IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Juno perijove 6, May 19, 2017
Ron Hobbs
post May 24 2017, 02:37 AM
Post #31


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 183
Joined: 14-April 06
From: Seattle, WA
Member No.: 745



AWESOME!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sean
post May 24 2017, 10:40 AM
Post #32


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 709
Joined: 10-November 15
Member No.: 7837



PJ06 cloud detail



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
antipode
post May 24 2017, 11:53 AM
Post #33


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 228
Joined: 1-October 06
Member No.: 1206



I cant believe Junocam was an 'add-on'. These 3D effects with the deep shadows and high icy 'pileus-like' cloud caps are beyond spectacular.

Congrats to all the image wizards - I cant stop staring.

P
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GS_Brazil
post May 24 2017, 12:38 PM
Post #34


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 26-August 15
Member No.: 7733



QUOTE (antipode @ May 24 2017, 08:53 AM) *
These 3D effects with the deep shadows and high icy 'pileus-like' cloud caps are beyond spectacular.


What's the size of these 'pileus-like' cottonwool clouds?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post May 24 2017, 03:45 PM
Post #35


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1767
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (GS_Brazil @ May 24 2017, 04:38 AM) *
What's the size of these 'pileus-like' cottonwool clouds?

Great question. It's fairly easy to figure out from the metadata, but I'm not sure which image this is from or whether any scaling has been done. If you have the altitude from the metadata, then the pixel scale of Junocam at nadir is just 673e-6*altitude in whatever units the altitude is. Of course, farther away from nadir the scale goes down because the range is larger.

I'm amazed at these products. To be honest, we didn't know that half this stuff was in the images ourselves. I hear there was a lengthy discussion about the small clouds at the science team meeting yesterday.

If I could make one suggestion, it would be to include the image identifier somewhere for reference along with every processed image. I prefer the shorthand notation (e.g., pj6-137) instead of the long-winded image ID ("JNCE_2017139_06C00137_V01") that appears in the metadata, but the latter is the official name.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sean
post May 24 2017, 04:32 PM
Post #36


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 709
Joined: 10-November 15
Member No.: 7837



I will be sure to include that info for the next batch.

I was hoping to be able to edit the image details when posting to MissionJuno but that functionality doesn't seem to exist...or am I missing something?

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ May 24 2017, 04:45 PM) *
If I could make one suggestion, it would be to include the image identifier somewhere for reference along with every processed image. I prefer the shorthand notation (e.g., pj6-137) instead of the long-winded image ID ("JNCE_2017139_06C00137_V01") that appears in the metadata, but the latter is the official name.



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gerald
post May 24 2017, 05:57 PM
Post #37


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2170
Joined: 7-December 12
Member No.: 6780



For the images on the junocam.picture site, I'm extracting the image number out of the file name, and use it as small caption above each thumbnail. I do also try to use the original file name as a substring of the file name of the processed image. The raw file names, and (usually) the MSSS products, too, contain the product id as a substring in the file name. You also find the product identifier in the metadata (json) files provided in the JunoCam uploads on the missionjuno site.

And, btw., thanks to all of you who help to process these fantastic PJ06 images, or help to encourage those who do the processing! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post May 24 2017, 06:21 PM
Post #38


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1767
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (Sean @ May 24 2017, 08:32 AM) *
I was hoping to be able to edit the image details when posting to MissionJuno but that functionality doesn't seem to exist...or am I missing something?

There's a way of indicating the source image when you submit, but I've never submitted anything so I don't know how it works.

You could always put a label on the image if there's a good place to do so, but it does interfere with the aesthetics.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post May 24 2017, 06:50 PM
Post #39


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1767
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (GS_Brazil @ May 24 2017, 04:38 AM) *
What's the size of these 'pileus-like' cottonwool clouds?

The image above is from PJ6-0113 from an altitude of 5110 km. The clouds are typically about 5-6 pixels in diameter in raw images, which at nadir would be 5.5*673e-6*5110 = 19 km. This is off-nadir somewhat and I'm too lazy to do the geometric processing, but that's a rough order of magnitude -- 20-40 km.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sean
post May 24 2017, 07:40 PM
Post #40


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 709
Joined: 10-November 15
Member No.: 7837



Since working with this data I have refined my processes a little and managed to eke a little more detail.

First frame is the raw image from Gerald. Second image is what I uploaded yesterday. Third image is current work in progress so it hasn't been 'repaired' of any registration marks or hot pixels.

Attached Image


Gif compression doesn't do it any favours of course but there is a marked improvement.

**updated**

That gif was terrible... here is a pic



Thanks again for all your efforts Gerald. I hope you are enjoying all the derived images.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gerald
post May 24 2017, 08:35 PM
Post #41


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2170
Joined: 7-December 12
Member No.: 6780



QUOTE (mcaplinger @ May 24 2017, 08:21 PM) *
There's a way of indicating the source image when you submit, but I've never submitted anything so I don't know how it works.

You could always put a label on the image if there's a good place to do so, but it does interfere with the aesthetics.

There is a specific edit field in the lower left of the submission dialog.
When creating labels on the image, it's difficult for release in the NASA Photojournal or as an image of the week. You'll be contacted and asked to provide a version without annotations or labels in case your image is selected for these purposes.

@Seán: I'm enjoying the derived products very much, and am happy to learn about options for improvements. Currently, I'm rendering a 125-fold 25fps PJ06 flyby movie of scheduled 1min36sec, however a version with cuts when switching to the animation of the next raw image. I hope, Mike can forgive me one more time. wink.gif
I'm intending to create one or more revised versions in a few weeks.
I'll likely be offline between Friday and Sunday, so I hope, that the movie will be completed and uploaded tomorrow in the evening (CEST) resp. in the morning (PDT).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sean
post May 24 2017, 09:40 PM
Post #42


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 709
Joined: 10-November 15
Member No.: 7837



I would love to have a go at processing the P06 animation when it is finished. ( with uploaded frame sequence like P05? )

I am still working with P05 animation and applying what I have learned making P06 & P04 images to that sequence.

Here is an example of P05 stills I have upscaled to 1080x1920...





The idea is to get the P05 animation to this standard.

It is very promising but a lot of work to smooth or disguise the sudden exposure shifts, some overlapping frames would be useful of course but I do appreciate how time consuming it must be to render these frames.





--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jccwrt
post May 24 2017, 10:39 PM
Post #43


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 213
Joined: 4-October 14
Member No.: 7273



Processed image #117, centered over the southern edge of the South Equatorial Belt. The belt is kind of messy from block artifacting, but the jet marking the southern boundary of the belt and adjacent South Tropical Zone are much more clear.



Some features of interest. Here's another example of probable convection and associated clouds located along the turbulent boundary between the South Equatorial Belt and South Tropical Zone:



We've seen from Sean's excellent processing image #118 centered on the South Tropical Zone that there's a lot of these convective-type features. Seeing many of the same clouds in this more oblique image. There's hints of cloud shadows as well, and given that those shadows look detached from the convective cells, these may be actually occurring well above the surrounding zone clouds:



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post May 25 2017, 12:51 AM
Post #44


IMG to PNG GOD
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 1979
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38



I never thought I'd say this about any of the JunoCam images but: The PJ-6 images are the most spectacular images of Jupiter I've ever seen. I was aware that the JunoCam images would be better than lots of people expected (and the Earth flyby images hinted at this) but this is far beyond my wildest expectations.

There are interesting details just about everywhere that are not present in earlier images of Jupiter or they are visible - but not with the same clarity as in the Juno images. This is especially true of the small whitish clouds (and they seem to be much more frequent than earlier images suggested). The same can be said about cloud shadows and vertical structure - I think Juno has been able to directly image the elevation difference between bigger clouds, e.g. dark and light clouds.

Here are my versions of PJ-6 image 112 (observation name: "POI: Great Polar Spot"). They are not based on Gerald's images, however his images were very useful as a 'sanity check'. I'm especially impressed by how fast he's able to churn out high quality image products - it takes me far more time.

And here are the images, first a version where global illumination has been removed, the contrast has been exaggerated and small scale features have been sharpened with an unsharp mask:

Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


And an approximately true color/contrast version:

Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Explorer1
post May 25 2017, 02:25 AM
Post #45


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1567
Joined: 13-February 10
From: Ontario
Member No.: 5221



Astounding work, Bjorn (and everyone else!). Straight out of a Clarke novel... and now I've got Holst on the headphones.
And to think this camera nearly didn't make it on board (and every planned mission after Juno focuses heavily on the moons). It's the GRB's turn next perijove, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd October 2018 - 05:46 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.