Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  « < 7 8 9  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Juno perijove 6, May 19, 2017
post Jun 17 2017, 11:06 PM
Post #121

Senior Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1815
Joined: 7-December 12
Member No.: 6780

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.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Jun 21 2017, 09:22 AM
Post #122


Group: Members
Posts: 366
Joined: 10-November 15
Member No.: 7837

Some image processing & retiming tests on Gerald's animation for perijove 06...

Click thru each image for a video

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post Yesterday, 11:49 PM
Post #123


Group: Moderator
Posts: 1881
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38

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:

Attached Image

The arrows point in the direction of a color discontinuity. The color change at left is because of a drop in the green intensity to the right of the discontinuity and the color change at right (which is more subtle) is because of a drop in the red intensity. These color changes are not a real feature (I verified this by checking image PJ06_118 which also shows this area).

As a sanity check I checked Gerald's images and this also appears there. It occurred to me that this might be a consequence of how the images are decompanded. In the original, raw image the intensity near the color change is ~210 in both cases (green and red). Keeping this in mind the companding table is rather interesting. Below are a few lines from the table. The columns are 8-bit_SQROOT_Value, 12-bit_Linear_Value and the change from the previous value in the 12 bit column.

207 1375 16
208 1391 16
209 1407 16 <---
210 1439 32 <---
211 1471 32
212 1503 32

Note that the difference between adjacent values jumps from 16 to 32. Of course this is normal but I strongly suspect that this creates visual artifacts (and maybe the human visual system also exaggerates the difference because of a Mach band effect or something similar).

I plan on exploring this further to see if I'm right (I'm not yet completely sure). I may even experiment with a slightly modified companding table. Strictly speaking this would result in slightly less accurate images where the intensity is ~210 but aesthetically they would look better if I'm successful.

I'm interesting in knowing if someone else (Gerald?) has also explored this issue.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  « < 7 8 9
Reply to this topicStart new topic


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd June 2017 - 05:21 AM
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

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.
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.