IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
March 15, 2010 PDS release
JohnVV
post Mar 19 2010, 05:06 AM
Post #61


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 815
Joined: 18-November 08
Member No.: 4489



hi Erwan my fault i am used to 16 bit images as -32768 to 32767 or 0 to 65536
and the values for luner radi 1737400 + the lola measurement gives odd results in photo editors and
even in qview
like the img2png example above

having values so large can push the pixel value to a double or a 32 bit float
that is why i posted a different LBL

But on a different note

the 64 px/deg looks very nice for such an early product

a simple "emboss " on it .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Mar 19 2010, 02:24 PM
Post #62


Martian Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 7036
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



This spot with dark rays is about where the Apollo 14 LM was impacted west of Fra Mauro. The image number is in filename.

Phil

Attached Image


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zeBeamer
post Mar 19 2010, 10:58 PM
Post #63


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 22
Joined: 20-June 09
Member No.: 4830



The website with the Celestia textures has been updated with improved textures (new ZIP files).
Seams that were visible at 10-degree latitude interval are now gone, and the color scale for the false-color image has been changed.
There are still some minor issues with the normal map (equator, 0 longitude), so they may be further updated, but not immediately.

Erwan


screenshots (click to enlarge; large files ! ~4Mb, 2560x1600)


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Mar 20 2010, 03:36 PM
Post #64


Martian Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 7036
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



Most people are familiar with Ina (D-Caldera). Here are some mini-Inas on the floor of Hyginus crater. They were visible in Lunar Orbiter images, but not very clearly. Image number is in the filename.

Phil

Attached Image


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ittiz
post Mar 22 2010, 08:55 PM
Post #65


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 17-March 10
Member No.: 5271



This is what I do with the data:

biggrin.gif

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stu
post Mar 22 2010, 10:41 PM
Post #66


The Poet Dude
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 5548
Joined: 15-March 04
From: Kendal, Cumbria, UK
Member No.: 60



Nice one, Ittiz! That's a LOT of water! smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post Mar 30 2010, 09:21 PM
Post #67


IMG to PNG GOD
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 1850
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38



I'm updating my IMG2PNG utility to correctly convert LROC images to PNGs. The NAC images now get correctly converted except for one problem: Image orientation. Does anyone know how to determine from the embedded labels or the index.tab file whether an image needs to be mirror-flipped?

From LROCSIS.pdf (page 3) in the documents directory:
QUOTE
...This orientation requires that one of the NAC frames from a NAC-L and NAC-R paired observation must be transformed such that both images have the same ground orientation"


At first I thought I thought this was simple, i.e. that the NAC-R images needed to be mirror-flipped but apparently things are more complex: M102443238RC.IMG does not need mirror-flipping whereas M114185541RC.IMG needs to be mirror-flipped (unless I've managed to get myself totally confused).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnVV
post Mar 30 2010, 09:43 PM
Post #68


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 815
Joined: 18-November 08
Member No.: 4489



QUOTE
(unless I've managed to get myself totally confused).

you might not be .The minor errors in PDS are enough to make one confused
and as with any new release there will be some errors

but this is only a guess as i have not gone past the lola data yet .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elakdawalla
post Mar 30 2010, 10:52 PM
Post #69


Administrator
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 5017
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth
Member No.: 454



I just had a long phone conversation with Mark Robinson. The very short version: it's complicated, and confusing even to him. The slightly longer version: you need the spacecraft kernels to figure out when to flip the images, and those haven't been released yet. Which one is oriented properly depends on three things: L vs R camera, which direction the spacecraft was facing (which is a thermal control issue), and whether imaging happens on ascending or descending orbits, which changes once every six months as the orbit evolves (it _just_ happened again a couple days ago). Mark said there is actually an active debate within the instrument team right now for whether they should make a change to the EDRs and go ahead and mirror-flip the ones that need flipping with the next release. They will have to re-release everything anyway to improve the calibration. I said I was hereby voting that they make that change! In the meantime, without the spacecraft kernels, I think all we can do is just inspect each image pair to determine which ones need flipping.

Also, he said that releasing WAC mosaics shouldn't be too far in the future, maybe 1 to 2 months; they're now 80% of the way to calibrating out the photometric effects.


--------------------
My blog - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post Mar 30 2010, 11:34 PM
Post #70


IMG to PNG GOD
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 1850
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38



Thanks, this information was very useful. I agree that it would be nice to have the images correctly oriented. Also it would be nice if the labels (or index.tab file) included the direction the spacecraft was facing and whether the orbit was ascending or descending. Then it would be possible to determine when to flip the images that need flipping if they do not get flipped in the next release.

The index.tab file includes the subspacecraft point, north azimuth and upper/lower left/right lat/lon. It may be possible to use some of this information to determine whether to mirror-flip but I don't think it would work in all cases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elakdawalla
post Mar 31 2010, 03:08 AM
Post #71


Administrator
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 5017
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth
Member No.: 454



I asked if they couldn't just put a flag in the header indicating whether the image needed to be flipped or not. His response was that most of the scientists were using ISIS to deal with the images (not to mention a surprising -- to him -- number of amateurs), and that if you have ISIS, you'll never even see this problem once the spacecraft kernels are released. But he was sympathetic to the plight of those of us who either fear ISIS or are stuck with Windows machines for one reason or another. For his part, he said he actually didn't care -- he is not one of the people who doesn't want to change the way the data came down from the spacecraft. He pointed out that the data are already changed, since there are actually two sets of electronics within each of the two cameras; the two sets of electronics handle every other line of the detector, something they had to do in order to get the readout rate for each line under the 337 microseconds it takes the spacecraft to advance one pixel's distance along track. Those two different sets of electronics are the source of the striping in early versions of images. He said that their calibration now corrects about 95% of that striping.


--------------------
My blog - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kenny
post Mar 31 2010, 08:55 AM
Post #72


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 412
Joined: 1-May 06
From: Scotland (Ecosse, Escocia)
Member No.: 759



QUOTE (Ittiz @ Mar 22 2010, 09:55 PM) *
This is what I do with the data:

biggrin.gif


Hey! that's a Venusian cloud pattern....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ValterVB
post Mar 31 2010, 05:11 PM
Post #73


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 27-February 10
From: Italy
Member No.: 5235



Comparison between Kaguya DEM 16 and LRO-LOLA DEM16. Lola seems more defined.
Comparison

Sorry but the direct link to the photos don't work

Ciao
VB
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnVV
post Mar 31 2010, 10:23 PM
Post #74


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 815
Joined: 18-November 08
Member No.: 4489



ValterVB you might want to look at my posts on shatters.net ( search)


the lola is a mush larger image
32768x16384 px VS. the kaguya at 5760x2880 px

BUT if one looks at the close up's of
lola data


the one on the right is the raw tiff
( the left is a "cleaned up" version)
there are very few points .
Now this WILL improve over time so

also there is a remapped moon ( clementine) map posted here on this site - just search
or use the one mentioned on the mit web site
http://imbrium.mit.edu/EXTRAS/CELESTIA/

-- i know a shameless plug---
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ValterVB
post Apr 2 2010, 07:11 PM
Post #75


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 27-February 10
From: Italy
Member No.: 5235



My experiments are with pure 3d not with normal map.
With LDEM64 I have some problem with memory (too much points...), so I try to install Ubuntu 64 bit and then try to rendering with this DATASET

I have a question: Are available high resolution dataset of the Apollo11 landing site?

Ciao
VB

Sorry for my english rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th March 2017 - 08:33 PM
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.