IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

15 Pages V  « < 13 14 15  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Mars 3 (Various Topics Merged)
alex_k
post Oct 21 2014, 05:26 AM
Post #211


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



2. Fragments 2+4, rotated 180 deg.
[attachment=34048:test.png] [attachment=34049:layer2.png]

3. Fragments 6+7+8, rotated 180 deg (just stretched result)
The second source http://fotki.yandex.ru/next/users/roborebe...274/view/959480 was used.
[attachment=34050:layer3.png]
The third layer is very extremal indeed, but it contains image. More quality sources are needed to refine this layer - the quiality of first two is enought.

(limitation on attachments, continuing...)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Oct 21 2014, 05:34 AM
Post #212


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



Without noised 3rd layer we get also appropriate composition.
[attachment=34051:m416_2.png]


QUOTE (4th rock from the sun @ Oct 20 2014, 09:46 PM) *
But both images are hard to reconcile indeed.
Here's what the same processing brings out on the teleprinter image:
[attachment=34042:teleprinter2.png]

I suppose that it was build using wrong assumptions but very strong noise reduction, that's why it's so hard to reconcile it. I think it was made of fragments 2+4 but they were combined in wrong order.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4th rock from th...
post Oct 21 2014, 02:29 PM
Post #213


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 378
Joined: 21-April 05
From: Portugal
Member No.: 347



Alex, can't really disagree (and I don't read russian, so my understanding of the sources is limited), but I think your results have too many "ifs".
If there are several fragments, if the fragments show the same data, if one of the fragments is inverted, etc, etc.

So let's stay on the things we know.

We know that the image starts with the autogain system gradually increases the gain up to a "standard" level.
Therefore any fragments that don't show that have no image data.

You have a point with the image not being a negative, since it's possible that the initial level was too high and the autogain has reduced the level and it's also possible that the "3" area is the mirror flyback. It's reasonable to consider that values during the flyback would be zero (but who know if they didn't insert a white signal for calibration + alignment? )

So as an alternative solution we get something like this:
Attached Image

The area "3" does seem like the end/start of each line, I've place it at top here just to be clear.


But beyond the negative/positive possibilities I don't think we should speculate much.


--------------------
_______________________
www.astrosurf.com/nunes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Oct 21 2014, 03:42 PM
Post #214


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



QUOTE (4th rock from the sun @ Oct 21 2014, 07:29 PM) *
Alex, can't really disagree (and I don't read russian, so my understanding of the sources is limited), but I think your results have too many "ifs".
If there are several fragments, if the fragments show the same data, if one of the fragments is inverted, etc, etc.

It's true, there're many "ifs". But the accordance of the fragments I can try to prove.

QUOTE (4th rock from the sun @ Oct 21 2014, 07:29 PM) *
We know that the image starts with the autogain system gradually increases the gain up to a "standard" level.
Therefore any fragments that don't show that have no image data.

We know only that it's Selivanov's explaination. Can you show me the effect of "gradually increase" on a panorama of Luna-9 or Luna-13?

QUOTE (4th rock from the sun @ Oct 21 2014, 07:29 PM) *
The area "3" does seem like the end/start of each line,

You're right. So the areas "4" and "2" should be combined, but not by just omitting the area "2", but by swapping them ("end" and "start" should end and start the entire line). I suppose that the same error was made in the processing of the picture "from a teleprinter". If we remount it we'll get a kind of compliance with my image.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4th rock from th...
post Oct 21 2014, 04:51 PM
Post #215


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 378
Joined: 21-April 05
From: Portugal
Member No.: 347



"We know only that it's Selivanov's explaination. Can you show me the effect of "gradually increase" on a panorama of Luna-9 or Luna-13?"

I can't. But I haven't seen the raw data* from the Lunas, only the final panoramas wink.gif

How do you explain it if it's not the autogain system?
- Mirror flyback?
- Grayscale calibration at the start of each line?
- Autogain of the orbiter's receiver ?

For the sake of discussion, let me present a modern HF-Fax analog image:
Attached Image


This is what an analog image transmission looks like.
Its single side band AM with the image data encoded as image tones varying from black at 1500 Hz and peak white at 2300 Hz.
Some black/white or grayscale calibration elements are usually present .

We know from Luna 9 that the Soviet system was similar. Don't know if some raw data exists for that, but perhaps it might help to clarify things.

* This information from Jodrell Bank about Luna 9 is helpful:
" The international facsimile standard is that the White/black transition corresponds to a a change in audio frequency between 1.5 to 2.3 kHz, while the Luna 9 transmissions used a change from 1.2 to 2.0 kHz. The difference in horizontal/vertical ratio was sometimes given as a factor 2 and sometimes as a factor 2.5 . The picture signals were transmitted on a subcarrier with maximum deviation of 2 kHz. The synchronization signal for the pictures (start of each line?) was a tone with the frequency 1.1 kHz (24). The lunar panoramas consisted of vertical lines with 500 elements (each 3.6 minutes of arc wide) and the 360 degree view around the horizon consisted of 6000 such lines"
(from http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/history/tracking/part2.html)


--------------------
_______________________
www.astrosurf.com/nunes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post Oct 21 2014, 08:23 PM
Post #216


IMG to PNG GOD
****

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



It would be interesting to reprocess this using modern computers and software by using the original data with full information on how the camera worked and how to reconstruct the signal. When data from other landers is processed it quickly becomes absolutely clear what you are looking at - you clearly see rocks etc. and in some cases parts of the landers. This is true for e.g. the Veneras, Huygens and various Mars and Lunar landers.

The problem with the images above is that even though advanced image processing methods have been used it is impossible to tell from the resulting images what you are really looking at and therefore impossible to tell whether the data you are processing is correctly reconstructed - there are too many "ifs" as 4th rock pointed out (inversion or no inversion, possible gain changes etc.). As I previously said, it would be interesting if the original data could somehow be recovered and all of the "ifs" eliminated with 100% certainty. If that is possible the result should be either an image that shows something recognizable (surface features like rocks and/or parts of the lander) or something looking like noise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Oct 22 2014, 12:29 AM
Post #217


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 7947
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Bjorn's points are valid, particularly the fact that the original data is not being used as the source for these permutations. Therefore, innumerable copying errors from various sources (format changes, transcription, etc.) have completely subsumed whatever signal there ever was--and there is considerable doubt that there ever was any in the first place--into noise.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Jan 3 2015, 04:24 PM
Post #218


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



Attached Image

Here is an attempt to get 12x superresolution of Mars 3 landing site. For processing four HiRise images were used: ESP_031036_1345, PSP_061154_1345, ESP_032447_1345 and ESP_032737_1345. Details are very exaggerated. A Fourier-based algorithm was used, and the result was postprocessed by GIMP.

For interpreting the details I composed it with a frame from an old film about Mars 3:
Attached Image

Petals' ends and the Prop-M device seem visible, right?

upd:
A smoother version:
Attached Image


ADMIN NOTE: Take a look at VikingMars' work on this from 2013. Plus the HiRise image.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Jan 4 2015, 07:45 AM
Post #219


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



And one more processing related with the topic. The image from Mars 3 lander recovered by one frame.

Attached Image
=>
Attached Image


The method looks like to be able to extract a detailed image from a hopeless noise. The same processing performed to the first "all in blur" image after Philae landing is here (the second). If it's interesting, I can try to recover any very noised image.

ADMIN NOTE: Attempting to get an image and interpreting such from the Mars3 data was discussed at length in another topic (now merged with this one).
It is worth reading back through this entire topic to see what was discussed and how now we are just repeating ourselves. This is just adding 'noise'.
While conclusions varied from 'just noise' to 'possible image', the jury is sufficiently out until more complete/original data records can be sourced.
Therefore, it is recommended by the Admin/Mod team that no further image processing efforts be posted here from this point onwards.
If new, original source/raw data can be found and verified, then please bring it to the attention of the Forum or direct to specific members who are interested.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Dec 2 2016, 11:17 AM
Post #220


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



45 years of the first soft landing on Mars.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

15 Pages V  « < 13 14 15
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th June 2017 - 08:52 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.