IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
30th Anniversary of the Voyager 1 Flyby of Jupiter
Ian R
post Jul 27 2010, 09:58 AM
Post #76


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 18-July 05
From: Plymouth, UK
Member No.: 437



Here's another Voyager 2 narrow angle view, taken on 28th of June, 1979:

Attached Image


A day later, this officially released composite was captured, and provides a useful comparison of how the different processing techniques affect the final result:

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA01370


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roby72
post Jul 27 2010, 10:26 PM
Post #77


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 82
Joined: 26-June 04
From: Austria
Member No.: 89



As for realistic planetary movies without flickering - has anyone tried out Fantamorph ?

http://www.fantamorph.com/

Its not scientific software but it produces great flowing animations.
For the Voyager-Jupiter-movie-project an interesting addition I think !
Robert
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4th rock from th...
post Jul 28 2010, 01:16 PM
Post #78


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 287
Joined: 21-April 05
From: Portugal
Member No.: 347



Beautifully results! The only improvement I can think off would be to correct for planet rotation between each color channel image. This would require image reprojection or at least some kind of manual warp applied to parts of the image.


--------------------
_______________________
www.astrosurf.com/nunes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jul 28 2010, 06:01 PM
Post #79


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3559
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



My hunch is you'd need reprojection software (bonus for illumination changes correction!) for really good results, especially dealing with WAC frames near closest approach. Then you'd probably have weird effects with limb haze, though. Best of both worlds could be merging limb shots with reprojected disk shots.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Jul 29 2010, 01:13 PM
Post #80


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3559
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (Bjorn Jonsson @ Jul 25 2010, 10:12 PM) *
I think the color is significantly more realistic in the new version but beware that there might still be some bugs in my code so this might change slightly.

A quick sanity check on your code would be to check a known neutral case input. If you are working with I/F reflectance data (i.e. solar spectrum divided out), then putting in a completely flat (say unity) spectrum into the calculation and illuminating it with the D65 illuminant (which is the sRGB white point), you should get a completely neutral grey RGB color as output.

If you are working with radiance data instead, you will end up with a yellowish-orange color as that is what sunlight color appears in the D65 white point. The effect would be similar to setting a digital camera white balance to daylight/overcast and taking a picture or something under an incandescent lightbulb.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Dec 8 2011, 02:01 AM
Post #81


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4159
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



I processed a Voyager 1 crescent image of Callisto. It is amazing how much poorer the definition in Voyager 1 images is compared to Voyager 2. http://planetimages.blogspot.com/2011/12/c...t-callisto.html


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
machi
post Dec 8 2011, 11:19 AM
Post #82


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 586
Joined: 27-February 08
From: Heart of Europe
Member No.: 4057



Nice!
Is it from WAC or NAC?

" It is amazing how much poorer the definition in Voyager 1 images is compared to Voyager 2."

Isn't it caused by different exposition time and gain modes, more than differences between cameras?
After all, image technicians could use experiences from Voyager 1 flyby for Voyager 2 flyby.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Dec 8 2011, 11:36 AM
Post #83


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4159
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (machi @ Dec 8 2011, 12:19 PM) *
Nice!
Is it from WAC or NAC?

" It is amazing how much poorer the definition in Voyager 1 images is compared to Voyager 2."

Isn't it caused by different exposition time and gain modes, more than differences between cameras?
After all, image technicians could use experiences from Voyager 1 flyby for Voyager 2 flyby.


It is from the NAC. Voyager 2's vidicon was roughly twice as sensitive as the one on Voyager 1, meaning that Voyager 1 images are more likely to be smeared.


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

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th April 2014 - 08:21 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.