Juno perijove 4, February 2, 2017 Options

[Gerald]

It's time to open a perijove-4 thread.
Voting is open for another two days. So, don't hesitate too long.
Besides the discussion and the POIs on the mission page, you might consider John Roger's detailed discussion of several interesting features.

If everything goes well, all instruments will be switched on.

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

It'll be good to see JIRAM up and running again! Would love to see what results it'll return on this pass.

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

I redecorated the subreddit again, this time in anticipation of Perijove 4! Look decent, do you guys think? Haha

[mcaplinger]

Unofficial status: Be advised that even though PJ4 is at about 5 AM PST tomorrow morning, DSN coverage is spotty, so we may not have the data down until late Friday, if then. I wouldn't expect to see it at missionjuno before Monday at the earliest.

[Gerald]

Thanks a lot! This helps planning the processing resources.

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

Any word on JIRAM or Waves stuff, by any chance?

[mcaplinger]

Note that this pass was in the MWR attitude so the HGA is off earth-point and we can't send science data (engineering only at 250 bps). You can watch https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html to see if Juno is being tracked and at what data rate. We only went to high rate about 1/2 hour ago, I think, which is one of the reasons why I said we wouldn't have anything soon.

I don't know anything about what the other teams are doing, and if I did, I couldn't say anyway.

[Gerald]

According to the updated news, all instruments have been operational during PJ4, includung JIRAM:

All of Juno's science instruments and the spacecraft's JunoCam were operating during the flyby to collect data that is now being returned to Earth.

That's consistent with the plan:

All of Juno's eight science instruments, including the Jovian Infrared Auroral Mapper (JIRAM) instrument, will be on and collecting data during the flyby.

[mcaplinger]

I wouldn't expect to see it at missionjuno before Monday at the earliest.

Seems I was unduly pessimistic about this, the images went live on missionjuno a few minutes ago.

Note that the image called "Oval BA" is not really of Oval BA. Our targeting process needs some work, as based on my predictions, there was no way we were going to see Oval BA on this pass near the nadir. You can see it in the subsequent image, but it's off on the limb.

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

They did it again, releasing JunoCam data much earlier than they said they would! Haha! 15 images from Perijove 4 are up on the JunoCam subsite as we speak!

[Gerald]

... there was no way we were going to see Oval BA on this pass near the nadir. You can see it in the subsequent image, but it's off on the limb.

[Gerald]

Here a draft version of RGB close-ups. This version did neither use SPICE nor Jupiter's shape, resulting in some rgb misalignment for very close parts of Jupiter.
I've submitted several enhanced crops to missionjuno last night.
The quality of the raw data looks good, lots of interesting features are visible.

[Roman Tkachenko]

The Pearl of Jupiter

[jccwrt]

The final image of Jupiter's south pole using Gerald's initial processing with some additional work.

[t_oner]

Enhanced Justin's image a little bit.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Roman Tkachenko]

Jupiter's South Pole (PJ-4)

[PaulH51]

Jupiter's South Pole

Nice

[mcaplinger]

The Pearl of Jupiter

Thanks, Roman. It's images like this one that keep me going in the face of all the negative clueless remarks on reddit about the supposed "mediocrity" of Junocam.

[Gerald]

This is a 5-fold reduced full version of the PJ04 "Radiation Trend Monitoring" image:

This is an enhanced crop of the same image:

Mediocre? I wonder, which other camera in a high-radiation environment on a spinning spacecraft would be able to produce images of a similar quality.
Those remarks can only be based on temporary lack of knowledge. I'm sure, by now, they are happy to be proven wrong.

[nprev]

Mike, your 'mediocre' camera is beyond the wildest dreams of achievement of any random hundred thousand anonymous nay-sayers combined, plus their mommies.

We UMSFers value your work tremendously.

[Gerald]

Selected PJ04 Approach Movie RGB images.
Enhanced crop of #73, north up:

[Gerald]

The first 20 PJ-04 Departure Movie images.
These drafts are without considering spacecraft motion or Jupiter shape model.

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

Mike, your 'mediocre' camera is beyond the wildest dreams of achievement of any random hundred thousand anonymous nay-sayers combined, plus their mommies.

We UMSFers value your work tremendously.

Ditto. Despite the people complaining over at the subreddit, I'm sure they're a vocal minority and the rest of us are also appreciative of the work you guys do.

[mcaplinger]

Despite the people complaining over at the subreddit, I'm sure they're a vocal minority...

My suspicion is that people just look at the basically-raw images on missionjuno and compare them to the best, most heavily-processed press releases from Voyager or Galileo. And they also likely can't tell what the scale of any particular image is -- all Junocam images are limb-to-limb, even the highest-resolution ones, and the maximum resolution is only achieved at the center of the image. If I had the time I would process some high-res Voyager images and compare them to the Junocam images -- in most places Jupiter is pretty bland at the km scale.

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

My suspicion is that people just look at the basically-raw images on missionjuno and compare them to the best, most heavily-processed press releases from Voyager or Galileo.

It's actually they've been mostly comparing JunoCam to Cassini's ISS and New Horizons' LORRI in particular. The people plaguing the comments often complain that JunoCam's pics aren't as "impressive" or "stunning" as images from Cassini or New Horizons. The best I could do was simply say that each camera was built to serve different purposes; I'm not one to start arguments on reddit, especially when I'm supposed to be a neutral moderator.

[Explorer1]

Say they are lucky to get any images at all, and that a camera was almost not even included! Otherwise Juno would be about as well known to the public as Ulysses was.

[mcaplinger]

Say they are lucky to get any images at all, and that a camera was almost not even included!

That sort of argument just feeds into the notion that Junocam is somehow inferior. It's not inferior, it's just different. The driving requirement was to be able to image the full disc of Jupiter from above the pole, which led to a very wide field of view, utterly unlike the instruments that it's being compared to.

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

An interesting question was brought up by my friend from ANU when he saw the images of Ganymede's shadow - will there ever be a time in the mission where JunoCam will be able to observe a transit shadow up close or, better yet, fly into the shadow of a transit during a perijove?

[jccwrt]

I took a look a while back, but that was still when the mission was planning to run 14-day orbits.

Since the moons' orbital planes are inclined to the ecliptic and Jupiter's equatorial plane, Callisto's shadow doesn't currently fall on the planet and won't do so again until sometime around 2020. The track of Ganymede's shadow is also edging north and will continue producing shorter eclipses until about the middle of next year when the eclipse tracks start drifting south again. There should be a series of Ganymede eclipses occurring near the north pole around then.

Europa's eclipse track is currently located along the North Temperate Belt, while Io's is located along the northern edge of the North Equatorial Belt. Like Ganymede's eclipse track, they're also drifting north at the moment, but being closer to the planet, the track positions won't change as substantially.

Right now I'd say Ganymede and Europa have the best chance for close eclipse photos, given the smaller field of view at lower latitudes and the lower likelihood of Io's shadow catching JunoCam's eye during a perijove pass. There's a very tiny chance that the shadows of Amalthea would be visible during a JunoCam pass. I'd need an updated list of perijove encounter times, but it should be trivial to determine if Juno could see eclipses up close.

[Gerald]

PJ05 is 2017 MAR 27 08:52:14 (according to SPICE spk file juno_pred_orbit.orb). The later perijoves haven't yet been determined, when I checked for it about two weeks ago.

[mcaplinger]

The later perijoves haven't yet been determined...

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&p=233216 shows a list (dates only) through PJ9. I have a later list, of course, but am not authorized to share it.

[Floyd]

Adding 53.5 days to last known perijove is difficult, but not beyond the math skills of some on this forum.

Edit: Sorry for the Snark--I thought the question was about the day not the second...

[mcaplinger]

Adding 53.5 days to last known perijove is difficult, but not beyond the math skills of some on this forum.

The orbit period is not precisely a constant because there are trim maneuvers, especially later in the mission to avoid eclipses. If you only want to know it to a few hours' accuracy, adding a constant may be good enough.

[Gerald]

PJ03 Image #73 has been taken 6h42m before PJ04, if I calculated correctly. This may provide some idea about the effect of a few hours.
For predicting any potential Juno transits through a moon's shadow, much more accurate data are required, of course.

[Roman Tkachenko]

Thanks, Roman. It's images like this one that keep me going in the face of all the negative clueless remarks on reddit about the supposed "mediocrity" of Junocam.

Thank you, Mike!
Btw I've made a new, not so overprocessed version of this image.
Here's a high-resolution version

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

Here's what Eyes on the Solar System has in its current simulation of the Juno mission, with all dates in UTC:

PJ5 - March 27, 2017
PJ6 - May 19, 2017
PJ7 - July 11, 2017
PJ8 - September 1, 2017
PJ9 - October 24, 2017
PJ10 - December 16, 2017
PJ11 - February 7, 2018
PJ12 - April 1, 2018
PJ13 - May 24, 2018
PJ14 - July 16, 2018
PJ15 - September 7, 2018
PJ16 - October 29, 2018
PJ17 - December 21, 2018
PJ18 - February 12, 2019
PJ19 - April 6, 2019
PJ20 - May 29, 2019
PJ21 - July 21, 2019
Deorbit - September 11, 2019

[Gerald]

The most accurate published times for perijoves 6 to 8 I'm aware of are
PJ06 2017 May 19, 17:44:04 UTC
PJ07 2017 July 11, 1:55:56 UTC
PJ08 2017 September 1, 21:50:01 UTC
But I think, that the times will be off by up to several minutes, since for PJ05, there is already a discrepancy of 66 seconds to the current prediction in SPICE.
The data are of 2016 December 28 from the latest update of the professional Earth based observation plan.
(This site is easier to read, at least in my browser, but might become obsolete with the next update.)

[mcaplinger]

The most accurate source of PJ times I know of are in the .orb files on the NAIF website. The most recent one is https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/JUNO/ker...0912_161027.orb but only goes through orbit 22.

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

The most accurate source of PJ times I know of are in the .orb files on the NAIF website. The most recent one is https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/JUNO/ker...0912_161027.orb but only goes through orbit 22.

I'm thinking that this is the one that Eyes is using. Exact dates and times as to what's simulated.

[Gerald]

For the simulation you require more than just the apo- and perijoves. The same NAIF/SPICE directory contains also the file spk_ref_160829_190912_161027.bsp with more detailed information. Together with other kernel files you can simulate most of Juno's behaviour. I'm using the trajectories to create reprojected JunoCam products like these intermediate images (portions mirrored).
That said, the perijove dates and times should be sufficiently accurate to compare them with predicted shadows of the moons.

[mcaplinger]

For the simulation you require more than just the apo- and perijoves.

Well, there are two steps: the first is to figure out if there are any eclipses near a perijove pass, and the second is to determine if the shadow would be visible from Juno. For step 1 you don't need to know where Juno is exactly.

Keep in mind that later in the mission Jupiter isn't even in the Junocam FOV for a lot of the time as the orbit plane migrates away from the terminator, so that's another constraint.

[JRehling]

It's not inferior, it's just different. The driving requirement was to be able to image the full disc of Jupiter from above the pole, which led to a very wide field of view, utterly unlike the instruments that it's being compared to.

This is closely related to the phenomenon in amateur astronomy wherein vendors of (often, cheap) telescopes advertise the magnification as the most telling statistic about a telescope. Whereas, one realizes that for many objects, one actually wishes to decrease magnification, and a very smart purchase is a focal reducer which gives you a wider field of view and more light per pixel, to reduce exposure times in photography and brighter-seeming objects for direct viewing.

As a teenager, I used a short focal length eyepiece with a large telescope to get an 800x magnification on Saturn. It was terrible, dim and shimmering and muddy, like looking at an amorphous shape on the bottom of a poorly-lit swimming pool.

When you take a picture of your friends and family, you don't usually zoom in on their noses close enough to show the pores in their skin. More-zoomed-in is not always better. Somehow, in astronomy, people forget that.

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

Congrats to Roman for what is now his third image featured in the NASA Photojournal!

[Roman Tkachenko]

Congrats to Roman for what is now his third image featured in the NASA Photojournal!

Thanks!

[Gerald]

Selected PJ04 images cylindrically map projected, and de-Lambertianed with a spheroid Jupiter model, stretched with gamma=4 relative to square-root encoding, and exposure-adjusted.
Thumbnails are 5x reduced links to respective 10 pixel / degree version.
There are still residual issues which I don't yet fully understand.
The fuzzy bluish zone in #119 is due to overexposure. Red and green are easier saturated than blue.

[JRehling]

FYI, Io shadow passes across Jupiter occur every 42 hours and last about 2 hours – 5% of the time. This is similar for Europa, so Jupiter has the shadow of one of them or the other about 10% of the time. Ganymede and Callisto will bump that total up somewhat, depending on the season. So in ~10 random passes that image all the day-lit side of Jupiter, you'd expect about one pass with a satellite shadow.

[Bjorn Jonsson]

Now at last I took the time to finish the Juno-related software development I started around the time of the Juno Earth flyby back in 2013. Now I can reproject the raw framelets to simple cylindrical projection and render the resulting maps, resulting in nice images.

Here is a test image. This is image 119 ("radiation trend monitoring"). It was obtained on February 2, 2017 when Juno was ~340,000 km from Jupiter's center on the outbound leg of its trajectory. I selected this image because it's a global image where limb fits are trivial - this makes debugging stuff easier.



The left version is the image with almost no processing except for color correction and some sharpening. In the right version global illumination has been removed using a modified Lommel-Seeliger function and the contrast greatly exaggerated. In the original images the area near Jupiter's right limb is saturated in the red and green channels, resulting in very low contrast and slightly strange color. Interestingly, the saturated value in the original raw images is 240.

The contrast is rather low. I suspect I need to add square root encoding to the processing to increase the contrast; I noticed that Gerald does this.

One thing that caused me some minor headaches was a part the SPICE instrument kernel file, specifically this section:

CODE

      --- 0,0---------------------|----------------------.      | 230 pixels
  4.94 deg | RED     128 pix      *                      |     --------
      ---  `----------------------|------------------1600,128
                                  |
                                  V +Yjc

           |                   61.69 deg                 |      Boresight
           |---------------------------------------------|    (+Zjc axis)
           |                                             |      is into
                                                                the page

Maybe I'm missing something elementary but the value 61.69 deg seems strange and I get weird results if I use it. However, a 58.015 deg field of view for all 1648 pixels works perfectly and is also consistent with the 58 deg value for JunoCam that I've seen elsewhere and it's also consistent with JunoCam's focal length and pixel size.

As usual a big part of the work involved correcting the pointing. I used SPICE kernels and software I wrote using the SPICE toolkit to get the spacecraft position and pointing and to optionally correct the pointing (somewhat comparable to what the ISIS3 deltack program does). For the interested, here is an example of the output. It's somewhat similar to a PDS label file but with some 'new' custom labels that I added.

CODE

/* Spicegeom version 2017-02-28 */
TARGET_NAME="Jupiter"
SPACECRAFT_NAME="Juno"
IMAGE_NUMBER="        -1"
IMAGE_TIME="2017-FEB-02 15:57:44.297"
SC_TARGET_POSITION_VECTOR=(-148470.35180453,63094.92703727,-301286.56346215)
TARGET_CENTER_DISTANCE=341757.236215459
SUB_SPACECRAFT_LATITUDE=-61.833627009783
SUB_SPACECRAFT_LONGITUDE=203.026167185770
SUB_SPACECRAFT_LINE_SAMPLE=832.2795709754
SUB_SPACECRAFT_LINE=738.4562742541
SAMPLE_TO_BE_CORRECTED=494.0000000000
LINE_TO_BE_CORRECTED=753.0000000000
SAMPLE_CORRECTION=-20.0000000000
LINE_CORRECTION=7.0000000000
NORTH_AZIMUTH=90.45299584
FIELD_OF_VIEW=58.01500000
/* LOOK_AT includes a possible user-specified correction to LINE[_SAMPLE] */
/* In contrast, SUB_SPACECRAFT_LINE[_SAMPLE] does not include this correction */
LOOK_AT_X=-143367.5394205331
LOOK_AT_Z=-292943.9225293422
LOOK_AT_Y=61006.4711387579
PLANETOGRAPHIC_SUB_SPACECRAFT_LATITUDE=-64.90958822
SUB_SOLAR_LATITUDE=-2.582962
SUB_SOLAR_LONGITUDE=100.197161
SOLAR_DISTANCE=815580051.923982
PLANETOGRAPHIC_SUB_SOLAR_LATITUDE=-2.953164
PHASE_ANGLE=93.724392

Next: Processing a much closer and higher resolution image of Jupiter.

[mcaplinger]

Maybe I'm missing something elementary but the value 61.69 deg seems strange and I get weird results if I use it.

61.69 is simply the crosstrack FOV if the camera were a perfect pinhole camera with the given pixel pitch and focal length; i.e., degrees(1600*7.4e-3/10.997) = 61.69.

Of course, the camera is not a perfect pinhole camera so you shouldn't expect the 61.69 to be particularly meaningful; it's in a comment after all.

The I kernel (and the frames kernel for Junocam) are admittedly works in progress. I hope to have another update in a few months.

[Gerald]

The contrast is rather low. I suspect I need to add square root encoding to the processing to increase the contrast; I noticed that Gerald does this.

The square root encoding returns low contrast, similar to the raws, but it covers most of the dynamical range of "natural" colors.
One option I'm using to enhance the images is a gamma-stretch of the illumination-adjusted version, by a gamma of 4 with respect to the square-root encoded version, i.e. by using the square of the (approximately) radiometrically calibrated data.
In your enhanced image, I see, that you get color banding, as others including me, had been getting for quite a period of time. That's due to the piece-wise linear de-companding function, substantially deviating from square-root encoding.
Your Lommel-Seeliger model seems to work considerably better than the very simple Lambert model I'm using. Thanks for this hint! I've been going to infer the illumination model empirically.

[Bjorn Jonsson]

In your enhanced image, I see, that you get color banding, as others including me, had been getting for quite a period of time. That's due to the piece-wise linear de-companding function, substantially deviating from square-root encoding.
Your Lommel-Seeliger model seems to work considerably better than the very simple Lambert model I'm using. Thanks for this hint! I've been going to infer the illumination model empirically.

I found the SQROOT companding table and added it to my software - I'm now getting greatly improved results by decompanding the data. Here is first a simple cylindrical map with global illumination removed. Latitude is planetographic. Lommel-Seeliger works better than simple Lambert, especially in the modified form I'm using. The modification is to apply an exponent to the cosines of the incidence and emission angles. I'm currently using a value of 1.1 but this can probably be improved slightly. I also experimented with a Backstorm function but it probably doesn't work as well as modified Lommel-Seeliger (I need to check this more carefully though).



It should be noted that to correct the color where R/G is saturated I made some manual modifications to the map in Photoshop and I also made minor adjustments near the terminator.

And here are new versions of the images I posted yesterday. These new versions are significantly better.



The color correction I'm using is preliminary (without it the images are far too yellowish). It will probably change a bit but nevertheless this shouldn't be too far from Jupiter's true color.

[Gerald]

Montage of cylindrical planetocentrical PJ04 maps (Lambert, gamma-stretched), with 20 pixels per degree :

Full latitudinal coverage, north up. Longitude cropped to a range of 72 degrees.
Png version with 60 pixels per degree, 31 MB.

Best available weights for linearized (r/g/b): (0.82 / 1.0 / 2.17)

Edit:
The companding table is documented in the JunoCam SIS, finally released in the PDS imaging node for Juno.

[Gerald]

The individual cropped cylindrical PJ-04 maps, some of which the above montage is composed of.
Caution: The fully resolved images are 30-times larger than the thumbnails.

[Roman Tkachenko]

Dark Spot and Jovian 'Galaxy' (Enhanced Color)

[Gerald]

Nice!

Some more recreation:
Oval BA and "FFRs" interpreted as rising sun over a stormy sea.

[Bjorn Jonsson]

Dark Spot and Jovian 'Galaxy' (Enhanced Color)

This looks awesome. In particular I notice that lots of cloud shadows and vertical relief are visible, especially the small whitish clouds in the right half of the image.

[JRehling]

As we all know, Jupiter has a visible "surface" that is constantly fluctuating, mainly in that different latitudes rotate at different rates, sliding past one another over time. There is other variation as well, as belts, zones, and features within them shift over time. Therefore, no fixed map of Jupiter can exist.

Here is a map of Jupiter the way it looks now – I provide this as a reference to current Juno observations… and as a shameless plug to my astrophotography. This is based on images I took on March 1, 2, 3, and 9. I previously made a map of Jupiter 11 months ago, and the primary changes one notices in this time are:

The North Temperate Zone has changed from white to orange (or: stripes which are more orange than white).
Oval BA has shifted a great deal with respect to the Great Red Spot.
The pale band feeding into the GRS from its east is extremely turbulent over a large range of longitudes, whereas it appeared very laminar last year.
The GRS may be a little more orange (as opposed to more red).

This may help people orient towards a few of the features we see in Juno images that are too zoomed-in to show planet-wide context.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Gerald]

The North Temperate Zone has changed from white to orange (or: stripes which are more orange than white).

We had an NTB outbreak last year near solar conjunction, before PJ02,

and an SEB-outbreak near the end of 2016 / early 2017.

The pale band feeding into the GRS from its east is extremely turbulent over a large range of longitudes, whereas it appeared very laminar last year.

Up to data Jupiter images (with data/time) and maps are surely welcome for Juno's Jupiter observation planning, either by direct submission to the missionjuno planning site, or in collaboration with Marco Vedovato. Those observations are required to extrapolate the positions of Jupiter features for the consecutive perijove. It feeds into the points of interest (POIs) which are considered for voting.

[stevesliva]

This looks awesome. In particular I notice that lots of cloud shadows and vertical relief are visible, especially the small whitish clouds in the right half of the image.

Am I wrong in thinking the "galaxy" is an anticyclone and most of the smaller vortices are cyclones?

[Gerald]

Roman's image shows parts of the northern hemisphere (with north to the right). So structurally, at least, the vortices appear like you're assuming.
The image of oval BA, in contrast, shows part of the southern hemisphere (with north up). Therefore, the largest ovals structurally appear to be anticyclones, too, despite likely rotating in the opposite sense.

[Gerald]

I wondered, whether the polar CH4 images can be patched with approach images.
For PJ04 north polar region (#098), at least, images #092, #094, and #096 seem to be sufficient to close the gaps:

The animated gif shows steps of filling in appropriately reprojected patches.

[Gerald]

PJ04 #102 in the context of #085 and #122:

(NASA / JPL / SwRI / MSSS / Gerald Eichstädt)

[Gerald]

A more complete set of rgb and methane band cylindrical map projections (10 pixels per lon/lat degree).
I've added a control mask to see alignment errors with the Jupiter spheroid shape model easier.

[Bjorn Jonsson]

The JunoCam images are in a word awesome. They are a lot more challenging to process properly than e.g. the Voyager, Galileo and Cassini images but the resulting processed images are every bit as spectacular as the images from the earlier spacecraft that imaged Jupiter. In particular the color is much better than in the Voyager data for obvious reasons.

Here are a few images processed from the image 106 raw framelets. This is the "POI: Oval BA" observation. In the three images below the effects of global illumination have been removed. The contrast and color has been exaggerated and small scale features sharpened to better reveal various features and color variations.




These images show an enormous amount of small scale details. Cloud shadows and vertical relief are clearly visible at many locations. These JunoCam images shows these features better than the best and highest resolution Voyager images do.

The fairly big oval visible in these images is one of the "string of pearls" ovals near latitude 40 degrees south; this is oval A1.

And here is a different version of these images with approximately true color and contrast. Small scale features have been sharpened slightly:



All of these images were produced by using viewing geometry information from SPICE kernels to reproject the raw framelets to a simple cylindrical map. For best results I had to make corrections to the camera pointing. I then used a 3D renderer to render perspective views of an oblate spheroid using the spacecraft's location and the camera pointing at three different points in time when JunoCam was acquiring the original framelets.

Since JunoCam has a very wide field of view (58°) these images should give a fairly good idea of what a naked eye view from Juno's location would look like. This is different from the Voyager/Galileo/Cassini images where the field of view is less than 0.5°. The images from these spacecraft are therefore more similar to what one would see through a small astronomical telescope from a distance of a few million km from Jupiter.

Juno's altitude above Jupiter was only ~14,500 km when the original images were obtained. Therefore the area covered by the images isn't particularly big. Below is a quick and dirty context view. It is based on John Rogers' PJ4 predictive map that can be seen here: https://www.britastro.org/node/8908



And finally an animation showing all of image 106. It's created using Juno's location and JunoCams' pointing when it was imaging Jupiter:
https://vimeo.com/209958488

[PhilipTerryGraha...]

Wow Bjorn! This is some absolutely incredible stuff! I am definitely not spitting hyperbole when I say this is some of the most amazing material I've seen be crafted from JunoCam data. I especially love your animation; it feels like I'm right there with the spinning lil' spacecraft

[stevesliva]

I especially love your animation; it feels like I'm right there with the spinning lil' spacecraft

Would've missed that myself-- fantastic!

Fingers crossed that the radiation environment allows about 20 of these.

[Gerald]

Well, each perijove would/should allow for dozens of different fly-over animations. This is a short 200-frame animation derived from PJ04 image #109 (south polar region), and rendered with 10 pixels per (cylindrical) degree:
 jnc_pj04_109_10px_600x600_timelapse120_200frames_decompand_sqrt_v01.avi ( 895.83K ) Number of downloads: 418

It's close to "natural" colors, and square-root encoded with respect to radiometric values.
24 fps, and one frame per 5 real seconds result in a 120-fold time-lapse.

SPICE trajectory data dumped with the NAIF/SPICE utility spy.exe, all frames rendered directly from the raw (credit for the raws: NASA / JPL / SwRI / MSSS) using these SPICE trajectories, then converted to an AVI using ffmpeg.

I'm yet a little hesitant with creating and posting renditions of this type, since these sequences would look better with an "appropriate" enhancement. And I'm not yet quite happy with my own attempts to implement "appropriate".

-- Fingers crossed, that Juno will get mission extensions until near the end of the anticipated lifetime of the hardware somewhere near 40 perijoves, hopefully with a then still working JunoCam.

[Gerald]

Here the first 170 frames of the same sequence as in the previous post, but de-Lambertianed according to the 1 bar Jupiter spheroid, and the square-root encoded resulting quotient stretched with gamma = 4.0:
 jnc_pj04_109_10px_600x600_timelapse120_170frames_decompand_sqrt_deLambert_gamma4_v01.avi ( 1013.34K ) Number of downloads: 352

Contrast is considerably enhanced by this technique, but the Lambertian light model - at least my implementation - breaks down in the twilight of the terminator, and at the limb near the terminator.
Björn Jónsson's model works considerably better. But of course, I'm ambitioned to find out where my technical limitations are regarding accurate modeling of Jupiter's lighting model.

[JRehling]

Amazing, Bjorn, and wonderful. The white ovals are fascinating – a target worthy of your skills.

[Gerald]

A 361 frames AVI version (125-fold time-lapse) of the previous pj04 #109, and an AVI fragment one night worth of CPU runtime derived from #099, #100, #101, and a very short beginning of #102. In a 45 degree width and 115 degrees height cylindrically projected strip, it shows part of the flight until minutes before closest approach.
Still with the singularity near terminator and limb from de-Lambertianing.

[Gerald]

PJ-04 animation on youtube derived from images #099 to #109.

[Sean]

PJ04 portrait based on Gerald's work...



Detail...

[Sean]

I'm constantly surprised how much detail can be gleaned from this data...

[Sean]

PJ04 portraits...testing some new blending methods.

[jccwrt]

I think I found some examples of gravity waves in PJ4-102. Juno was located over the North Temperate Belt, looking south towards the North Equatorial Belt. This image is rotated 180 degrees and enlarged 2x to help make them easier to see.

[Sean]

PJ04_109 portrait using Gerald's work...

[Sean]

Here is a Juno sketch...

[Bjorn Jonsson]

This is a highly speculative experimental anaglyph based on image PJ04_106:



The feature near the center of the anaglyph is the 'spiral' visible in the cropped image below. The 'spiral' is southwest of oval BA. The full image can be seen in this post.



The anaglyph is rendered from a 3D model that was created using shape from shading. The underlying assumption is that at least some of the elongated dark features within the 'spiral' are caused by cloud shadows and differences in vertical relief. These dark features look like shadows and some of the elongated, brighter features look like they might be 'walls' of clouds but this interpretation might be incorrect (this is after all a highly speculative anaglyph). The areas around the 'spiral' are probably less accurate in the anaglyph since most of the dark features there are not shadows.

[Sean]

PJ04_106

[Sean]

PJ04_101 Detail

[JRehling]

Bjorn, I love the anaglyphs.

One possibly helpful suggestion: The non-topographical variation in color of Jupiter's clouds is greater in the blue filter than in the red. So using only the red filter to generate the 3D might generate a cleaner model of the topography. No guarantees, of course!

Something I noticed by comparing the two (selecting those two color planes in Photoshop, then desaturating completely) is that it looks like the blue image was taken after the red. There's an apparent flow of just a couple of pixels in places where the swirls suggest motion. Perhaps that is a trompe l'oeil, but one of the images must certainly have been taken first. Anyway, if accurate, do what you will with that information. Now we're going from two dimensions to three and then four!

I'll attach a blink gif of those two images and other eyes may see what I'm talking about and more.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Gerald]

The channels are essentially mixed. You won't see any parallax or motion between color bands. Alignment offsets are an effect of processing or of real color gradients.

[Sean]

PJ04_100



PJ04_100 detail

[Sean]

PJ04_099 [ after Gerald's work ]




Detail 001



Detail 002



Detail 003

[Sean]

PJ04_107






Details

[Gerald]

A first revision of the Perijove-04 animation is online on Youtube, now.

According MP4, scenes and stills on junocam.pictures webspace.

There is a pretty large time gap between two of the raws, such that there is only a small surface overlap. I tried to blend the scenes in a way, that the video looks at least roughly continuous.

[Sean]

More tinkering with PJ04_101 [G.Eichstadt] this time using upscaled flyby still.





I've noticed that the Flickr thumbnail tends toward heavy sharpening of the image.

[Sean]

PJ04_107 update [G.Eichstadt]

[Sean]

PJ04_100 update [G.Eichstadt]

[Sean]

PJ04_106 details & portrait, new pass

[Sean]

A new take on PJ04_106 GE/SD