IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Juno perijove 28, July 25, 2020
Bjorn Jonsson
post Jul 29 2020, 12:48 AM
Post #1


IMG to PNG GOD
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2088
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38



The images from perijove 28 are now available. This is image PJ28_24 in approximately true color/contrast and enhanced versions:

Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


Attached Image

Attached Image
Attached Image


Image 28_24 was obtained shortly before Juno's perijove which makes it a very high resolution image. The resolution is highest (slightly better than 3 km/pixel) in the top center area in the 'central' image (the biggest image). At this high resolution some of the cloud features look rather fuzzy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kevin Gill
post Jul 29 2020, 04:49 PM
Post #2


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 22-July 14
Member No.: 7220



First attempts at maps and composites of PJ28 imagery:


Jupiter - PJ28-21 - Detail


Jupiter - PJ28-21/22 - Detail Map


Jupiter - Perijove 28 - Composite - 1

I've made some great strides improving my pipeline. I'm using some dark fields generated by Bjorn (Thanks!) and fixed a bug that compressed the images in an ugly way. Also, I'm getting good results integrating Denoise AI and Sharpen AI from Topaz Labs into my process. Not sure which one works the best yet, but both are really good. I'll continue uploading most of my intermediate files such as maps, meshes, Blender files, etc to my Google Drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1mWW...j_L?usp=sharing
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post Jul 29 2020, 09:46 PM
Post #3


IMG to PNG GOD
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2088
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38



QUOTE (Kevin Gill @ Jul 29 2020, 04:49 PM) *
...Also, I'm getting good results integrating Denoise AI and Sharpen AI from Topaz Labs into my process. Not sure which one works the best yet, but both are really good.

These have now become a 'standard' part of my processing pipeline as well, especially Denoise AI. Usually the results are great (much better than in e.g. Photoshop) but interestingly, I had difficulty getting results I was happy with from Denoise AI when processing image PJ28_24 (posted at the start of this thread). The problem seems to be that this image has a significant amount of relatively fuzzy cloud features plus some low contrast areas, especially where the resolution is highest near top center in the 'central' image in my post. I ended up not using Denoise for this particular image.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sean
post Jul 30 2020, 02:55 PM
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 846
Joined: 10-November 15
Member No.: 7837



My approach was to average the results from multiple upscalers/denoisers by masking and blending between them. It was labor intensive since the process had to be dialed in separately for each frame.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
palebutdot
post Aug 2 2020, 08:24 AM
Post #5


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 48
Joined: 9-August 19
Member No.: 8644



Our amazing Gerald Eichstädt has spotted some lightning on Jupiter!
https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=9054

Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fredk
post Aug 3 2020, 12:44 AM
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3979
Joined: 17-January 05
Member No.: 152



Not a lot of detail there - can we be sure these aren't cosmic ray hits, eg?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Aug 3 2020, 03:39 AM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1969
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (fredk @ Aug 2 2020, 04:44 PM) *
Not a lot of detail there - can we be sure these aren't cosmic ray hits, eg?

We can't be sure, but they're generally consistent with point sources (there are four pixels with values above background), whereas cosmics tend to either one pixel or many pixels in a line.

See https://www.storm-t.iag.usp.br/pub/ACA0330/...leo-jupiter.pdf especially Figure 5.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fredk
post Aug 3 2020, 04:33 AM
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3979
Joined: 17-January 05
Member No.: 152



Yeah, PSF-like does suggest a real source.

Unless I've missed this somewhere, these were imaged on PJ28? So presumably day side? I recall the nightside Galileo observations, but are lightning strikes expected to be visible on the day side?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Aug 3 2020, 06:38 AM
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1969
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (fredk @ Aug 2 2020, 08:33 PM) *
Unless I've missed this somewhere, these were imaged on PJ28? So presumably day side?

No, night side, during the high-TDI departure imaging.

We've seen similar things in the northern hemisphere on earlier PJs, e.g., pj14-002.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fredk
post Aug 4 2020, 01:31 AM
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3979
Joined: 17-January 05
Member No.: 152



Thanks for the details. Any sense of whether these flashes are comparable in brightness to flashes seen by Galileo?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Aug 4 2020, 05:37 PM
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1969
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (fredk @ Aug 3 2020, 05:31 PM) *
Any sense of whether these flashes are comparable in brightness to flashes seen by Galileo?

It's fairly hard to say. Galileo was taking long time exposures (tens of seconds long, IIRC) and we are taking much shorter exposures with TDI where the flash presumably only lasts as long as one pixel residence time. I guess if you assumed the flash duration was similar one could back out the relative radiometry, but I haven't done that.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brian Swift
post Aug 6 2020, 07:45 AM
Post #12


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 18-September 17
Member No.: 8250



QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Aug 2 2020, 10:38 PM) *
No, night side, during the high-TDI departure imaging.

Has any consideration been given to capturing long exposures with TDI disabled
(or intentionally mismatched to spin rate) to elongate or separate flashes?
I see in the GALILEO LIGHTNING paper, they did some "scanned" frames.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Aug 6 2020, 03:10 PM
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1969
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (Brian Swift @ Aug 5 2020, 11:45 PM) *
Has any consideration been given to capturing long exposures with TDI disabled
(or intentionally mismatched to spin rate) to elongate or separate flashes?

That's an interesting suggestion, we could look at that. Frankly, Junocam is not the best instrument on the spacecraft to be looking at lightning. We only take these images because the orbit geometry doesn't allow anything else and it's a way to keep the downlink full.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brian Swift
post Aug 6 2020, 08:51 PM
Post #14


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 135
Joined: 18-September 17
Member No.: 8250



QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Aug 6 2020, 07:10 AM) *
Frankly, Junocam is not the best instrument on the spacecraft to be looking at lightning.

I'd like to see all the SRU images/data show up in the PDS.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gerald
post Aug 7 2020, 12:44 PM
Post #15


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2283
Joined: 7-December 12
Member No.: 6780



QUOTE (fredk @ Aug 3 2020, 01:44 AM) *
Not a lot of detail there - can we be sure these aren't cosmic ray hits, eg?

Maybe I should provide links to the maps the gif is derived from.
Here the RGB maps.
And here for a closer inspection selected green images for lightning search.

Specifically, #87, and #90.
There are only very few energetic particle hits in those images. And the lightning candidates are located at FFRs, where lightnings would be plausible or expected.
So, besides the structure of the spots, the location hints towards lightning on a probabilistic basis.

In the lower third of this site, you'll find less processed drafts to look for possible energetic particle hits and for stars to compare them with lightning candidates.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th August 2020 - 08:43 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.