MSL Images & Cameras, technical discussions of images, image processing and cameras |
MSL Images & Cameras, technical discussions of images, image processing and cameras |
![]()
Post
#1
|
||
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2228 Joined: 1-December 04 From: Marble Falls, Texas, USA Member No.: 116 ![]() |
I'm still trying to figure out a number of things about the new images we are trying to work with. Assuming others are likewise trying to learn, I thought I would open this thread to create a place for such discussions.
I'd like to start out with a comment about raw image contrast. There have been several postings in the main threads about whether or not the MSL raw images have been stretched like those from the MER missions. I am certainly no expert on this, but it looks to me as if the MSL images have not been stretched at all. I haven't tried to analyze all of the image types, but the hazcams and navcams have pixel brightness histograms that are very different from their MER counterparts. This attached image compares MER and MSL navcams along with their luminosity histograms. The MSL images clearly are not using the entire, available range of brightness values, whereas the MER raws do. For this reason, the MSL raw images can usually be nicely enhanced by simply stretching the distribution of brightness across the full 256 value range. -------------------- ...Tom
I'm not a Space Fan, I'm a Space Exploration Enthusiast. |
|
|
||
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4252 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 ![]() |
I second that. Very nicely done.
Let's hope for another M100 pan with a greater baseline to really pop out those butes and mesas... ![]() |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
||
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 222 Joined: 7-August 12 From: Garberville, CA Member No.: 6500 ![]() |
Let's hope for another M100 pan with a greater baseline to really pop out those butes and mesas... Oh my, I agree and soon I hope! Using one of the top portions of the Sol 32 MC100 robotic arm photos as the left eye in an anaglyph test, though the horizon is frustratiingly out of focus it was enough to verify that the basline is now quite effective for imaging the base of Mt. Sharp with plenty of eye-popping depth. The test below is a little wonky to the eye because the red spectrum is so darned out of focus but it was enough to test the baseline shift's effectivness. I'd just love to do another full pan anaglyph with a new from a location somewhere well before Glenelg before it widens to much for a good Sol 19 pairing. Please give us another MC 100 full pan soon! -------------------- "We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time." -T.S. Eliot
|
|
|
||
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st June 2024 - 08:54 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. |
![]() |