Almost 900 MB of "Marble Movie" data now available: https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing
The newly released Marble Movie data cover 10 Jul to 28 Jul. For the most part, images are taken every 15 minutes. Until 16 July it alternated RGB and blue, after that it's just RGB. Every two days beginning July 17, there is a methane filter image. There are two gaps in the data, one between 13 Jul 17:00 and 14 Jul 02:15, and the other from 14 Jul 13:00 to 14 Jul 20:15.
Note that unlike the approach movie images, which had to be full-spin 82-frame images, now that we're in orbit we are able to use "nadir mode" which times the image acquisition based on s/c attitude knowledge of when Jupiter is in the FOV. This reduces the data volume a lot, but has the unhappy side effect of splitting the planet across two green framelets for most of the RGB images, which makes processing a bit harder depending on how one does it.
That's the output of my first out-of-the-hip calibration test run, starting with a wild guess of the camera parameters:
A very first taste of an animated version with 6 frames showing the Great Red Spot:
I've uploaded http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160810/ (a zip with about 250 MB).
After the sequence up to image 2449, covered by the zip, Juno's spin axis changed a bit. This required an adjustment of the processing parameters.
It's the kind of x-coordinate coverage with which I hope to be able to narrow down the remaining degrees of freedom in my camera model.
The processing of the remaining color images is still running. I'll upload the results later, in a few hours.
I've added http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160810/ (about 24 MB).
The first half is good. In the second half, there is some misalignment, wobbling and flickering. To treat this, I'll likeley need to apply a more time-consuming reprocessing.
Edit: The remaining preliminary stills of the AVI are now online.
I've skipped image 2450, since it requires parameters specific to this image, which are TBD.
Thanks Paul, for finding time to have a look at the Juno mission!
This enhanced version of JunoCam's first "methane" image of Jupiter
The first 81 color frames of the "Marble Movie", linearized to enhance cloud band structure, and cropped around Jupiter, as a lossy gif preview:
The AVI, white-balanced version:
junocam_marble_movie_until_frame2449_crop_lin_white.avi ( 524.7K )
: 525
Interestingly, the file is of better quality than the gif, contains a lot more (602) frames, but it's of smaller file size.
Thanks!
Here the north-up version:
junocam_marble_movie_until_frame2449_crop_lin_white_rot180.avi ( 523.55K )
: 478
I may implement and test some moon-enhancement versions later today. The log-version I've posted for the Jupiter Approach movie was intended to ensure, that no information gets lost on the level of the darkest colors. But specific for moon enhancement, there are several options. Later today or tomorrow, I may post the best solutions I can find in the short run.
Yeah, the countdown to PJ1 is running. Exciting, and still a lot to prepare...
Good to know, that the motion of the moons is going to become even more interesting. So it appears useful to run some more tests with the images already available.
I think the public image upload capability at missionjuno is now live -- https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing and push the upload button in the upper right corner.
An attempt to upload the AVI failed. So, I've provided a link to the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuhShcBlMik Emily has been so kind to load up.
One needs to pay a little bit of attention not to happen to confuse the upload for amateur observations with the upload for JunoCam products.
Re moon-enhancement: I've completed brainstorming several approaches, and am now going to implement. The first step will be related to a breadth-first algorithm to cover a single https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronoi_diagram with onion shells in order to determine the distance from the bright part of Jupiter for each pixel. This follows a fill algorithm for Jupiter, which assigns a zero-distance from the pixels to the bright Jupiter area.
The onion shells will also be stored explicitely to allow for quantile calculations within one or a sequence of shells.
The analysis of the shells in terms of percentiles, and the number of the shell, will go into dark bias (for noise and stray light), gamma, and stretch functions. These functions will be parameterized to allow to play with. The functions should be continuous in order to avoid visible ring artifacts.
The technique worked as expected, at least for the first 50 test images:
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160812/.
Wow! This looks extremely promising and should look awesome once you have figured out a way to get rid of the hot pixels/noise.
Yes, JunoCam takes great images! All you need to do is processing them appropriately.
I'm going to implement a crude "a-posteriori" filter for removal of the hot pixels and eventual CRs on dark background. It will simply look for single-filter bright pixels without neighboring pixels with a non-low value on a different color channel within some radius, and set them to black, or maybe to a point noise filtered value.
This exploits, that bright noise usually occurs in only one color band, and it considers some misalignment or low signal at the same time.
----
I've seen a question on Reddit about the black feature in the Marble Movie.
There are several stills in the Marble Movie showing shadows of moons. Here an example sequence:
Very nice I think you should add "SwRI" to your list of image credits (between JPL and MSSS).
For the approach movie we converted the moons to grayscale because otherwise the color fringing from slight misregistration was too distracting.
Hi Candy - Thank you very much! I'm happy, that you're enjoying my processings. It's a big pleasure to see - and help - your long-planned vision coming true.
-- I'm intending to submit only selected products (maybe a fast draft and a finalized version) to the missionjuno website in order to avoid to be too dominating, but I'll try to cover all non-black raw images at least once. If you happen to see intermediate products I'm posting on UMSF - or on the junocam.pictures webspace - you're interested in, don't hesitate to use them. To some degree, and possibly with some delay, I may also be able to provide modified or derived products according to specific wishes; just let me know.
-- I'll re-insert "SwRI" to the credits in future renditions.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160816/ with grey-scaled enhanced moons, sometimes filterd out by noise filter.
I'm working on several of the issues.
Spectacular!
https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=40 images are available on the missionjuno site.
If my computer doesn't go to produce small white clouds of smoke, I hope I'll be a little faster with a draft version this time.
Edit: File naming convention changed. Filename contains image number in hexadecimal and iso time. Applied filters are provided in attribute "FILTER_NAME" of json file.
See also json attribute "SOURCE_PRODUCT_ID" as reference to filename.
On a Windows/DOS operating system, this batch executed in the same directory as the unzipped raw image files renamed the files for me to the usual JNCE raw filename convention:
rename_raw_marble_movie_images_parts_3_and_4.bat ( 95.74K )
: 383
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160817/ (parts 1 to 4).
The sequence ends near apojove, when Juno crosses the plane of the Galilean satellites.
I've identified the cause of two flickerings in the movie:
- C4192 doesn't show Jupiter, and
- C3242 violates the divisibility of the height by 128.
---
In the meanwhile I've been able to find a good ("level 1") parameter set for part 3 of the Marble Movie.
I'll prepare a post with more detail in a few hours.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160819/
I've used 16 images near the beginning of part 3 to infer four almost-best-fit parameters for the Jupiter color channel centroid alignment for each of the images, within a 7-parameter camera model family, after choosing three parameters as constant within three chosen degrees of freedom.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160819/
Remarkable is an occultation of Jupiter by Ganymede, combined with Io's shadow around image #4046.
Annotated preliminary level 2:
For the model parameter oscillations starting near images #2449 and #2529, I've determined a parameter set for rgb aligning the Jupiter centroids for each image:
Here the preliminary level 2 version of this difficult wobble sequence as AVI:
juno_marble_enhMoonsGrey_proc004_wobble_1_001_.avi ( 875.93K )
: 468
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160821/. RGB alignment issue resolved, moon dimming near Jupiter pending.
Next, I'll work on a zip of the according level 1 stills. Might be completed later today, or early tomorrow.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160822/, most of which revised for RGB alignment since the first preliminary version.
(http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160819/ uploaded before.)
Edit: I've added a zip with processing parameters. Sorry for the filenames only matching in respective substrings; making everything fully formally consistent would have consumed more time than I can currently spend for this detail; filenames should be sufficiently unique to avoid confusion.
As soon as I'll be at a quality level I'm happy with, I'll submit the results to https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing/, as a central location for the Juno project. But if anyone likes to use the intermediate versions as they are, they may work with them. I'd think level 1, parts 1-4, are ok by now; level 2 can be improved; that's what I'm going to elaborate.
There are people at Reddit who observe the missionjuno site, so I'm rather sure, that some of the processings will eventually show up there; actually part of the Marble Movie has already been discussed at Reddit. Maintaining a Reddit thread is currently beyond my limited ressources.
Re moon enhancement: I've used a (2d) distance estimate from Jupiter to gradually change the enhancement functions within a ring-like zone around Jupiter. It's implemented as an intentional side effect of filling a Voronoi-like cell around Jupiter defined as distance zero.
To obtain an image like this
Thanks for the thumbnails, Gerald.
https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/data/juno/junocam_marble.html
First, I'm grateful, that you've found a usable way to manage this large number of images, Emily!
So, I barely dare to ask about the source of the "range" data, since I don't see a connection to the "SPACECRAFT_ALTITUDE" attribute of the json files.
Woops, an error crept into my spreadsheet. Sorry...stand by and I'll fix.
...fixed! Thanks for pointing that out.
A short sequence of motion-enhanced Marble Movie images showing moon transits:
https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing/
And here the superfast service, rgb images of part 6 as preliminary level 2 avi:
juno_marble_enhMoonsGrey_proc003_6_001_.avi ( 947.96K )
: 362
Movie of part 5 and level 1 stills will take a little more time, and will probably become available later today.
No surprises in here, it's continuing the 15-minute imaging cadence, alternating RGB and METHANE frames, uninterrupted, up to midnight August 21. I'm working on getting the images & metadata uploaded to my website -- I'll be ready for thumbnails whenever you can produce them, Gerald
Your wish is my command, Emily.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160825/.
https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/data/juno/junocam_marble.html Some really nice moon shadows right at the end.
http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/jupiter/junocams-marble-movie-frames.html
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160827/.
Moons are motion-enhanced, and grey-scaled.
I've applied motion enhancement and noise filtering to 5-image windows. Additional application of distance function via Voronoi side effect wasn't required.
Reduced version of Marble Movie "Io-Io":
A very small appetizer of Marble Movie, part 7:
Awesome. Uploading the data now. Looks like it's the same as before, alternating RGB and METHANE every 15 minutes; there are two very brief gaps in the sequence on August 26 (one missing METHANE frame in one spot, both RGB and METHANE missing in another spot).
Selected imgages showing Jupiter's north polar region:
They were planning to image Ganymede on August 26.
Those images are beautiful, Gerald. Good job!
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160901/ (about 250 MB zip file).
Three files are not included: image #6080 appears to be corrupted, images #6123 and #6151 confused my Jupiter detection algorithm for some as-of-yet unknown reason, and selected a moon instead as object of interest.
If I find the reason for the confusion, I'll add these two images later. The last image of part 7 is cropped in the processed version; I may provide a completed version later.
Note, that the zip contains two series of images of different naming "003" and "005" infix with different size and supersampling.
Raws are from https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing/. Anything else I've derived from these raws.
Here's a little elaboration on the largest image in Gerald's montage: I divided the Jupiter image from a Lambertian-shaded sphere at approximately the same phase as Jupiter. This allows for more detail to be seen in a band several degrees wide near the limb. This information is essentially redundant at lower latitudes (we could wait and see what's in the dark to rotate into light), but it gives us a uniquely clear vision of the immediate vicinity of the pole. (I've been applying this transformation helpfully to my own images of Mars and Mercury in order to map them.)
The swirling storms in the polar region seem almost randomly distributed, the longitudinal patterns that dominate elsewhere almost absent here. Potentially a few hours' images could give us a clear vision of the entire polar region, but for now, this is just the one snapshot.
Hadn't realized how the data was be distributed until today. Had a go at one of the images. Workflow seems quite long on assembling these. Have I missed a tool that makes this easier?
I spend a good part of the night, and the middle of the day trying to figure out how getting a good result with the latest JunoCam images from Marble Movie 7, and didn't get a good result. Because Juno is moving along her orbit toward Jupiter, so we have a consequent shifts between two sets of RGB scan. Maybe with complex transformation, reprojection, but for now, I will not work with RGB layers, only the red ones.
Here's an enhanced version of one red layer, at least
Gerald's got quite a head start on the rest of us
I've now updated https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/data/juno/junocam_marble.html with Gerald's latest thumbnails, and added links to his PNGs. The raws are beyond my capability to process so I look forward to the efforts of others here!
Emily, I notice in the final image on your page, your thumbnail label says "no blue" but the registered label for the raw says it is an RGB capture - unless I'm reading the label wrong. Good resource as always, nonetheless.
mcaplinger: Not complaining that the data is challenging, just time consuming. Also, I already hammered out several scripts to cut the time down significantly. Most certainly a necessity if you plan to do more than a few of these.
This is the best I could do with the raw image I was working on since yesternight. I chosen to use the greyscale red layer as luminance channel on the RGB mosaic, blurred a little to hide the artifacts.
Enchanced and color balanced version :
http://www.db-prods.net/blog/2016/09/01/quarter-of-jupiter-a-junocam-image/
I'm very curious about the imagery taken much more closer to Jupiter, and pretty afraid by the amount of work waiting for us…
Sorry, that text was confusing. It referred to the fact that they didn't take a blue-only frame at that time. I've changed the text to be clearer.
This 1-second fragment of part 7 of Marble Movie level 2, is sufficiently small, that I can post it here directly:
juno_marble_jupiter_7b.avi ( 350.56K )
: 305
The sequence is immediately before the larger Jupiter images begin.
I've supersampled the latter with 60°x60° and 120 pixels per degree in order to stay continuous with the small marble images. This drove my computer to the limits, and required about 8 minutes per frame.
Besides a few corrupted frames, level-2 Marble Movie parts 1 to 7 is completed. I'll upload this version in a few minutes as an AVI; it will show up on http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160901/ in half an hour or so. EDIT: Upload completed, you may need to refresh your browser window.
I'll try to fix the remaining issues tomorrow.
Re tools: Learning means re-inventing. So I've written the whole JunoCam processing from scratch in C++, including developing the required math as far as it's not standard graduate, but except graphics file format conversion. Similar software may or may not exist elsewhere.
In the meanwhile, it's about 50 executables, and several MB of source code. This includes analysis and calibration software.
I'm expecting another two dozens or so tools still to be written to cover all calibration and processing I'm intending to perform with JunoCam images.
The software will likely not be released, in order to avoid multiple issues, like possibly conflicting professional obligations, legal and security issues, or documentation and support overhead.
However, I'll release processed JunoCam image products public domain as far as possible.
A successful attempt!
---
Repaired (filled missing part with black to get full framelet triples), and level-1-processed image #6080:
Here's my interpretation of frame JNCE_2016240_00C6159_V01.
Wow, thats a ton of work for one image!
I stuck with a straight RGB combine, and increased the saturation 15%. Corrected some distortions in Photoshop.
the right version uses multiple high-pass filter layers, also performed in Photoshop.
Sean Walker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8apkaqUF-k, and http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160902/ now covering parts 1 to 7 in good quality. The rapid approach to Jupiter begins about 10 seconds before the end of the video.
Without warranty, I think, it's composed of 2890 level-2-processed JunoCam RGB images.
It's notified to the missionjuno site.
This has been quite some work, but probably easy compared to the processing of the close-ups of August 27 to come. So far this was doable without SPICE. So, my next step is preparing the SPICE trajectory for mangling into the processing, and implementing a spheroid version for the Jupiter model, instead of just using a spherical model as for Earth flyby.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=8236&hl=. The Marble Movie is going to continue for another orbit, so we'll keep this thread open for that.
Awesome work, Gerald!
Could the lack of banding at high latitudes be due to a different balance between energy from the sun and the internal heat released?
A screen grab from the video recently posted by Emily in her blog certainly shows the polar region as equally warm if not warmer, (at at least one specific wavelength and depth), as the average of warm and cool bands in the temperate regions. On Earth I never heard of aurorae raising the atmospheric temperature, but in Jupiter's supercharged environment could this be happening? Straightforward atmospheric mixing might help make the temperatures more uniform at different latitudes, but for the poles to actually be warmer than the tropics would seem to require a more imaginative explanation.
My understanding is that the darker zones represent clouds that are opaque to the wavelengths the camera is sensitive to. So it isn't that Jupiter is "cooler" there, but rather, there are higher altitude clouds present.
The three last pre-pj1 rgb marble movie images animated in 60 second steps per frame (level 1 reprojected directly from raws), hence 1500-fold time-lapse, covering 1.5 hours:
jnc_mable_pre_pj1_c6155_c6157_c6159_v47.avi ( 609.65K )
: 257
Together with the pj1 images, it should be possible to cover most of the north polar region from marble movie images, although of varying quality.
A glimpse at the first 30 post-pj1 Marble Movie RGB images, level 1:
I *just* came here to point out that post-PJ1 Marble Movie images had been posted, and see that you beat me to them, Gerald The last image in the archive is from September 3. I'll work on downloading....
The test run of the part 8 drafts has been with the parameters derived from images at the end of part 6.
But I see a small misalignment. So I'm running a new calibration with images of end of part 8.
The small offset might be fully explainable by the simplified camera model I'm using for the marble movie images.
Whatever the root cause, assuming a spinup during PJ1 by 0.25% returns better results. No idea, whether that's real, by kind of aerobreaking, some thrust, HGA motion, or just a model artifact.
While I'm processing the images with adjusted parameters, here a manually enhanced version of this second run, showing the Great Red Spot, and a nice shadow, possibly with umbra and penumbra distinguishable:
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160913/.
I'll first work on level 2. After that, I might re-render the level 1 images where Jupiter has been too large to fit.
Thanks! Thumbnails now added to my https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/data/juno/junocam_marble.html.
Hi Emily, there is a residual inconsistence between the link to the processed pngs
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160914/, stills and AVI animation, including a synopsis of the 40 first Marble Movie images after PJ1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6Ky6W167Vs&feature=youtu.be, pre-, and post-PJ1.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160915/, as zips, and as online browsable version. Some of those images have been cropped in previous renditions.
Part 7 images have been supersampled about 4-fold, part 8 supersampled about twice.
I've already done so with a few Marble Movie images close to PJ1, also with ffmpeg (see http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=8226&view=findpost&p=232636), and I'm currently working on the second external 2TB HD drive.
But I've not yet included Jupiter's oblateness and axis obliquity. Trajectory data are in J2000 like Earth's axis, and Earth is almost spherical, so these two effects didn't need to be considered for Earth. I'm working on both effects, first axis obliquity.
The method I'm using to retrieve axis obliquity seems to return reasonable results now:
mable_pre_pj1_c6157_c6159_51_out.avi ( 610.38K )
: 202
It uses pointing vectors from Jupiter to Earth and Sun in JUPITER_IAU and J2000 frames of SPICE trajectory data as obtained via spy.exe to calculate the change of base transformation, which has been missing before. I'm using two vector pairs for a fixed instant to calculate Jupiter's axis. Jupiter's assumed angular velocity is some estimate near 2pi / 9h50m expressed in units of JunoCam's interframe delay of about 0.38s.
Jupiter's yet unconsidered oblateness is likely to contribute most of the remaining inaccuracy. I'm working on fixing this.
JunoCam http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160919/.
Part 10 covers September 4 to September 10, 2016.
John Rogers at the https://www.britastro.org/node/7982 provides an enhanced and annotated version of the https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=173 and https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=174.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20160923/.
The sequence starting at image #7913 required some parameter adjustment, therefore I've split part 11 in two zip files with a slightly different naming convention (substrings '11', resp. '11a').
Rendering of level 2 images for AVI update is running.
I'll add the video update to the same URL later today, I'd think less than an hour from now, and edit this post accordingly.
Edit: The AVIs are uploaded. Part 11 is split into two fragments, and I've provided the full sequence from parts 1 to part 11.
Part 11 covers September 11 to 17, 2016.
For a seamless animation of rendered JunoCam images near PJs, to be able to look for, or to measure changes, or to create good map products, I'll need to model Jupiter as a spheroid. Thus far I've implemented only a sphere.
One of the core capabilities is intersecting a line with the target object. Until recently, I didn't find the time to write up these geometric basics as a pdf document. But now, as things are going to get more complex, it became necessary to do so.
junocam08_basic_geometry_I.pdf ( 565.69K )
: 737
I'm now going to implement the spheroid part.
I just watched the marble movie with headline banner "Citizen Science: Juno Fan Creates Movie of Spacecraft's Approach to Jupiter" on the NASA web site home page. I really enjoyed it. Great stuff.
Thanks! I thought, I've seen it somewhere in SPICE.
But I'm expecting the need to extend it to a model of a dynamical cloud top (and possibly some rudimentary extension towards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytrope) to improve the predictive capabilities, and I might require the derivatives for approximation methods.
So I think, I'd better understand the inside of the black box.
I haven't been able to find the Dates and Times of the upcoming Perijove close approaches, does anyone have them?
Not times, but dates:
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2016/06090600-what-to-expect-from-junocam.html
(just go to the Planetary Society website and enter 'juno' in the search box)
Phil
The implementation of the (rigid) spheroid model seems to be roughly ok now. Some model parameters may need further refinement.
Here one of my according attempts (still with some additional manual registering) to cover Jupiter's north polar region seen from about the position of the first PJ1 image (close to above the north pole):
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20161007/, pre- and post-solar conjunction, level 1 stills, avi part 12, and avi parts 1-12.
Quality of my post-conjunction processing seems almost, but not quite perfect. I'll run a recalibration, if someone complains.
One of the pre-PJ1 Marble Movie images reprojected (displayed in spherical coordinates, therefore the rounded square-like appearance) to about 21 minutes before closest approach, and enhanced:
Exploring the surface coverage of selected Marble Movie (near PJ1) and PJ1 images:
Context map for PJ1, southern hemisphere, composed of 20 map-projected Marble Movie images, enhanced:
Thanks! And thanks for guidance!
I'm trying to complete the full surface coverage before tomorrow in the evening. Then I'll likely be offline until Sunday evening. Might be, that finishing will last until after the weekend, but I'm open to additional requirements.
Scale is 10 pixels / degree in this rendition, longitude and latitude, equator in the y-center, latitude range [-90°;+90°].
Accuracy not yet known exactly, probably near 1°.
Some of your suggestions have already been on my list, just not yet completed. The underlying images for the southern hemisphere are the first 20 Marble Movie images after PJ1, but I'll likely provide all partial maps, too, for better reproducibility.
I'm aware of the GRL deadline.
Preliminary full surface coverage around PJ1, derived from the 40 nextmost Marble Movie RGB images (20 before and 20 after PJ1), reduced to 0.2x0.2 lon/lat planetocentric degree squares:
Regarding the changes of the planning, it's maybe better to provide another intermediate version of the global map around PJ1:
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20161018/, covers 2016-10-02 to 2016-10-08.
I've added revised level 1 stills of part12, since best-fit parameters changed a bit after solar conjunction.
Btw.: Tomorrow there will be a Juno press conference:
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-juno-team-to-discuss-jupiter-mission-status-latest-science-results
Hi Mike, could you please pre-release the latest available raw Marble Movie images before PJ2, asap, particularly the CH4? Metadata aren't essential. There appear to take place significant changes on Jupiter right now.
Thanks a lot!
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20161021/, RGB and methane band.
I see the GRS in the methane images, but no obvious hint towards the recently discovered bright IR features.
I barely dare to ask, whether JunoCam has been powered on between October 15 and 19, and whether it has taken images during this time, after the decision to postpone the PRM, and before the PJ2 safe mode event. But I'm almost sure, that it won't take a day, before I'll be asked the very same question.
Here 20 http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20161021/marble_movie_part7_selected_ch4/index.html:
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20161022/last_marble_movie_rgb_level1/index.html, covering about two Jupiter days.
The next sequence of images has been scheduled to get a different name, but with the postponed period reduction maneuver (PRM) we'll see.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20161023/, the whole scheduled sequence from PJ0 to PJ2, skipping PJ1 close-ups, is available as level-2 processed AVI animation (about 32 MB), and also as a MOV version (about 350 MB), converted from the AVI. A small number of frames are omitted.
I've provided a few additional short 14-image animated gifs with strongly motion-enhanced stills, time-lapsed with about 10 hours per frame, covering the week of part 14, differently shifted in rotational phase. Those are intended for Jupiter experts, who try to see effects of the recent outburst.
I've uploaded the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2kTiMpphBs. It's almost all Marble Movie RGB images between PJ0 and PJ2.
And https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GwFx3QHX00, each still a weighted mean of reprojections of two mostly consecutive JunoCam images, 20 Marble Movie images, and one PJ1 image. The PJ1 image is #C6162, hence skipping the longer-exposed #C6160 of similar perspective. The stills are square-root encoded like the raws, but with linear weights for the color channels to get closer to the "real" colors.
I've submitted both videos to the missionjuno site.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20161110/delamberting01.html.
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20161114/SelectedDeLambertedPartialMapsNearPJ1_Draft.html (40 Marble Movie images, and 3 PJ1 images, including the one already processed before), north to the right. I've also provided the square-root encoded version (without de-lamberting), and the applied approximate de-lamberting mask.
These drafts bring out quite some detail. But they show various issues, too. I'll pick out some color calibration, first.
Edit: Crops of #6180 and #6189:
This is an attempt to check for subtle changes between images #6159 and #6160, the transition from the Marble Movie sequence to PJ1:
Dear Gerald,
Please find my "creative" take on the JunoCan Marble Movie here:
https://vimeo.com/253700363
Thanks again for all your efforts on our behalf,
Avi
Thanks Avi, for your video, and for reminding us, that the Marble Movie images still bear potential to be uncovered!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)