MSL Post First Drive - Intermission, Start of Drive to Glenelg, Intermission between CAP 1B and 2 - Sols 17 through 29 |
MSL Post First Drive - Intermission, Start of Drive to Glenelg, Intermission between CAP 1B and 2 - Sols 17 through 29 |
Aug 23 2012, 02:39 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
Curiosity's Cap 1B phase was completed yesterday with the successful first drive, so now we're going into "Intermission." Dan Limonadi's guest post on the Society blog has great explanations of what all these phases mean.
QUOTE There is an “intermission” that the science team will have between CAP 1B and CAP 2. The intermission will include initial drives away from the landing site, more in-depth ChemCam and Mastcam characterization and science observations, and the first SAM atmospheric science experiment. The total length of this period depends on how long the science team wants to drive before carrying on with sample chain checkout activities. The key flavor difference of intermission is that science is more in the driver’s seat and not trying to squeeze in between higher priority engineering checkout activities that have priority during CAP 1 and 2. Our current plan is to complete a significant fraction of our drive to Glenelg during intermission Keep discussion of sol 9-16 imaging in the relevant thread -- not all of those full-frame Mastcam images are down yet.
-------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Aug 26 2012, 12:48 AM
Post
#2
|
|||
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
Another try at a mastcam anaglyph. Here's a smaller version of the ML image with the MR area shown by the rectangle:
The anaglyph: -------------------- |
||
|
|||
Aug 26 2012, 03:18 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 252 Joined: 5-May 05 From: Mississippi (USA) Member No.: 379 |
Another try at a mastcam anaglyph. Here's a smaller version of the ML image with the [url="http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov This should probably be in the Making anaglyph images, Methods and software thread but my question is did you have any further adjustments in size after cropping out the image from the larger MR area? I did somewhat the same thing*, but the objects in the ML image still appeared much smaller. It looked really weird until I started playing with something called barrel distortion in StereoPhotoMaker. I don't claim to know what I am doing but if I try enough things sometimes something works. If I don't need to correct for barrel distortion that would certainly make things simpler. * I didn't even use the full ML graphic. I finally got this. ( click below ) Comparing mine to yours - yours certainly looks cleaner. However; mine may have more 3d effect in the fore & middle ground? Yes? No? Maybe? click link: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=27692 http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&p=189878 Jack |
|
|
Aug 26 2012, 11:41 AM
Post
#4
|
||
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
This should probably be in the Making anaglyph images, Methods and software thread but my question is did you have any further adjustments in size after cropping out the image from the larger MR area? I did somewhat the same thing*, but the objects in the ML image still appeared much smaller. Just did it by eye in Photoshop--crop the ML, scale it up so that it matches the size of the similar area of the MR, apply level changes to RGB as appropriate, then fine tune the registration by eye using the Move tool and cursor keys until it looks about right. Lots of variables to mess up & it always seems like there are problem areas & as you say it gets a little brain-bending. But haven't tried correcting for distortions--maybe that's key. I suppose the pros use the full CAVHORE camera models to really do it right. Here's the best I can manage with one of the rover track pairs, without any geometric changes: Looks like you might have stitched a couple of frames together? That's another complication to get right. -------------------- |
|
|
||
Aug 26 2012, 01:04 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 61 Joined: 5-June 05 From: 46.283N 11.433E :)) Member No.: 401 |
Just did it by eye in Photoshop--crop the ML, scale it up so that it matches the size of the similar area of the MR, apply level changes to RGB as appropriate, then fine tune the registration by eye using the Move tool and cursor keys until it looks about right. I don't find the two debayered frames. I would like to try my anaglyph version. Could you post the two frames? thank you |
|
|
Aug 26 2012, 04:46 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
I don't find the two debayered frames. I think we're on our own for debayering (demosaicing) the frames. This page has what I got anyway: http://curiositymsl.com/mcana/ The hills have those weird green patches that people are getting. It'd be interesting to see how JPL does it (Promised Land) -------------------- |
|
|
Aug 26 2012, 06:15 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 408 Joined: 3-August 05 Member No.: 453 |
I think we're on our own for debayering (demosaicing) the frames. [...] It'd be interesting to see how JPL does it Presumably they work with the original images, not the jpeg (re-)compressed versions we see, and hence they do not have to deal with jpeg compression artifacts interfering with the de-Bayer process. Airbag |
|
|
Aug 27 2012, 01:37 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
Presumably they work with the original images, not the jpeg (re-)compressed versions we see, and hence they do not have to deal with jpeg compression artifacts interfering with the de-Bayer process. If that's what's causing the yellow/green artifacts, then providing bayer->jpg files instead of bayer->demosaiced->jpg files is no favor. This page describes an "advanced" algorithm: Self-Similarity Driven Demosaicking Applying that to one of the mastcam bayered images (link) on the public website gives this: Zooming in on a small area on the nameplate to show individual pixels: So we're screwed? -------------------- |
||
|
|||
Aug 27 2012, 02:22 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 4251 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 |
providing bayer->jpg files instead of bayer->demosaiced->jpg files is no favor. The policy has always been to supply jpegs of the original downlinked images, rather than do any processing first (apart from stretching/lut). Usually that's what we want, as it's as close as we can get to the original images before they show up on pds. In this case that policy has backfired a bit. Understandable I'd say.This page describes an "advanced" algorithm: There are now three of us (yourself, ugordan, and myself) who obtained similar results on demosaicing using very different approaches. I'd say this is going to be as good as we can do without going in by hand. Large smooth areas seem to be easy to fix. But where the periodic pattern ends, none of our methods can handle it.Edit: thanks for that, mcaplinger. I was surprized that we were seeing these bayer images considering the bandwidth required. |
|
|
Aug 27 2012, 07:44 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 4763 Joined: 15-March 05 From: Glendale, AZ Member No.: 197 |
There are now three of us (yourself, ugordan, and myself) who obtained similar results on demosaicing using very different approaches. UMSF: Providing headache relief for space image fans everywhere. -------------------- If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 5th June 2024 - 08:13 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. |