Reprocessing Historical Images - II, Restoring images from antiquated and/or poor quality sources |
Reprocessing Historical Images - II, Restoring images from antiquated and/or poor quality sources |
Aug 29 2008, 03:34 PM
Post
#1
|
|||
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
I figure that it is time for another thread like this. I still find it astonishing to see the versions of a lot of images that are reproduced over and over again. For example, this is the last mosaic of Triton taken before the close encounter began. The version on the Planetary Photojournal is on the left, my version on the right. Clearly, this image was produced as part of the "instant science" campaign. They did a superb job getting images to the public in a speedy manner, but they are extremely rough, since the team was busy running the spacecraft. However, it is this version that keeps being recycled. Worse, the version on the photojournal is clearly scanned from a printed copy, causing further degradation.
Here is a similar comparison, this time using Proteus (still 1989N-1 on the Planetary Photojournal!). This discussion started in the thread about Viking crescents but was getting off topic, so I thought I would start a new thread here. -------------------- |
||
|
|||
Sep 2 2008, 11:27 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I would agree - Stefan, you're not reading what Ted has posted in response to your initial scepticism and doubts. To be honest, my patience would have evaporated long ago.
|
|
|
Sep 2 2008, 02:28 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 52 Joined: 16-November 06 Member No.: 1364 |
This discussion is obviously going in the wrong direction, so this will be my last contribution.
I would agree - Stefan, you're not reading what Ted has posted in response to your initial scepticism and doubts. To be honest, my patience would have evaporated long ago. Doug, I do not understand why you interfere. In science, scepticism and doubt are accepted, and often lead to more understanding, sometimes on both sides. I was interested in discussing one aspect of Ted's work, and I believe I did this in a respectful manner. It is there, and I have brightened it in this version. You are right, I see it now. It is almost invisible on my TFT monitor, and perhaps even my eye rejected it automatically as a dust speck. what is frustrating is that you are not responding at all to my explanation of how I did it. That is the point: I do not know how you got from the raw image to the end product, and I do not get the story from your posts. Binning? Smoothing? How do you treat empty space? You say that my averaged version (I presume you refer to the median filtered one) kills contrast details. True, but it also kills some noise. Binning is a form of averaging, so you kill contrast details too. And you preserve some noise. I believe these are all worthy topics for discussion, and I regret frustration has crept in. I was interested in discussing your approach. How can I agree that your Proteus image is an improvement over the original version if I do not understand what you did? These images are so important, they will be the only ones for a very long time. Stefan. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 09:30 AM |
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. |