Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Stereoscopic images of Titan's surface constructed 152

Posted by timothy from the it-sounds-like-pennies-disappearing dept.
CozmsBrpng writes "If you can successfully view stereoscopic images then you can behold the surface of Titan in all its grainy 3D glory. And, in case you missed it, you can also listen to a human ear-friendly version of the descent radar and the winds in Titan's atmosphere courtesy of the DISR team at The University of Arizona."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stereoscopic images of Titan's surface constructed More

Stereoscopic images of Titan's surface constructed

Comments Filter:

  • Not Much use for Stereoscopic imaging (Score:5, Insightful)

    by poopdeville ( 841677 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:15PM (#11725817)
    Really, there wasn't enough relief in those pictures to be worth inducing several thousand splitting headaches across the globe.
    • Yea, but there's enough relief to see that the black "channels" don't follow it. On the first pic they look like some of them run cross-slope, and on the last pic it looks like they run on the ridgelines, as if we were looking at something bulging up from below.
    • I have used stereo enough that I don't need the painful little glasses anymore. The secret is knowing how to look at then while focusing at "infinity". Takes some practice. Learned it while studying geology, specifically geomorphology (the science of geology and landforms).

      Printed at full 8.5" x 11" size and they are fascinating. I was stunned by the dendritic erosion patterns and flat basins. And there is plenty of relief if you know how to look at them, it just takes a trained eye.

      But this ain't "g
      • I have used stereo enough that I don't need the painful little glasses anymore. The secret is knowing how to look at then while focusing at "infinity". Yes, of course. But unless the image size is rather small (or rather far away), you have to cross your eyes a *lot* to get the images to converge. Ouch.

        PS -- They make glasses now? Cool!
        • I think he's talking about folding pocket stereoscopes, one brand of which was "Cassella". I used to use them, and larger deskbound equivalents, as well as precise stereoplotters, when I was an army cartographer. Cassellas were used by phot interpreters during WW2, if not even earlier.

          I was actually quite interested to find that I could see the stereo images without a viewer (as I'd never been able to before).

    • Bad setereo image?? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by darkonc ( 47285 ) <stephen_samuel&bcgreen,com> on Saturday February 19, 2005 @10:51PM (#11726562) Homepage Journal
      I don't think that these images are all that good for stereo for a couple of reasons:
      • These pairs seem to be taken with different filters. This would, at least, explain why the two images seem to emphasize different details.
      • divergent stereo??? divergent stereo is WAY harder to do than cross-eyed stereo. Many people can't do divergent without mechanical aids (especially with larger images). My mothe, who'se an optometrist thinks that it's almost impossible (compared to cross-eyed stereo)
      • I'm not ssure if they're corrrectly rotated. For stereo images like this, the horizontal line should be coplanar to the location of the two lenses used to take the picture. I'm guessing that the pictures were just chosen for the leftmost and the rightmost, but no matching rotation was done.

        If anybody knows the layout of the peobe well enough to draw the line which would be coplanar to the two lenses, I'd be happy to rotate the images (and swap them, too, if need be)

      (Just an FYI: I used to own a stereo camera (stereo realist) I've still got a thousand or so images in my archive. Since losing the camera, I've also done my own setero pairs 'the hard way', so I've gotten reasonably good at doing this)
      • divergent stereo??? divergent stereo is WAY harder to do than cross-eyed stereo. Many people can't do divergent without mechanical aids (especially with larger images). My mothe, who'se an optometrist thinks that it's almost impossible (compared to cross-eyed stereo)

        Years of staring out into space like a complete idiot have taught me to do this very well.
      • divergent stereo??? divergent stereo is WAY harder to do than cross-eyed stereo. Many people can't do divergent without mechanical aids (especially with larger images). My mothe, who'se an optometrist thinks that it's almost impossible (compared to cross-eyed stereo)

        Well, you can let her know that I can do it just fine. =) It takes a bit of practice, but it can be done -- and it's much easier on my eyes than convergant (cross-eyed, whatever) it's just like looking at something far away.
        • I can do it OK, too, but it's a lot more work than convergent. It was actually kinda funny getting the 'impossible' from her after my boss (at a physical biochemistry lab) had shown me how to do it. I can still do cross-eyed in 2 seconds flat, but divergent is almost like meditation.
    • Well, i couldn't watch the Titan images. But the stereo images of the houses were easy.

      a) Copy the images in your clipboard
      b) Open them in Irfanview (if you use windows)
      c) Reduce them to 65% size.
      d) Grab an envelope and make sure each eye can only see one image (the envelope will also make sure you won't stay that close to the screen)
      e) Focus

      Now if you excuse me, i have to welk to the house i think i gott a tliele dizzy oops

  • Looks like a sailboat (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:15PM (#11725818)
    If you can't see it, you know what you need? What you need is a fatty boom batty blunt. Then I guarantee you'll see an ocean, a sailboat and maybe some of them big-tittied mermaids doin' some of that lesbian stuff.

  • AHH My eyes!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by NeoGeo64 ( 672698 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:16PM (#11725824) Homepage Journal
    Don't try to view these pictures if your refresh rate is 60Hz. My vision blurred up for about three minutes and I started freaking out.
    • My vision blurred up for about three minutes and I started freaking out.

      That's nothing. I was at a party last night when someone turned on the fog machine without telling anyone. One-third thought there was a fire in the kitchen because it was smokey, one-third thought they needed glasses because their vision was blurry, and one-third thought they were inhaling some great stuff until they notice their brain chemistry was still inert. Half the party ended up being outside for the rest of the night.
    • My vision blurred up for about three minutes and I started freaking out.

      You mean like this [2bangkok.com]?

  • For all it's worth (Score:3, Informative)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:16PM (#11725828)
    I find it easier to print stereograms like these. Perhaps even re-position them really close to each other in GIMP before printing it out. they seem to be easier to "lock on" on paper than on screen. There's just no way I can see them on screen.
    • I did that for the mars pics.

      Later I started using gimp to put bright colored borders around the images evenly. It made it easier to line them up on screen.
    • i 'locked on' and i usually have a shaking mind, so, it is possible.
    • I find it easier to print stereograms like these. Perhaps even re-position them really close to each other in GIMP before printing it out. they seem to be easier to "lock on" on paper than on screen. There's just no way I can see them on screen.

      If you're editing them in GIMP or Photoshop, try reversing their order, so you look at them crosseyed. I usually start by holding a finger in front to get them to coincide.

      I can do both, but I find the crosseyed method a bit easier than the parallel method- the im

  • Interesting, but not Inspiring (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pegasustonans ( 589396 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:17PM (#11725834)
    I still say Titan is interesting, but it's not the ticket that's going to inspire the everyday person to learn more about the possibilities of Space research. I love the adventure of truly great scientific endeavors, but more people need to be inspired for NASA to get the funding it deserves IMO.
    • In a way I think what was most inspiring about Titan was the great unknown. We didn't know if there was a solid surface, liquid oceans of hydrocarbons, obvious forms of life, etc. It was really a huge deal, getting the probe onto the surface, with the ability to survive a variety of scenarios (liquid ocean, solid land, muddy tarpits, etc).

      After the probe landed, and we saw a seeming barren rocky surface, the mission suddenly isn't as sexy anymore. To many in the general public, it's yet another rocky b

      • The average Joe may not be awe-struck by viewing a planet we have never seen before but the average Joe is always awe-struck when he clicks on that little blue e and all of a sudden the screen shows playboy.com Housten we DO have a problem
      • I'm not an average Joe, but I wasn't awestruck by these images at all. The resolution was just far too poor. However, when an article came up here a year or so ago showing colorized pictures of the surface of Venus, taken by Russian craft in the 70's, I did find that awe-inspiring. There was simply far more to see and make out there; yes, it was a barren rocky surface, but it was the surface of another world. These photos aren't really recognizable as anything.

  • I see it! (Score:5, Funny)

    by oozer ( 132881 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:19PM (#11725843)
    Oh yeah, look it's a sailboat.

  • Wow, simply amazing! (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by nxtr ( 813179 )
    It looks like there's mold growing on my computer screen.

  • can't stereoview (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:22PM (#11725867)
    I can't see stereoviews, I only have one eye.. you insensitive clod!

  • Hahaha.... (Score:2, Funny)

    by jrushton ( 806560 )
    I can imagine millions of slashdotters around the world all going crosseyed at this. Brilliant :)

  • Viewing Stereoscopic Images (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:50PM (#11725997)
    Firstly, it would be beneficial if the images were separated by a black space. Having the images touching each other requires being a 'real' pinhead for viewing. Secondly, if wearing glasses, take them off; as the lenses of the glasses (which are doing what they are meant to do ... focus each eye independently), do not lend themselves to viewing stereoscopic images.

  • those stereograms are teh suck (Score:3, Informative)

    by Illissius ( 694708 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @08:51PM (#11726010)
    I'm good at them, and I still couldn't get much out of those besides a headache. Here's a bunch of [milked.free.fr] better ones [techreport.com], just to show that they don't suck universally.
    • I'm not so sure about that. They don't have a lot of relief, of course, but they do bring out a bunch of details not visible in the monocular views. The crest on the mountain, for instance, is much clearer in stereo than it is in mono.
    • Oh damn, I just went blind shortly after going cross eyed.
      Don't look at 3D pr0n!
    • Those kick ass! Well, the second bunch. The work "smartfilter" firewalled me out of the first ones as pr0n, but the second bunch were so big on my work monitor I couldn't wall-eye them, but I managed to do it crossed for the first time! Yay! Thanks! Oh, and pretty streetlamps and potted plants....
    • Damn, that's amazing. I'm just glad I got to enjoy those pictures in the privacy of my own home instead of reading this from work. The detail is incredible once the eyes combine the two images. Everything seems more vivid.

      For example, the mysterious white stains all over the pants of #28....
  • Relax let the stereoscopic image flow through you.. Master I just can't see it. Relax your eyes you must.. Master it's impossible. Know you already what is possible and what is not? But I'm trying, I just can't see this teapot or whatever. hmph do or do not, there is no try.. ...grumble...grumble I sense much anger in you..

  • Lets hope ESA never provides... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...stereoscopic images of Uranus.

  • Why no terrain model? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by amightywind ( 691887 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @09:11PM (#11726096) Journal

    With very slight additional effort these researchers could have released a terrain model based on the paralax offset of features in the image and saved us all from straining our eyes.

    The Titan imaging results are simply fantastic. Huygens landed in an area that is analogous to a terrestrial dry lake bed wetted by an upland stream network fed by methane rain! How often does it rain? Are there large weather systems on titan? Convective storms? What about the black stuff on the lake bed and at the bottom of the streams? What is it made of? Is is particulate like terrestrial sediments? I am a little disappointed that we haven't heard more speculation from project scientists. I think the Cassini/Huygens project has been somewhat guarded about releasing preliminary results than the Mars Rover project.

    • I think they may lack the funding for a research assistant to start on this.
    • Um, there is a difference between speculation and preliminary results.

      Speculation is science fiction

      Preliminary results is science

      There was a great deal of information and speculation on the Mars/Water issue. It did
      not take a lot to jump to preliminary results.

      Titan does not have anywhere near the scientific background that Mars had and so it takes much longer to reach preliminary resutls.

      I applaud the scientists for taking the appropriate amount of time to publish the observations.

      • The handling of Titan results reminds me of the dead sea scrolls, where the data were guarded by a small number of scollars who were willing to take forever to publish definitive results.

        As for Mars results not being startling, how many scientists before the mission believed they would be landing on evaporite deposits complete with concretions? None. Yet they were out there, yes speculating, as soon as they had gathered enough evidence for the definitive result.

        You last statement is excessively foolish

    • With very slight additional effort these researchers could have released a terrain model based on the paralax offset of features in the image and saved us all from straining our eyes.

      Like this [nature.com]?

    • found a forum on the DISR site [arizona.edu]. Why dont you post the question there [arizona.edu]?


  • FYI (Score:2, Informative)

    by KinkifyTheNation ( 823618 )
    Also for some people it may help of you open the images in a photo editor, cut out one of the images and move it to the other side, then all you need to do is cross your eyes until the two images meet. I've always found it easier and less straining on the eyes if you do it this way.
    • Damnit, my mod points just ran out.

      What kind of idiot would think that this "parallel" stereo viewing method is a good idea, without special viewing equipment?

      Cross-eye is far superior, as your eyes are naturally built to do that (e.g. if you hold your finger in front of your face and focus on it). It's just a matter of loosening up your association between going cross-eyed and focusing close-up.

  • ... and still couldn't "snap" to 3-D mode.

    Usually I "get it", but are these really bad, or did I have one too many beers on a Saturday?

  • ADULT CONTENT [starosta.com]

    Just don't blame me when you can't see straight for a week afterwards.
  • Just the thing to make my Computer Sciecne induced eye problema worse!

  • I prefer wiggle images (Score:3, Informative)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Saturday February 19, 2005 @09:51PM (#11726324) Journal
    Personally, I prefer wiggle images, where you make an animated GIF of two close-by images. You don't have to hurt your eyes, and it gives you a good idea of depth. Here's a web site with several "wiggle images" made from Mars Rover data:

    http://space.brownpau.com/mars-rover-wiggles/ [brownpau.com]

    1500 imaginary mod points to whoever uses GIMP or Photoshop to cut the individual images out of the photos of Titan, makes an animated GIF out of them, and posts them online.
  • I don't mean to belittle the accomplishment of getting the probe to titan, but as a lay person, none of the images that have come back have been all that impressive. What is the technical reason for this? Is it a bandwidth issue? Or were these launched long enough ago that this quality of images was state of the art for spacecraft?
    • Telemetry is always a problem. We always want more than the spacecraft/DSN/funding can deliver. Remember the data was relayed through the Cassini spacraft and then back to Earth.

      And the Methane fog makes things kind of tough.

    • Re:I don't mean to belittle the accomplishment (Score:5, Informative)

      by Graymalkin ( 13732 ) * on Saturday February 19, 2005 @10:54PM (#11726585)
      You hit upon two very salient truths about the Huygens probe. The main imaging instrument on Huygens is the Descent Imager Spectral Radiometer (DISR). It contains only a single CCD. The various lens assemblies are connected to the main CCD by a series of optical fibers, each shines light on a different region of the CCD. The CCD is 512x520 pixels though about half of that is reserved as a storage section, the left over 256x520 pixel area is used for the imagers and spectrometers. The visual imagers of the DISR intrument are the High Resolution Imager (HRI), Medium Resolution Imager (MRI) and the Side Looking Imager (SLI). There's also two spectrometers, the Upward-Looking Visual Spectrometers (ULVS) and the Downward-Looking Visual Spectrometer (DLVS). Finally there's space reserves for the Solar Aureole camera which is used to measure sunlight streaming through the atmosphere to determine the size of particles within it.

      The HRI is 160x254, the MRI is 176x254, and the SLI is 128x254 pixels each. Larger images have to be assembled as mosaics and even these aren't going to be large enough to compete with the megapixel images from the MERs. The Pancams and Navcams on the MERs are 1024x1024 each and have essentially a full range of motion so really nice panoramas are easy to create. The DISR is fixed on Huygen's chassis.

      Bandwidth is also a tremendous issue with Huygens. The Huygens probe only hasd a 4800bps datalink to Cassini and has to transmit all of its images within two and a half hours. Even with its limited data rate Huygens was able to transmit 350 images back from Titan which is rather impressive.

      So it is a combination of geometry, bandwidth, and limited technology. Also remember that despite these images being relatively stark in comparison to MER images they contain tons of very valuable information. When researches have had more time to process Huygens images they will get prettier. Until then they're going to remain relatively bland to laymans' eyes but terribly exciting to scientists.

  • Don't go cross-eyed! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You need to go the reverse of cross-eyed to look at stereoscopic images correctly

    If you have to strain your eyes then you are doing it the wrong way and you wont get a very good 3D effect

    -Normal way of looking at something-
    object
    / \
    eyes

    -Correct way to looks at a stereoscopic image- (very relaxed eyes)
    object
    | |
    | |
    eyes

    -Incorrect way- (going cross-eyed)
    object
    \ /
    / \
    eyes
  • Jigglevision [pondarosaresort.com] is a simple technique that makes it easy for even cyclopses to percieve depth in pairs of stereo images. No headaches or eye strain or anything.
  • Or so you'd think by listening to the descent radar. Not sure if it's more closely related to Pitfall or ET though?
  • As someone who loves these types of images, I have to say, this was complete crap. Not to be flamebait, but there was absolutely no depth in any of these pictures, and they were too small to make out any detail. Nice idea, but bad execution. I'd have much rather seen a 3d rendered model of it.

  • Do the words "all" and "its" really need their own hyperlinks? I know I'm not the first one to complain about this but please - how about just one or two links to the main story???
  • To make things easier, here is a reconstruction with instruction.

    Just sit back about 2 feet from the monitor and try to cross your eyes till you get something similar to the bottom group.

    If there is a good response to this, I'll do the others.
    Otherwise, you may be able to do them on your own after training with this:
    Stereo Image of Titan with Training bars [spacescience.ca]

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close