30th Anniversary of the Voyager 1 Flyby of Jupiter |
30th Anniversary of the Voyager 1 Flyby of Jupiter |
Mar 5 2009, 08:20 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 3233 Joined: 11-February 04 From: Tucson, AZ Member No.: 23 |
Today marks the 30th anniversary of Voyager 1's flyby of Jupiter. On March 5, 1979, Voyager 1 flew through the Jupiter system providing a wealth of information of Jupiter, its magnetic field, and moons. Thanks to Voyager 1, the Galilean satellites became worlds with real geology and amazing vistas. Voyager 1 also revealed Jupiter's ring system and Io's volcanism for the first time.
I've written up a longer post about the encounter with Io on my blog, which also has an animation of the flyby: http://gishbar.blogspot.com/2009/03/30th-a...1-flyby-of.html -------------------- &@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io |
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 09:58 AM
Post
#76
|
||
Lord Of The Uranian Rings Group: Members Posts: 798 Joined: 18-July 05 From: Plymouth, UK Member No.: 437 |
Here's another Voyager 2 narrow angle view, taken on 28th of June, 1979:
A day later, this officially released composite was captured, and provides a useful comparison of how the different processing techniques affect the final result: http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA01370 -------------------- |
|
|
||
Jul 27 2010, 10:26 PM
Post
#77
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 121 Joined: 26-June 04 From: Austria Member No.: 89 |
As for realistic planetary movies without flickering - has anyone tried out Fantamorph ?
http://www.fantamorph.com/ Its not scientific software but it produces great flowing animations. For the Voyager-Jupiter-movie-project an interesting addition I think ! Robert |
|
|
Jul 28 2010, 01:16 PM
Post
#78
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 378 Joined: 21-April 05 From: Portugal Member No.: 347 |
Beautifully results! The only improvement I can think off would be to correct for planet rotation between each color channel image. This would require image reprojection or at least some kind of manual warp applied to parts of the image.
-------------------- _______________________
www.astrosurf.com/nunes |
|
|
Jul 28 2010, 06:01 PM
Post
#79
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
My hunch is you'd need reprojection software (bonus for illumination changes correction!) for really good results, especially dealing with WAC frames near closest approach. Then you'd probably have weird effects with limb haze, though. Best of both worlds could be merging limb shots with reprojected disk shots.
-------------------- |
|
|
Jul 29 2010, 01:13 PM
Post
#80
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
I think the color is significantly more realistic in the new version but beware that there might still be some bugs in my code so this might change slightly. A quick sanity check on your code would be to check a known neutral case input. If you are working with I/F reflectance data (i.e. solar spectrum divided out), then putting in a completely flat (say unity) spectrum into the calculation and illuminating it with the D65 illuminant (which is the sRGB white point), you should get a completely neutral grey RGB color as output. If you are working with radiance data instead, you will end up with a yellowish-orange color as that is what sunlight color appears in the D65 white point. The effect would be similar to setting a digital camera white balance to daylight/overcast and taking a picture or something under an incandescent lightbulb. -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 8 2011, 02:01 AM
Post
#81
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
I processed a Voyager 1 crescent image of Callisto. It is amazing how much poorer the definition in Voyager 1 images is compared to Voyager 2. http://planetimages.blogspot.com/2011/12/c...t-callisto.html
-------------------- |
|
|
Dec 8 2011, 11:19 AM
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 796 Joined: 27-February 08 From: Heart of Europe Member No.: 4057 |
Nice!
Is it from WAC or NAC? " It is amazing how much poorer the definition in Voyager 1 images is compared to Voyager 2." Isn't it caused by different exposition time and gain modes, more than differences between cameras? After all, image technicians could use experiences from Voyager 1 flyby for Voyager 2 flyby. -------------------- |
|
|
Dec 8 2011, 11:36 AM
Post
#83
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
Nice! Is it from WAC or NAC? " It is amazing how much poorer the definition in Voyager 1 images is compared to Voyager 2." Isn't it caused by different exposition time and gain modes, more than differences between cameras? After all, image technicians could use experiences from Voyager 1 flyby for Voyager 2 flyby. It is from the NAC. Voyager 2's vidicon was roughly twice as sensitive as the one on Voyager 1, meaning that Voyager 1 images are more likely to be smeared. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 3rd June 2024 - 10:26 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |