder missions."
There may be no scientific reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Check the links, editors (Score:2, Insightful)
You guys have it all wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's quite simple really (Score:5, Insightful)
Catering to it is no better than being an advocate of the conspiracy theories in the first place.
Re:"ballistic approach to punctuation" (Score:1, Insightful)
Yet another moronic story approved by
A Current Affair, Inside Edition, Slashdot. (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh man. I've been reading this site for a while. This story should just be deleted, or at least have the links removed. There is absolutely no need to give this loon publicity while taxing the jpl site for no reason.
Re:Check the links, editors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's quite simple really (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sure glad my taxes are being spent reinforcing people's incorrect beliefs instead of being wasted on education and elightenment.
The Martian Sky is butterscotch, not blue (Score:5, Insightful)
This story should be pulled, it is wrong in too many places, and is just a bunch of conspiracy mumbo-jumbo. The pictures are slightly modded for color, but that's because it's a collage
As evidenced, here [nasa.gov], the Martian sky is more yellow/butterscotch (they used the Viking landers American flag to balance the colors properly,pictures are on the website). The Martian sky doesn't really get "overcasted" as there is no moisture in the air to create clouds! There is dust, yes, but the atmosphere is so thin, the sunlight can still go through it. Ares2003 has a few loose screws-My guess is that the digital image of the craft itself was taken later in the martian day, and modifying the color of the photo was the only way to make it look like it "fit in". Mars should not have "earth-like" colors. Any glance through a moderately-powerful telescope will show that the "red planet" is, in fact, red in color (iron oxide dust). Those more yellow pictures of Mars floating around are actually not real photographs, but generated images from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter data.
To see lots of pictures and some scientific conjecture and analysis, you can go here [the-planet-mars.com]
Anybody else notice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, not buying this story. Even if Nasa did colorize it, so what? I spent a day at a major news network once. I got to watch how they get their stories up. EVERY photo that goes up for a story is retouched. When I was there, there was a big story about a wildfire eating up a lot of land. They took some stock footage of a firefighter putting out a fire in the woods. Then, they highlighted the fire itself and used a tool to make it look brighter and hotter. (Note: This wasn't supposed to be a photo of the fire itself, but rather one of those illustrations that appears behind the news anchor as he announces the story..)
The point? The reason they brightened the fire was to draw attention to the audience. Highlight the important elements of the scene. There's no crime or dishonest happening here. If Nasa boosted the saturation of their images to make their images more recognizable Mars, so what? Damn them for presenting their findings more clearly.
Re:Mars has become a political agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait a minute. You're suggesting that missions to other celestial bodies might have... political or nationalistic overtones that often far dwarf the actual scientific value of the mission?
Um... do you know anything about the space race between the U.S. and Soviet Union?
Feynman (Score:5, Insightful)
And in other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
These plans are all very exciting folks, but our grandchildren are going to be paying the bill one day. It's time for the current administration to cut up the credit cards and start taking packed lunches instead of eating out, for a day of reckoning is coming and the American taxpayer is going to suffer badly. Entry into the third world awaits....
Re:Mosaic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mars has become a political agenda (Score:2, Insightful)
I do think that some journalists drive the "life on Mars" angle too heavily, but then I don't expect the 10 o'clock news to have the same cautious scientific approach as NASA.
As to the politics, well, NASA is a government agency. It is a political creation and it has to fight for its money just like everyone else. So it doesn't surprise me when they try to get these super high definition images out. As a supporter of the space program, I wish NASA did a better job with their PR. Like they said in The Right Stuff, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."
Individual channels available (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Check the links, editors (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Martian Sky is butterscotch, not blue (Score:1, Insightful)
http://webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14C.html
Color is subjective (Score:3, Insightful)
Color is a figment of your brain's imagination. In some situations, a proper white balance will make the picture closely match what your brain perceives (else people would have green skin under fluorescent lighting). In other situations (like sunsets), a proper white balance makes the picture look completely different from what your brain perceives.
This issue came up with the pictures from the Viking landers. The first pictures sent back, before color calibration, had a blue sky. IIRC the color correction NASA did wasn't a pure white balance, but something to more closely reflect how the scene would look to your eyes (and brain) if you were there.
Re:Check the links, editors (Score:4, Insightful)
Note that in those photos they have 'greyed out' the portion of the photograph containing the atmosphere and surface of the planet.
Re:Check the links, editors (Score:5, Insightful)
Go out and by some theatrical gel filters ("tough no green" or "tough 1/2 green" will do). Cut them into strips, roll them to make tubes and slide tubes over each of the fluorescent lights in a room. Now:
Now I ask you, in both cases you have a "pink" area and a "normal" area, so which area is showing true colors and what will your Canon PowerShot A60 show?
My point: color perception can be fooled quite easily and what you see as red may not be red or not what I see as red and certainly not necessarily the same tint or red the anyone/anything else sees it as. Ambient lighting conditions do have an effect on what color objects are precieved to be. This effect may not necessarily be the same for your eyes and a camera.
Merlin.
For those of you curious: the above experiment was done to some offices where I use to work as the persons working in them found the shifted light reduced eye strain.
Re:And in other news... (Score:1, Insightful)
The way to run a country is not to cut spending. The way to run a country is to increase spending in ways that promote industry and to cut taxes. The result is growth across the board, which in turn leads to increases in revenue.
The recent (say, last 20 years or so) obsession with balanced annual budgets has distracted people from the fact that we really need to be thinking in terms of decades, not months.
I think it might be a good idea to eliminate the annual federal budget altogether and replace it with a quadrennial budget. It just makes good economic sense to plan over longer baselines.
Re:Mosaic - be patient, grateful (Score:3, Insightful)
For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
Mars Exploration Rover Highlights (AXCH) [axonchisel.net].
human eyes adapt (Score:3, Insightful)
Ambient lighting on Mars is probably pretty far from what is normal on Earth. To tell what Mars would actually look like to us on Mars, somebody might need to do some special testing of the responsiveness of human eyes under that ambient lighting.
Re:And in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up by the way, the guy argues his case well even if I disagree with it.
The martian sky IS RED. (Score:3, Insightful)
However it IS well known among scientists that does not base their work at false colored pictures that the martian sky is red at day, and blue at sunset/sunrise. It really doesn't take that long time with google to
find some facts from trusted sources on thatone.
Re:Feynman (Score:5, Insightful)
All they hear is "I don't know."
"Well Jeeeeezus. I thought you were supposed to be some kind of expert or something. If I wanted to be told 'I don't know' I could have asked my retard cousin Vinnie. I'm gonna go watch the FOX special on this. Those boys talk straight and tell me The Answer.
The problem is fostered in our lower schools. They are taught "facts," and are given tests to determine if they have memorized those facts well enough to regurgitate them, i.e. give the "right" answer to the question. Even mathmatics is treated as simple arithmetic where you manipulate some numbers to come up with a predetermined correct outcome.
All of this teaches science not just as facts, but as a field where things are simply either correct or incorrect. Knowledge as a collection of preapproved facts and for every question there as an answer.
Whereas science, that is to say the real sort of science that Feynman is talking about, isn't about known true facts so much as it's about the limitations on our knowledge and why those limitations exist and what we might do to expand those limitations.
If they haven't had the proper background, fairly early in life, when you explain these things to people as well as it's possible to explain them all the vast majority hear is:
"I don't know."
Then wander off muttering that the problem with scientists is that they refuse to give you straight answer, never suspecting that that's good science.
After a decade or four of this even most scientist legitimately trying to exlain things properly get frustrated and devise a set of stock answers. When given these stock answers people respong "Whoooooa! Really? Hey, that's pretty neat" and walk away with a smile on their face. Perhaps a wee bit better educated on a facts basis but no wiser.
It doesn't stop me from telling things as they are, but I've found over the years that the only real audience is children. They listen, they pay attention, they learn.
And I hope they then grow up to hear more than "I don't know" when told the truth as we actually know it, especially if they get elected to congress.
For that matter I hope they grow up to be scientists who tell the truth . . . and get elected to congress.
KFG
Kook! He's looking at linear interpolation! (Score:1, Insightful)
Kooks. They seem to know enough to know better but some people like fairy tales better than reality.
pseudoscience and conspiracy theory is not science (Score:2, Insightful)