Mars 3 (Various Topics Merged) |
Mars 3 (Various Topics Merged) |
Dec 29 2004, 10:36 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
On my website sometime back, I added a page on the image fragment sent back by the Mars-3 Lander. I released serveral versions, including the best quality processing using othodox techniques I would use on other images plus colorization here:
http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/fragmentc.jpg However, I released another image, which I called a "What if" image. This image can be seen here http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/m3s5b.jpg It was produced via extreme processing of the original data to make a Mars-like scene, but I made it clear on my website it was only a speculative image. I strongly doubt if the raw data even shows Mars at all - it could be all noise. But since this mode of processing looked strangely Viking-like, I figured I would put it on the web. I was warned by several, who said that while fun, some kooks might take it seriously. My response was that I really don't care what kooks think. Then I noticed this web page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_2 They used the overprocessed image. I feel like it is being presented as a true photograph. This is of concern. -------------------- |
|
|
Oct 21 2014, 08:23 PM
Post
#2
|
|
IMG to PNG GOD Group: Moderator Posts: 2251 Joined: 19-February 04 From: Near fire and ice Member No.: 38 |
It would be interesting to reprocess this using modern computers and software by using the original data with full information on how the camera worked and how to reconstruct the signal. When data from other landers is processed it quickly becomes absolutely clear what you are looking at - you clearly see rocks etc. and in some cases parts of the landers. This is true for e.g. the Veneras, Huygens and various Mars and Lunar landers.
The problem with the images above is that even though advanced image processing methods have been used it is impossible to tell from the resulting images what you are really looking at and therefore impossible to tell whether the data you are processing is correctly reconstructed - there are too many "ifs" as 4th rock pointed out (inversion or no inversion, possible gain changes etc.). As I previously said, it would be interesting if the original data could somehow be recovered and all of the "ifs" eliminated with 100% certainty. If that is possible the result should be either an image that shows something recognizable (surface features like rocks and/or parts of the lander) or something looking like noise. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 30th May 2024 - 10:38 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. |