Processing VIMS cubes, An attempt at "true" color |
Processing VIMS cubes, An attempt at "true" color |
Sep 10 2006, 07:51 PM
Post
#1
|
||||||||
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3652 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
Right, a suggestion I made here in another topic made me wonder why not try that myself. A bunch of data was sitting on the PDS, after all. After a hassle figuring out just how the image cubes are organized and trying to read them, finally I was able to produce some results. This is all very rough work, can be considered first-iteration only and not particularly accurate.
Basically, I used the cubes to extract the visible spectrum in the 380-780 nanometer range which was then input to color matching code I found here by Andrew T. Young. The code integrates over 40 10-nm steps to produce CIE XYZ color components. I then converted these to RGB values. I'm aware of at least three inaccuracies in my code as of yet: one is the above sampled code apparently uses Illuminant C as the light source, not true solar spectra so the color turns out bluish (has a temp. of 9300 K instead of 6500 K, AFAIK). I tried to compensate at the moment by changing the final RGB white balance, but this is probably an inaccurate way to go. Another inaccuracy is I don't do bias removal from the cubes. This likely affects the outcome. Also, I don't use the precise wavelengths the code requires, but use the closest one in the cube. I intend to fix this by interpolating between nearest wavelengths. All images are enlarged 4x. The leftmost image is a 4-cube mosaic. The colors in all four frames turned out identical which gives me at least some confidence. The image in the middle shows Dione's disc creeping in front of Saturn. Dione's disc appears elongated probably because as the lines were readout, it moved considerably in its orbit. The rightmost image shows a very overexposed Saturn image, the part below the ring shadows got overexposed. From what I've seen browsing through the PDS, a lot of the cubes are badly overexposed at some wavelengths. Here's a couple of Jupiter images. I'm not very satisfied with them as they seem to look somewhat greenish, but overall the color looks believeable: Lastly, two Titan composites. They turned out way more reddish than I thought they would. It'll be interesting to see how much the results will change once I do a more proper processing pipeline working. -------------------- |
|||||||
|
||||||||
Sep 21 2006, 08:52 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Admin Posts: 468 Joined: 11-February 04 From: USA Member No.: 21 |
Good points made by all,
Part of my confusion on this might be coming from a misunderstanding about what the dataset is providing. Are the VIMS cubes in spectral power, or reflectance? (I appologize if I'm using these terms incorrectly) Has the illuminant spectrum already been removed? If the VIMS data is in spectral power, then I would say that chromatic adaptation is still necessary since, as Don said, D65 isn't solar spectrum. It is what we see here on Earth. If it is a reflectance dataset, then wouldn't that spectrum have to be multiplied by the spectrum of the D65 illuminant before being passed to the CIE color matching functions? |
|
|
Sep 21 2006, 10:32 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
If the VIMS data is in spectral power, then I would say that chromatic adaptation is still necessary since, as Don said, D65 isn't solar spectrum. It is what we see here on Earth. If it is a reflectance dataset, then wouldn't that spectrum have to be multiplied by the spectrum of the D65 illuminant before being passed to the CIE color matching functions? It's worse than that. In most of these cases, monitors are inherently dimmer than the sunlit surfaces we're talking about, and the relative sensory-system response to the three primary colors can and does shift as you increase/decrease illumination. So let's say some body out there simply reflected twice the green light it did blue light, reflecting those only in narrow bands, and it reflected no red at all. It would not necessarily capture the color of that object merely to have a display also emit twice the green light as blue; if the illumination is different, then a different ratio must be used to capture the ratio of color responses one would have seeing that object in daylight. An extreme example of this can cause the apparent relative brightness of two patches to depend on the illumination in which you view them -- even if the light sources both have solar spectrum! Another related phenomenon is that it is often possible to see sun dogs or dim rainbows if you are wearing sunglasses, only to have the color disappear when you take the sunglasses off. I computed once that Uranus (and bodies beyond that, for the most part) has a luminance that a computer monitor can match, but everything closer to the Sun than that is brighter than your monitor could display. So achieving the colors one would perceive from a spaceship window requires some trickiness. |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 08:07 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3652 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
I computed once that Uranus (and bodies beyond that, for the most part) has a luminance that a computer monitor can match, but everything closer to the Sun than that is brighter than your monitor could display. Now that would be something... getting a totally dark room around you with an image of Neptune on the screen that is precisely as bright as the real thing and your eye is accustomed to the low light. I wonder how dim that'd appear. It would be difficult to calibrate, though. I imagine you'd need one of those Light Intensity Measuring Thingies (LIMTs). There are CRT monitors nowadays that have a sort of "Magic Bright" function that kicks up the brightness substantially, I imagine accurate luminances could be reached even at Saturn, though I'm not so sure about Enceladus and Tethys, them being so high-albedo and all. -------------------- |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 06:41 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3652 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
I can understand the reasoning of not touching the illumination, not removing solar spectra from the cubes. The problem with that is solar spectrum turns out reddish and everything has a distinct red hue. Here are a couple of comparisons, left images show no spectrum messing, simple integration through the CIE XYZ functions.
I suppose if you stared long enough at scenes like this, the eye/brain would automatically adapt to the color and make a new white-point, making Enceladus (uppermost left image) appear white again. The problem is, this is not gonna happen on a computer screen. You be the judge of what looks more reasonable. -------------------- |
|
|
Sep 22 2006, 09:12 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4405 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
For Jupiter and Saturn, I am biased toward the right hand images based on experiences with a telescope, but this brings in a whole new host of visual issues...
-------------------- |
|
|
Sep 25 2006, 08:02 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3652 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
I've been experimenting with cleaning up the VIMS visual channel a bit. I've found a cube that captures the night side of Titan with the entire 64x64 hires field of view that served as an augmented dark background to remove the pesky noise. It turned out better than I hoped. Unfortunately, the noise doesn't seem to be as static as I thought. Most of the noise is removed, but some isn't.
To illustrate just what mess the VIMS cubes are (including their calibration data), here are a couple of before and after images: The bottom image is one of the highest resolution views of Iapetus by VIMS. The noise is disastrous. You can actually see it's mostly coincident with the ring image above. My dark current removal model assumes noise is linear with exposure, this seems to work well. The background will need some touching up still. I emailed one of the guys responsible for the PDS volumes, he said he'll look into it and get back to me. We shall see, though I'm not getting my hopes up. -------------------- |
|
|
Sep 26 2006, 07:33 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3652 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
Sure enough, I got a response from the VIMS team. They had this to say:
QUOTE New dark models have not been generated with regularity and users of the VIS science data have been doing corrections after the calibration pipeline by looking at average values along columns in data and using these values to correct their data. That doesn't sound like a very exact science, though. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:45 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. |