https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/voting?current started yesterday, and it will last for another almost 7 days.
This time, I'm not quite free of bias, since I'm interested in an extension of the polar time-lapse sequence, especially in a coverage of the north and south polar FFRs and the presumed edge of the respective polar haze disks. I think - well, I'm rather certain - that it's possible to infer short-time dynamics of the FFRs, and of the vortices near the edge of the haze disk. Due to the expected good contact to Earth during the PJ-6 pass we have a good chance to obtain overlapping images of these regions.
More in the discussion section on the missionjuno site. Of course, there are other interesting targets, too; see Glenn's and John Rogers' (Philosophia-47) comments.
A full latitude coverage would allow for a pole-to-pole animation.
Part of the PJ6 dataset has been posted to missionjuno. There were some GDS/DSN issues that are holding up the rest of it, which should be posted on Monday.
Here PJ06 images #109, #110, and #111, in a preliminary version:
Another 5 PJ06 images split into 2 posts for upload limitations:
Looks like there are hundreds of individual storm cell clouds in that last image !!!
http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170521/.
For these images, I fixed two known flaws in my image enhancement subroutine.
I'll upload them to the missionjuno site later today.
New wonders to behold on Jupiter. I like this section of Gerald's collection with the array of round circulations:
Gerald's excellent work with some processing tweaks...repairs, levels, high pass overlay
https://flic.kr/p/UPXJ5z
https://flic.kr/p/UYcmrJ
After NASA / SwRI / MSSS / Gerald Eichstädt
Image processing: edge filters, repairs & levels
https://flic.kr/p/UsU1Bq
and a sequence...level boost & sharpening, no repairs.
https://flic.kr/p/Ut35bo
Can't wait to see the movie on this Gerald!
Last one... my favourite image from the latest sequence with many repairs, a blended high pass overlay and blended levels pass.
https://flic.kr/p/V4q8K4
That's great, Sean. It almost induces vertigo, which is high praise indeed!
Thanks but all credit to Gerald for the work he has put into producing these images.
My focus was much less on color than it was on the details in the image.
**I've updated the following with more repairs**
Here is a version without the green cast... I tried to be modest but I have a version either side which might suffice also.
https://flic.kr/p/TM4q3j
...and the same correction applied to the sequence...
https://flic.kr/p/V13Xk7
&
https://flic.kr/p/V14wFL
https://flic.kr/p/TM6TC5
https://flic.kr/p/UtuknU
I tried my hand at processing some of Gerald's images. The scaling is a little weird on these, as I squeezed the image horizontally to fit the horizon to a circle, and then resized to 1920x1200 for use as a wallpaper. The original JunoCam images have enough artifacting and noise that I don't think there's much change in the amount of detail. I used the HLVG plugin for Photoshop to remove the greenish cast to the images, and then used the lightest-toned clouds to set the gray point of the image. The results look qualitatively pretty similar to processed Cassini images of Jupiter, so I'm happy.
https://flic.kr/p/V52V7X
https://flic.kr/p/UtTPCq
First science result press conference on Thursday (11:00 PST): https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/news/nasa-to-discuss-results-from-juno-mission
Everyone who's processed images from PJ6 (Sean and Justin in particular), if you could upload your images or your favorite subset to missionjuno, Candy Hansen is currently at a Juno science team meeting and would like to highlight your work. Gerald's are obviously there already.
Most of the remaining PJ06 close-up raws are on the mission site by now. So, I had a long night with processing these.
I've modified the red/green ratio from 0.82 to 0.88 for http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170523/.
Images #122 and #123 have bad reddish pixels due to some yet unidentified over- or underflow.
I'm not yet sure, how long it will take to fix this software issue. If someone likes to post-process the images, especially the two flawed ones, feel free to do so.
I'll upload the new images to the missionjuno site except #122, #123, and #142. The latter shows greenish portions due to partial CCD saturation.
(I'll notify Candy directly via email, before uploading.)
Before rendering a full movie, I'll first need to find and fix the software issue. In the meanwhile, I can adjust the color weights for the movie according to your wishes. This week, I've only later today, Wednesday and Thursday time for movie renditions. So, I'm not yet sure, whether I'll be able to complete a full pole to pole flyby animation with 125-fold time lapse this week. But I'm confident to able to render some fragments, at least. I'll start rendering the approach sequence for the northern half in about 12 hours, even if the software flaw won't be removed, and hope, that it won't show up in this part of the sequence.
Hi
Those Junocam pictures processed by you, Gerald, are very inspiring And excellent work everyone !
Some of my takes on your wonderful work. I have increase the exposure, balanced the colors and sharpened a little. On the full disk Jupiter image, I added some soft light effet to match the feeling we can have by watching at the gas giant with a telescope.
What I love here is that we are seeing actual cumulo-nimbus clouds, the clouds that are forming cells of thunderstorms.
http://www.db-prods.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/JNCE_2017139_06C00112_V01-raw.bmp_reproj_30px_30.2800s_cx818.0000000_enh1.bmp_sphC__03.jpg
This image was processed to have a view we can have if we had a 50mm lens (I had to reproject the cylindrical image into rectilinear).
http://www.db-prods.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/JNCE_2017139_06C00113_V01-raw.bmp_reproj_30px_30.2800s_cx830.0000000_enh1.bmp_sphC_2.jpg
And a full disk Jupiter
http://www.db-prods.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/JNCE_2017139_06C00124_V01-raw.bmp_reproj_30px_30.2800s_cx813.0000000_enh1.bmp_sphC_.jpg
I've started uploading to the Mission Juno site.
Here is the first portrait from Gerald's latest batch.
Repairs/Edge filters/Levels/Masks/Colors
https://flic.kr/p/V62rE6
Thanks again for your efforts Gerald... beautiful to look at and to work with.
Another portrait from Gerald's latest...
https://flic.kr/p/UTtyvX
Jupiter is just showing off now... quite unseemly.
Detail...
https://flic.kr/p/UTyiee
https://flic.kr/p/TNKyPS
https://flic.kr/p/UTyfVr
A third portrait from Gerald's latest...
https://flic.kr/p/TRLp12
Details...
https://flic.kr/p/V6jUAr
https://flic.kr/p/TRLppi
https://flic.kr/p/UTDjmV
These images are absolutely incredible. It's amazing to see at last the fine texture of the cloudscapes. For me, this is the first time Jupiter has ever looked like a place, rather than an abstract painting.
Huge, huge, respect to all whose work has contributed to these images!!
Thanks Badger!
Here is the last one for today...
https://flic.kr/p/Uvmjbu
Alternate comp...
https://flic.kr/p/UvmmuY
Detail
https://flic.kr/p/V6wnPc
Sequence of the 4 uploaded today...
https://flic.kr/p/TP2yaJ
PJ06 sequence
https://flic.kr/p/TSiEmk
Added a couple more shots to fill it out.
These are phenomenal.... really feel I am seeing the planet now for first time. Cannot take my eyes off the details.
Thanks to Junocam team and all the incredible image magicians out there.
Craig
Here's my effort at processing image #123 using Gerald's version as a base.
https://flic.kr/p/UUrG3P
AWESOME!!!
PJ06 cloud detail
https://flic.kr/p/V48FGA
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
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?
For http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170521/, 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!
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.
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...
https://flic.kr/p/TQwivD
https://flic.kr/p/USpyMc
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.
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.
https://flic.kr/p/UT96vJ
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:
https://flic.kr/p/UW1gut
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:
https://flic.kr/p/TTZEb4
https://flic.kr/p/TTZEcg
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:
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?
Can only echo thanks to the Juno team and to everyone else working on and supplying this astounding imagery.
My jaw has literally been hanging open this whole thread.
I have updated the following portrait from Perijove 06
https://flic.kr/p/UUjFT5
https://flic.kr/p/V9KGaB
https://flic.kr/p/V9KFEP
Excellent work by Bjorn & Justin!
So great to see Jupiter at this level of detail... I will endeavour to tread gently.
As I mentioned previously, these latest JunoCam images are awesome. I took a fairly detailed look at one of the images I posted earlier with particular attention to cloud elevation differences. First an unusual image. This is a perfectly flat DEM with several spikes - their shadows show the direction of sunlight in one of the JunoCam images I posted earlier:
Superb image processing and analysis. Great to see both enhanced and unenhanced/realistic versions to get the complete picture. Some first reactions - if I have the larger scale context right:
The dark areas next to D/E look like the IR hot spots at the edge of a belt.
The shadow in D agrees with my subjective impression of the brighter laminar appearing clouds being higher and overlaying the darker adjacent clouds.
G looks like cloud brightness variations to me. These narrow strands look similar even in differing orientations?
"A" features clearly have high cloud tops. I wonder if their bases are low enough to tap into the water vapor layers, helping to give enough opacity to yield the brighter white color. The more true color images suggest these tops may still be below some of the high altitude haze. This haze is yet thin enough to have distinct shadows visible. It seems there's a narrow range of haze optical thickness that allows this type of visibility.
For completeness, a few hours ago I've uploaded http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170525/, after fixing the overflow for saturated pixels.
The first version of the PJ06 flyby animation is completed, too. It's now mostly a matter of upload bandwidth. I'll try an upload to youtube, as well as a first subset of zipped stills to the junocam.pictures webspace, and intend to provide links in about two or three hours. The zipped stills will be 2.34 GB, more than I can upload before next week.
PJ-06 flyby movie, first release:
- https://youtu.be/fKN4_RVfB2A
- http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170525/pj06_movies/jnc_pj06_xxx_16px_45x80_timelapse125_enhance_v01_rot90_v09.avi (37 MB)
- http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170525/pj06_movies/jnc_pj06_xxx_16px_45x80_timelapse125_enhance_v01_rot90_v09.mov (600 MB).
Another updated portrait...
https://flic.kr/p/V7cjM3
Details...
https://flic.kr/p/UY6Knv
https://flic.kr/p/V7cknG
https://flic.kr/p/UY6JVi
Stills of PJ06 flyby animation, zipped:
- http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170525/pj06_movies/jnc_pj06_flyby_v1_part12.zip
- http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170525/pj06_movies/jnc_pj06_flyby_v1_part11.zip
- http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170525/pj06_movies/jnc_pj06_flyby_v1_part10.zip
- http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170525/pj06_movies/jnc_pj06_flyby_v1_part9.zip
- http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170525/pj06_movies/jnc_pj06_flyby_v1_part8.zip
The remaining parts 1 to 7 scheduled for Monday...
Here is a preview of the sequence Gerald shared... upscaled, rotated and put through a 12 step batch process.
Click thru for a video...
https://flic.kr/p/UVZbSW
I extended the length of the content x3 and I'm still deciding how to blend between jump cuts as well as tracking the full crescent to avoid linear cuts.
The seeming relief-- maybe call it drop shadowing-- at the belt edges in Sean's post #53 is just beautiful.
Here is the full sequence of Perijove 06 based on Gerald's animation.
Click thru for the video...
https://flic.kr/p/V6DHjr
Upscaled to 1080, Uptimed variably x6, Processed x12
I tried to correct the linear paths the camera took & there were missing frames toward the end when compared with Gerald's original video.
Uptiming this has resulted in emphasizing the texture jump cuts which I have tried to disguise as best I could. I decided in favour of spending more time on the sharpest areas so I omitted a short area on the equatorial which warped badly when trying to find vector paths for displacing pixels. I might come back to this when I have more time.
**update**
Here is a version with Gerald's original timing & path fix...
https://flic.kr/p/UHJoBY
...and a x2 retimed version...
https://flic.kr/p/Vj2EWt
125 Megapixel upscaled & refreshed Print portrait of Gerald's PJ06_123...
https://flic.kr/p/VfYvq9
These are simply heart-stopping beautiful! Thank you all so much - I hope you have enjoyed seeing your work in all the press coverage of Juno last week.
Candy, I'm glad, that with PJ6 we've been able to provide unexpectedly fantastic images just in time for a press briefing, which has been scheduled independently. This has only been possible in time and in this quality, with a dedicated virtual image processing team forming spontaneously, and with a camera of outstanding quality and performance, including the highly precise work of the Juno nav- and ops teams, and many more people and institutions who are equally important, but mentioned only occasionally.
I would like to reiterate what Gerald said, as well as mark appreciation for his efforts in interpreting the data & creating the products I use. It has been an interesting week and a particularly intense 48 hours fielding questions. I have also realised how much I have to learn with respect to image processing.
Now, I'm looking forward to what we get from Perijove 07!
**rolls up sleeves**
Thanks Gerald.
I started looking at the cylindrical maps you provided for PJ04 & wondered if you could produce them for PJ06? I am working to blend these separate maps into one with total perijove coverage.
**update**
If you have the time of course, I suspect this might not be the case!
Sean
I assume this is your work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kQbTBt418o
Great to see it in a manageable size and of course the subject DEMANDS the use of the Ligeti.
Plus its getting an audience - nearly 80000 hits!
This clip needs to be shown on every 6pm news service - it might help put things in some perspective.
Congratulations!
P
Much appreciated Gerald. I've also started looking into reprojection to fill in gaps using previous observations... the theory works, i just need to get good at it!
Thanks P, Yes I made that and I'm glad you appreciate the use of Ligeti. Its not everyones cup of tea. Someone left a note saying 'Jupiter is a planet NOT a horror film!'
I have a prototype version slowed down by a factor of 10...so a 12 second closeup sequence lasts 2 minutes and it is very effective.
Sean, the video is amazing, and it looks like there is a wealth of stereo information to be extracted. I'm almost certain that we see significant changes in parallax at many times and places throughout it.
Seán, Charley Locke just notified, that she completed her https://www.wired.com/2017/06/juno-jupiter-video/.
I wondered, whether she would write a technical article with all the material I provided her, but I think this would have taken several days, at least.
Regarding parallax: I tried to identify parallax effects since the first Jupiter flyby, but wasn't able to find some, thus far, in an unambiguous way. There is some tiny displacement for high velocity jets which could be confused with parallax. But the projection isn't quite perfect, so you get some artifacts from processing inaccuracies, too.
Scroll down a bit https://www.britastro.org/node/8427 to see some animations.
We see such tiny displacements in all perijoves with close-up images.
@JRehling Thanks, I would be careful about reading too much into the videos I make since I am adding a plethora of tween frames which are not reliable sources to scrutinise.
@Gerald...yes I was notified also. I provided a LOT of information which was not used so I wonder if the initial brief was changed. Is this typical of the media? I suspect so.
I also had to insist that they remove a version of the video which was appropriated by someone else, re-compressed and a different soundtrack added. This version of the video did not attribute credit to either of us.
The same thing happened when a picture editor applied some awful processing to my images and credited ME with the work! Not only destroying the work ( whatever its merits ) but conflating his image with mine and trashing my reputation into the bargain. He did it twice.
I have to say that wilful appropriation compounded by lackadaisical editorial is extremely difficult and time consuming to counter. Jupiter deserves better!!
I've terabytes of processed JunoCam images, but I've released only a few gigabytes. That's similar with the media. They pick out what they consider most interesting for their audience. Might be, WIRED will publish a more detailed article at some time, later.
As soon as something is released publicly, I occasionally check how it is used elsewhere, but I usually don't try to intervene. I just try to learn how to stay clear enough not to cause unintended misinterpretations myself.
What counts, is that your videos are going to get broad attention. This helps public outreach, and it provides a more complete perception of Jupiter, the Juno mission, and the high quality of JunoCam in the public. I'm confident, that at the end, the web community will pay most attention to the best video products.
Very nice, avisolo! I knew, that there are people out there who are much better than me in creating and adding sound tracks. Thanks a lot!
@PFK... It's been a fascinating online discussion regarding the music choice and having a traditional classical soundtrack is certainly what most people expect. Seeing Jupiter like this was truly mind blowing so it seemed appropriate to lean toward something exotic. Having such a strong reaction for/against is a good indicator!
Here is an update on processing Gerald's animation for PJ06...
Click thru for a video.
https://flic.kr/p/UYhGCj
I'm folding in some of the lessons learned on processing static images.
An update on the PJ06 sequence...
https://flic.kr/p/UjWJm4
Finally, I found some time to process http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170607/, the step I'm usually doing first.
And http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170607/movies/jnc_pj06_natural_sqrt.avi.
Note, that image naming is roughly by orbit, not exactly by perijove, so part of the Approach sequence contains the "05" orbit infix.
I've used two slightly different calibrations, one for the images until pj06#128 using the first several Approach images, and the images beginning with #129 with a calibration derived from the last several Departure images.
The close-ups are misaligned a bit, since for these drafts, I don't consider s/c motion nor Jupiter's shape model.
I'm now going to merge pj06+/-10h with trajectory data...
Some new processing on clouds...
https://flic.kr/p/Vj5j1b
Can someone explain this rippled feature I culled from the PJ06 animation?
That's structures in Jupiter's haze layer, details going to be investigated.
See http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2017/EGU2017-3926.pdf.
http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/planetary-radio/show/2017/0607-scott-bolton-juno.html.
More clouds from Geralds PJ06_112...
https://flic.kr/p/VAx1kp
Awesome stuff, image-wise this is one of the most spectacular threads I remember seeing at UMSF. A suggestion however:
Many of these images are hosted at external sites like flickr.com or imgur.com which might cause problems in the future. If these external sites change the image URLs the images in the UMSF threads probably disappear - in particular, this happens if some of these external sites simply disappear. Here is an example of a thread where something like this happened - lots of bad links to images:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=2222
It would be a pity if this happened to the Juno threads since many of the images here are highly spectacular. Therefore it is a good idea to upload at least some of these images here at UMSF - this makes them 'permanent' and not dependent on external sites. Also the image thumbnails become smaller in this case which is a plus. It's rather easy to overlook small posts like Gerald's two recent posts when you quickly scroll through a thread that contains lots of big images.
Good idea. However, the 1MB limit on file size may not permit us to enjoy the full glory of these images. Is there any possibility of increasing this limit?
I would encourage all of you who are doing this great work to offer the full size images to the Planetary Society's image library. This forum could keep a half-scale or compressed version.
Phil
At least some of the Jupiter images are already in the TPS image library.
Here search results for http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/space-imaging/archive.html?author_profile=743828040 and http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/space-imaging/archive.html?author_profile=472744340. Someone at TPS seems to select some images, occasionally. Initially Emily has been working hard on this. I know, that she has several jobs now, and I'm not quite up to data, whether she currently has time to maintain the database herself.
I'm also using to upload some selected images to the https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing, where I hope, that the images will persist for a few years, at least. And some images have been selected as APODs or for NASA's PIA.
I'm hosting most of my image products on the junocam.pictures webspace, which my provider will hopefully be able to keep online over the next several years. I've a local copy of this site, in case the site will be shut down for some reason.
So, I hope, that we have sufficient redundancy, that not everything will go lost. I'm open for additional archiving concepts. Technically, the upload limit in UMSF can be increased. But we may get 10s or even 100s of gigabytes of JunoCam image products over time. I'm currently prepared for up to 500 GB on my webspace, about 10 GB per perijove plus some margin. But I guess, this load would be above reasonable restrictions for UMSF. And only a small subset of my image products looks "pretty" or is intended to look pretty, or is even valid for public attention.
Here are my versions of the PJ-6 111 image ("POI: Maximus Spatium"; JNCE_2017139_06C00111_V01). Juno's altitude was 12579 km when the raw framelets were obtained. As usual I made these images by reprojecting the raw framelets to simple cylindrical projection and then rendering the resulting map from Juno's vantage point.
First approximately true color/contrast versions. Small scale details have been sharpened slightly:
I thought, I should post this rendition of PJ06#92 with the large tangential shadow:
More from Gerald's PJ06 work...
PJ06_110
https://flic.kr/p/Vzh2dU
PJ06_111
https://flic.kr/p/V3mehW
This is a crop of an enhanced version of PJ06#133 with the best lightning candidate I've seen thus far in JunoCam images:
Thank you Gerald and Sean and others who process and present these amazing images. The volume of images limits what can be worked up even on the 54 day orbits. Think how much would have been lost if we were getting this volume very 14 days.
Here the 2-fold supersampled reprojections I announced yesterday:
- http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170610/pj06_enh1_greenish_60px/,
- http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170610/pj06_enh1_pinkish_60px/.
The full images the overview sites link to are 5-times larger, and especially the close-ups may challenge some browsers or computers. Reducing the zoom-level in the settings of your browser may overcome these limitations in some cases. Might be, downloading the images and viewing them with a different software works where the browser fails.
And yes, the time between perijoves allows only for a portion of the conceivable processing. It allows for learning from the previous perijoves, and for refining observation strategy and processing techniques. 14- or even 11-day orbits would have been very tough.
Rendering the above images has already been challenging, but creating good seamless map products is another factor of more than ten. One of my attempts today ended up with an almost frozen user interface, since the available RAM exceeded, and swapping slowed down any interaction to almost zero. I managed to move the almost frozen mouse cursor onto the close-button of the process, pressed left mouse button down, and half an hour later the computer was operational again without risking damaged hard drives due to hard powering off.
Wow Gerald! I wish I had more time to work on these. Thank you again for your amazing work!
Here is an 8k from your new supersampled batch...
https://flic.kr/p/UqP8E8
I'm calibrating the ratio of Juno's rotation and interframe delay anew for each perijove, provided Approach and Departure images get available. For perijove 6, I've been lucky, that my PJ05 calibration data worked acceptably well for the first run of the close-ups. For the latest supersampled series, I adjusted Juno's rotational period to 30.27956 seconds and 80.96 interframe delays per rotation for the approach sequence (considering #57 and subsequent images), and to 30.29973 seconds and 80.80 interframe delays per Juno rotation for the departure sequence until #159.
With #161, Juno's angular velocity seems to have started to change again, on the basis of the SPICE and metadata I've used. Therefore, my supersampled series ends with #161. I'd prefered to cover 10 hours after PJ06, but the effort to adjust parameters for the last few images didn't appear justified thus far.
During the close-up sequence, I switched with #111 to the departure convention, but needed to adjust the pointing by about 3 degrees for #111. So, the change of Juno's angular velocity may have taken a few minutes.
Btw., I had the same thought about my computer. More cores and more RAM might accelerate some of the jobs.
hi everyone ! My Name is Toni ! This image is based on initial processing efforts by Gerald Eichstädt. n 00128 ! I've improved contrast, sharpness, and curves! Thanks Gerald !
Image Credit: NASA / JPL / MSSS / Gerald Eichstädt / Toni Uddo
hi everyone ! This image is based on initial processing efforts by Gerald Eichstädt. n 00122! I've improved contrast, sharpness, and curves! Thanks Gerald !
Image Credit: NASA / JPL / MSSS / Gerald Eichstädt / Toni Uddo
and a dettail Image of n 00122
Image Credit: NASA / JPL / MSSS / Gerald Eichstädt / Toni Uddo
Dettail image n 00122!
Image Credit: NASA / JPL / MSSS / Gerald Eichstädt / Toni Uddo
Here is another from Gerald's supersampled batch...
PJ06_118
https://flic.kr/p/VGintZ
Thanks Toni!
Here is another 8k from Gerald's supersampled batch...
PJ06_119
https://flic.kr/p/VwUHEB
Detail...
I could fairly easily assemble the metadata into a single file with one row per image containing the interesting stuff from the metadata files. Each row would start with e.g. PJ6 followed by image number. This would make it very easy to locate the information for a particular image.
But to make this easy to use we should standardize the nomenclature here; I have noticed that Sean has started doing this in his posts here by putting e.g. PJ06_119 (perijove number/image number) at the top of his posts. This is a good thing since Sean's files are hosted at Flickr where there is no control over the filenames. I have been using comparable conventions for my image files (e.g. juno_pj6_112_19_ni_p.png).
And speaking of image files: Some experimentation has been done in attempts to increase the maximum upload size to something bigger than 1 MB but I'm not sure it worked (I'm a moderator here and the options I see for myself are probably different). It would be nice if someone posted here the maximum upload size he/she is seeing.
Here are the concatenated JSON metadata files I'm currently working with:
pj01_json_concatted.zip ( 82.53K )
: 298
pj03_json_concatted.zip ( 40.66K )
: 215
pj04_json_concatted.zip ( 68.08K )
: 203
pj05_json_concatted.zip ( 75.2K )
: 236
pj06_json_concatted.zip ( 76.86K )
: 251
The entries aren't necessarily strictly in the correct order. Usually, I'm using the search function of a text editor to look for the data. I've also csv excerpts for the data I'm requiring most frequently (file names with image stop time).
I didn't check (yet), whether version 02 files are different from version 01.
For perijive 02, there are no close flyby images, and at the moment, I'm not working with PJ02. But I could concat PJ02 metadata, if required.
For PJ06, http://junocam.pictures/gerald/uploads/20170610/pj06_enh1_pinkish_60px/ might help to identify a PJ06 image, if there is available no other identifier. The image number is provided above each image, and also as part of the filename.
Note, that my rendering algorithm creates a correct and mirror-symmetric version of the image, and sometimes I happen to select the wrong one -- well, most easily after 2 a.m. in the early morning.
Btw.: My upload limit per post on UMSF currently is 1 MB.
Another from Gerald's supersampled set... repaired artifacts & processed
PJ06_127
https://flic.kr/p/Vv2aqq
Detail
PJ06_126 work in progress
Testing 8192 x 4096 at 2.6mb... failed
Testing 6144 x 3072 at 2.79mb...
Thanks for testing the upload size. The attempt to increase it to 3 MB was clearly a success. There are limitations to the image dimensions that I knew of - we may take a look at it later. These limitations are a smaller problem than the upload size was though (1 MB is *very* small these days).
PJ06_126 ( Gerald's )
8k PNG on Flickr...
https://flic.kr/p/VJ9HCo
4k JPG attachment...
A first attempt of a global cylindrical planetocentric PJ06 map with 10 pixels per lon/lat degree, derived from 68 PJ06 images:
I have noticed colored 'dots' in some of your images/maps that are there because the original framelets contain some dark 'spots' that resemble the reseau marks in e.g. the Voyager images. I'm not sure they are there in the most recent images but in case it is of interest I measured the position of these features in the framelets some time ago; my software automatically removes them before reprojecting the images to simple cylindrical projection. To do this I use a 9x9 median filter. The positions of the 'reseau-like' features are given below in case it's useful. There might be more but these are the most obvious ones. The columns are x, y, size. The coordinate system is for a BGR set of framelets that looks like this:
Thanks! That's currently on rank 4 of my planned Juno activities. I'll probably just invalidate these patches, and reconstruct the missing color channel by the color of the immediate environment. Fixing this is on my plan since more than a year. I hope, that early next week, I'll get it implemented.
Some image processing & retiming tests on Gerald's animation for perijove 06...
Click thru each image for a video
https://flic.kr/p/UGX311
https://flic.kr/p/UGWZJC
https://flic.kr/p/VMTJca
https://flic.kr/p/VZkExT
I have been running into an interesting issue when processing some of the images. Here is an example, an enhanced crop from image PJ06_119:
I've noticed this before, but I didn't yet narrow it down to a candidate cause as good as yours. Before the decompanding table became available, I've run an empirical / statistical analysis on the red/green and blue/green quotients as a function of the green value, and found smoothed curves where the decompanding function has kinks between linear fragments. I attributed this to a smoothing effect caused by my analysis method. But with your observation, it might be worth to run a new analysis with formally decompanded values. I did so when I used the decompanding table for the first time, and it looked so much better than before, that I was happy, and didn't persue this any further.
When preparing for my http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EPSC2017/EPSC2017-517.pdf (finally accepted!), and haze, I'll take another very close look at the effect of solar incidence angle and emission angle on brightness and color. I'd think, that any errors in the decompanding function should show up as anomalies.
Btw, Seán, your processing tests are really very! promising.
Here is the first of three sets of images that I recently finished processing. This is image PJ06_113. First an approximately true color/contrast version. Small scale features have been sharpened a bit, mainly to compensate for all of the resampling during the many processing steps:
And here is image PJ06_118. First a true color version:
Image PJ06_119, the true color version:
There is very helpful information by John Rogers on JunoCam's perijove-6 observations at https://www.britastro.org/node/10479
At the bottom is a map showing the location/context for all of the hi-res perijove-6 images. It was even tempting to post the map here but I decided to only post the link - there's a lot of interesting information there in addition to the context map.
A humble reply to Bjorn's amazing work...
PJ06_121 from Gerald's batch, flipped & processed.
https://flic.kr/p/VG4wx3
Here preliminary masks for the "blemish" on the RGB filters, based only on pj6, #111 and #112:
In the meanwhile, I'm merging dark spots with hot pixels into this mask in order to invalidate raw pixels:
Great work Gerald. Will this resolve the blue dots on the animations also?
Yes, I'm expecting so. Of course, this applies only to future renditions. At least, it's in time for PJ7 renditions, and maybe for reviews of PJ6 and before.
Seamless blending between scenes made from two or more different raws is an interesting challenge I've still to work on, especially when trying to render realistic scenes from outside the original s/c trajectory.
I am still looking at seamless blending, especially as it really affects the quality of re-timing an animation.
The brute force method is to render buffer frames at either end of a shot which can be merged over time, the more frames the smoother the blend.
Yes, that's essentially what I've applied to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GwFx3QHX00 last year.
I hope, that I'll be able to go a step further, soon. But it will be a lot of number crunching...
An update to PJ06_109 using Gerald's base image
https://flic.kr/p/Y1ouK4
An attempt to process details from Geralds PJ06_117...
https://flic.kr/p/XC4P8q
https://flic.kr/p/XC4P8W
https://flic.kr/p/XC4P6G
PJ06_110 Detail [G.Eichstadt]
https://flic.kr/p/21ahjxB
PJ06_111 Detail [G.Eichstadt]
https://flic.kr/p/22uYeUH
RIP Jóhann Jóhannsson...
https://youtu.be/gAxHBrcoG0c
Movie starts out "fuzzy" because initially Jupiter is only 44 pixels across. Shadows cast by moons can be seen in several frames towards the end.
Processed with Juno28g pipeline using parameters:
interframeDelay = 0.373;
spiceYawRate = 11.88921302;
rExtrinsic = -0.002;
New attempts on PJ06_123
This one is based on Gerald Eichstadt's processing...
https://flic.kr/p/25ZQgdU
This is made with the output from Brian Swift's pipeline...
https://flic.kr/p/25ZQgqN
Update on detail from PJ06_110 [ GE/SD ]
https://flic.kr/p/2gcqVwn
111 [ GE/SD ]
https://flic.kr/p/2gcs3eU
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)