IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Galileo Imagery, I couldn't find a topic not specific to one moon....
ugordan
post Jul 28 2010, 05:51 PM
Post #61


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3570
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (tedstryk @ Jul 27 2010, 08:56 PM) *
Not only is the monitor not as bright, the darkest blacks aren't all that dark.

Neither are they dark on the monitor in the non-corrected images, yet it makes areas that are actually not that dark in the real scene darker than they are - terminator region and darker albedo features.

QUOTE
As for the two Phoenix images, yes, I am saying that.

I would once again echo 4th rock's technical argument in that the left image is not technically correct. The same argument holds for every day images as it holds for planetary objects, be it bland objects like Venus or highly dynamic range like Earth.

QUOTE
One is faithful to the brightness of the reflection, one suppresses it in the name of preserving more interesting parts of the image.

I maintain my point that the gamma-correct version is more correct. It preserves brightness, contrast and hence color relationships of the real world object. Anything else is either a contrast enhancement or dilution by definition. Other, enhanced versions are certainly helpful to show minute detail, I use them a lot myself too, especially for low phase bland objects, but that doesn't change the fact those objects are visually bland (i.e. low albedo differences and those details really are minute differences). I would also add a point that having a monitor with a really bright output, sufficient to mimic the real scene would not make the images much more detailed to the eye because the eye is more sensitive to low light changes not bright objects - the reason gamma was introduced in the first place.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
volcanopele
post Jul 28 2010, 06:03 PM
Post #62


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2864
Joined: 11-February 04
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 23



My biggest issue at this point seems to be that the way my images look in Photoshop CS4 looks quite a bit different when displayed in a browser. In Photoshop, the display looks non-linear, with my image not washed out by any stretch of the imagination, but the terminator region is quite as dark as my images appear in a browser.

So I would like to find a way to make the images that I make in photoshop show up the exact same way in a browser (even on the same computer).


--------------------
&@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jul 28 2010, 06:10 PM
Post #63


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3570
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (volcanopele @ Jul 28 2010, 08:03 PM) *
So I would like to find a way to make the images that I make in photoshop show up the exact same way in a browser (even on the same computer).

You could have a custom color profile for your PS different from sRGB. Have you tried seeing if you're allowed to do Edit->Convert to profile-> then select sRGB IEC... ?

A longer response would need you to determine which of the two looks you like better. If it's the browser one, they prefer sRGB (many don't even handle embedded profiles correctly) so you might want to make that the default working color space in Photoshop. If you prefer the Photoshop look, then the above method of conversion should do the trick, possibly as the last step before you save the image for web.

EDIT: Need to read more carefully what you write...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
volcanopele
post Jul 28 2010, 06:27 PM
Post #64


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2864
Joined: 11-February 04
From: Tucson, AZ
Member No.: 23



hmm, that doesn't seem to work, but then again, Firefox has always been a bit odd for a while in the way it handles color.

I'll give you a good example. Compare the thumbnail version of 10ISIOGLOC03 on http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~perry/io_images/c10.htm with the full size version at http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~perry/io_i...0ISIOGLOC03.png . On my browser, I like the way the thumbnail looks because it looks exactly the same way in Photoshop, and that is how I prefer it to appear. But in the full-size version, the terminator is way too dark.

And converting to a different profile (or using JPEG rather than PNG) didn't seem to work.


--------------------
&@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jul 28 2010, 06:38 PM
Post #65


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3570
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



Hmm. I'm stuck with a laptop right now with lousy contrast so can't make out any differences in the way the terminator appears, though the thumbnail image does seem to appear slightly more greenish compared to the full res. It could be the two have different embedded profiles. Do you generate both in Photoshop or?

I think there was a thread somewhere here about browser issues with color profiles, maybe one of the images is stuck with a profile (even though it's sRGB and FF can't handle it properly or something) instead of bare data.

Edit: yeah, I can see the difference in Photoshop if I resize the thumbnail. When opening the JPG thumbnail it says there's no embedded profile, but when opening the full PNG it says nothing.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnVV
post Jul 28 2010, 07:59 PM
Post #66


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 533
Joined: 18-November 08
Member No.: 4489



oops i posted the wrong link
-- i am going to have to check the README i made an make sure it is correct - gives the correct reference to the orig.
http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/Jupi...ge_SIMP0.cub.gz
http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Projects/Jupi...ellites/io.html

the 3 band isis cub file
ran "explode" on it then exported each to tiff( gdal) and recombined R,G,B in Nip2
then in gimp cleaned the seams ( that is normal for me - i dislike seams )

the old colors of io , i think have to much green and a bit to much yellow

then AFTER i did the map i came across this
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~perry/io_images/c21.htm

i do need to lighten it up and add back in some of the yellow
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4th rock from th...
post Jul 28 2010, 08:48 PM
Post #67


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 304
Joined: 21-April 05
From: Portugal
Member No.: 347



Regarding image color profiles and the Web:
My personal opinion is to disable any color corrections in Photoshop and if really needed always specify sRGB for saved files.
What you should correct is your monitor or graphics board (sometimes the only option for laptops) using the sliders normally present on the control panel. These are hardware adjustments and will bet you correct display for everything.

Forcing color space correction on browser or on a program basis is always inconsistent. Here's a nice link about color profiles with interactive examples : http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_p...EGprofiles.html


--------------------
_______________________
www.astrosurf.com/nunes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnVV
post Jul 28 2010, 09:09 PM
Post #68


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 533
Joined: 18-November 08
Member No.: 4489



well there is
AdobeRGB1998.icc
HP5000_UVDuraImageGlossMaxQ.icc
sRGB.icm
on my system and i have everything set to sRGB.icm

pick one and calibrate EVERYTHING to it
printer , monitor , photoshop, gimp, Firefox ,( IE 8 ??? ) do not about that one
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jul 28 2010, 09:22 PM
Post #69


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3570
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



Perhaps this digression should be extracted into a different thread instead of contaminating this (unrelated) one?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Aug 30 2010, 06:51 PM
Post #70


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3570
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



An 8-footprint, roughly natural color Galileo mosaic of crescent Jupiter, taken on September 10th, 1997:



There's also a contrast-enhanced version here for those so inclined.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Aug 31 2010, 04:24 PM
Post #71


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4243
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



Nice. I have a blog entry about that data set that I posted last year.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
machi
post Apr 1 2011, 07:21 PM
Post #72


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 646
Joined: 27-February 08
From: Heart of Europe
Member No.: 4057



Little animation experiment with two Jupiter's images from Galileo.
Darkening at right side is caused by rotation of Jupiter between time
when these two images were taken.
Youtube


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post Apr 2 2011, 02:46 PM
Post #73


IMG to PNG GOD
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 1509
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38



Wow...

When doing these morphed animations, are you using Sqirlz Morph (that you discussed here) or the MSU Frame Rate Conversion Filter (discussed by Ian R here) or both, depending on the scene and number of frames?

I've been experimenting with the MSU stuff and it works very well for the Voyager 1 Jupiter approach movie (one exception: I need to cut away a few frames at the start of the tweened animation file to avoid 'jumps' in the cloud motion). In contrast, it does not work well for a Cassini animation of Saturn where the time between frames varies a lot and where I sometimes need to interpolate between two adjacent frames before assemling everything into one big tweened animation. I suspect in the Saturn case Sqirlz Morph is the way to go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
machi
post Apr 2 2011, 03:39 PM
Post #74


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 646
Joined: 27-February 08
From: Heart of Europe
Member No.: 4057



Normally I'm using Sqirlz Morph, because of big differences between used images.
I think, that MSU Frame Rate Conversion Filter is usable only for small differences.
Sqirlz M. is usable nearly every time (if images contains enough corresponding details),
but it's time consuming process for every pair of input images.




--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
machi
post Jul 30 2011, 04:24 PM
Post #75


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 646
Joined: 27-February 08
From: Heart of Europe
Member No.: 4057



Cross-eye 3D view of 11 km high Tohil Montes and Radegast Patera (dark lava lake).
Resolution is approx. 150 m/pix. Color from lower resolution images from orbit C21 observations.
BTW, Radegast Patera has almost same diameter as Endeavour crater.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st November 2014 - 05:27 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.