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: 4405 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 7 2008, 01:15 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 30-January 05 Member No.: 162 |
If this suggestion involves much work, my apologies, but if it is just some click and drags (and no one has tried this yet) go for it;
would it help to verify an image processing technique to try it on, for instance, a Voyager Encedalus image, and then compare the enhancement to a subsequent Cassini image of the same area ?? If a particular technique makes particular details stand out in a Voyager image that are verified in a Cassini image, then perhaps if the same were done to, for example, a Voyager Uranus Puck image, then we might have some expectation the technique is worthwhile. I might then suggest using the technique on some Cassini images . . . (heh, heh) |
|
|
Sep 7 2008, 02:34 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4405 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
The data issues with those are totally different. tasp, I find your snide "if it involves too much work" comment interesting....why don't you do it if it is so easy? There isn't a dataset out there (to my knowledge) like the Proteus image. So sharp, so close, and yet so underexposed. The fact that the major features all corresponded to the other images is good enough for me. I realize that noise is still a factor, but my position versus Tayfun Oner's is basically one of being willing to leave salt and peppering noise to cue a viewer that the picture is noisy or create a clean looking product that might lead an uninformed viewer to mistake noise for a real feature. When I am trying to make pretty pictures, the later is my choice. I would be much more careful if I was working on an image for scientific purposes, such as on my work with Ariel.
-------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:32 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. |