March 15, 2010 PDS release |
March 15, 2010 PDS release |
Mar 19 2010, 05:06 AM
Post
#61
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 890 Joined: 18-November 08 Member No.: 4489 |
hi Erwan my fault i am used to 16 bit images as -32768 to 32767 or 0 to 65536
and the values for luner radi 1737400 + the lola measurement gives odd results in photo editors and even in qview like the img2png example above having values so large can push the pixel value to a double or a 32 bit float that is why i posted a different LBL But on a different note the 64 px/deg looks very nice for such an early product a simple "emboss " on it . |
|
|
Mar 19 2010, 02:24 PM
Post
#62
|
||
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10128 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
This spot with dark rays is about where the Apollo 14 LM was impacted west of Fra Mauro. The image number is in filename.
Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
||
Mar 19 2010, 10:58 PM
Post
#63
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 20-June 09 Member No.: 4830 |
The website with the Celestia textures has been updated with improved textures (new ZIP files).
Seams that were visible at 10-degree latitude interval are now gone, and the color scale for the false-color image has been changed. There are still some minor issues with the normal map (equator, 0 longitude), so they may be further updated, but not immediately. Erwan screenshots (click to enlarge; large files ! ~4Mb, 2560x1600) |
|
|
Mar 20 2010, 03:36 PM
Post
#64
|
||
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10128 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
Most people are familiar with Ina (D-Caldera). Here are some mini-Inas on the floor of Hyginus crater. They were visible in Lunar Orbiter images, but not very clearly. Image number is in the filename.
Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
||
Mar 22 2010, 08:55 PM
Post
#65
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 9 Joined: 17-March 10 Member No.: 5271 |
This is what I do with the data:
|
|
|
Mar 22 2010, 10:41 PM
Post
#66
|
|
The Poet Dude Group: Moderator Posts: 5551 Joined: 15-March 04 From: Kendal, Cumbria, UK Member No.: 60 |
Nice one, Ittiz! That's a LOT of water!
-------------------- |
|
|
Mar 30 2010, 09:21 PM
Post
#67
|
|
IMG to PNG GOD Group: Moderator Posts: 2250 Joined: 19-February 04 From: Near fire and ice Member No.: 38 |
I'm updating my IMG2PNG utility to correctly convert LROC images to PNGs. The NAC images now get correctly converted except for one problem: Image orientation. Does anyone know how to determine from the embedded labels or the index.tab file whether an image needs to be mirror-flipped?
From LROCSIS.pdf (page 3) in the documents directory: QUOTE ...This orientation requires that one of the NAC frames from a NAC-L and NAC-R paired observation must be transformed such that both images have the same ground orientation" At first I thought I thought this was simple, i.e. that the NAC-R images needed to be mirror-flipped but apparently things are more complex: M102443238RC.IMG does not need mirror-flipping whereas M114185541RC.IMG needs to be mirror-flipped (unless I've managed to get myself totally confused). |
|
|
Mar 30 2010, 09:43 PM
Post
#68
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 890 Joined: 18-November 08 Member No.: 4489 |
QUOTE (unless I've managed to get myself totally confused). you might not be .The minor errors in PDS are enough to make one confused and as with any new release there will be some errors but this is only a guess as i have not gone past the lola data yet . |
|
|
Mar 30 2010, 10:52 PM
Post
#69
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
I just had a long phone conversation with Mark Robinson. The very short version: it's complicated, and confusing even to him. The slightly longer version: you need the spacecraft kernels to figure out when to flip the images, and those haven't been released yet. Which one is oriented properly depends on three things: L vs R camera, which direction the spacecraft was facing (which is a thermal control issue), and whether imaging happens on ascending or descending orbits, which changes once every six months as the orbit evolves (it _just_ happened again a couple days ago). Mark said there is actually an active debate within the instrument team right now for whether they should make a change to the EDRs and go ahead and mirror-flip the ones that need flipping with the next release. They will have to re-release everything anyway to improve the calibration. I said I was hereby voting that they make that change! In the meantime, without the spacecraft kernels, I think all we can do is just inspect each image pair to determine which ones need flipping.
Also, he said that releasing WAC mosaics shouldn't be too far in the future, maybe 1 to 2 months; they're now 80% of the way to calibrating out the photometric effects. -------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Mar 30 2010, 11:34 PM
Post
#70
|
|
IMG to PNG GOD Group: Moderator Posts: 2250 Joined: 19-February 04 From: Near fire and ice Member No.: 38 |
Thanks, this information was very useful. I agree that it would be nice to have the images correctly oriented. Also it would be nice if the labels (or index.tab file) included the direction the spacecraft was facing and whether the orbit was ascending or descending. Then it would be possible to determine when to flip the images that need flipping if they do not get flipped in the next release.
The index.tab file includes the subspacecraft point, north azimuth and upper/lower left/right lat/lon. It may be possible to use some of this information to determine whether to mirror-flip but I don't think it would work in all cases. |
|
|
Mar 31 2010, 03:08 AM
Post
#71
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
I asked if they couldn't just put a flag in the header indicating whether the image needed to be flipped or not. His response was that most of the scientists were using ISIS to deal with the images (not to mention a surprising -- to him -- number of amateurs), and that if you have ISIS, you'll never even see this problem once the spacecraft kernels are released. But he was sympathetic to the plight of those of us who either fear ISIS or are stuck with Windows machines for one reason or another. For his part, he said he actually didn't care -- he is not one of the people who doesn't want to change the way the data came down from the spacecraft. He pointed out that the data are already changed, since there are actually two sets of electronics within each of the two cameras; the two sets of electronics handle every other line of the detector, something they had to do in order to get the readout rate for each line under the 337 microseconds it takes the spacecraft to advance one pixel's distance along track. Those two different sets of electronics are the source of the striping in early versions of images. He said that their calibration now corrects about 95% of that striping.
-------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Mar 31 2010, 08:55 AM
Post
#72
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 547 Joined: 1-May 06 From: Scotland (Ecosse, Escocia) Member No.: 759 |
|
|
|
Mar 31 2010, 05:11 PM
Post
#73
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: 27-February 10 From: Italy Member No.: 5235 |
Comparison between Kaguya DEM 16 and LRO-LOLA DEM16. Lola seems more defined.
Comparison Sorry but the direct link to the photos don't work Ciao VB |
|
|
Mar 31 2010, 10:23 PM
Post
#74
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 890 Joined: 18-November 08 Member No.: 4489 |
ValterVB you might want to look at my posts on shatters.net ( search)
the lola is a mush larger image 32768x16384 px VS. the kaguya at 5760x2880 px BUT if one looks at the close up's of lola data the one on the right is the raw tiff ( the left is a "cleaned up" version) there are very few points . Now this WILL improve over time so also there is a remapped moon ( clementine) map posted here on this site - just search or use the one mentioned on the mit web site http://imbrium.mit.edu/EXTRAS/CELESTIA/ -- i know a shameless plug--- |
|
|
Apr 2 2010, 07:11 PM
Post
#75
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: 27-February 10 From: Italy Member No.: 5235 |
My experiments are with pure 3d not with normal map.
With LDEM64 I have some problem with memory (too much points...), so I try to install Ubuntu 64 bit and then try to rendering with this DATASET I have a question: Are available high resolution dataset of the Apollo11 landing site? Ciao VB Sorry for my english |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 30th March 2024 - 06:05 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE 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 funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |