IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
It's June - Better LOLA?
eoincampbell
post Jan 22 2011, 12:51 AM
Post #61


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 374
Joined: 28-August 07
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 3511



QUOTE (mhoward @ Jan 21 2011, 04:32 PM) *
Here's a little something...

LOLA_diagnostic_illumination_whole_11K.jpg (11520x5760 pixel JPG image; 27MB)


Well worth the wait! Thanks!


--------------------
'She drove until the wheels fell off...'
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnVV
post Jan 22 2011, 01:18 AM
Post #62


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 444
Joined: 18-November 08
Member No.: 4489



lighting from 45 deg up ( the basic "emboss" filter ) is the best way to view 16 bit height data
it was the only way i could find to easily show it
soon i am going to have to update my normal map

what did you use to destrip it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Jan 22 2011, 01:43 AM
Post #63


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 5327
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



Fantastic image! Thanks. This is going to be a fantastic dataset.

Phil


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mhoward
post Jan 22 2011, 02:11 PM
Post #64


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: 11-August 04
From: USA
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (JohnVV @ Jan 21 2011, 06:18 PM) *
what did you use to destrip it


I'm not positive what you mean by destrip, but if you mean removing the vertical banding artifacts, that's why I went back to the source, the RDRs - to generate the map using a modified kriging technique with some different parameters. The image above is the resulting surface normal map cross-produced dot-producted with a 45 degree lighting vector, with no post-processing.

Also - and for me this is the "neato" part - I'm generating the surface normal map directly from the RDRs, which gives a more precise result than generating it from the gridded height map. I was pleased - and more than a little surprised - to see how precisely the resulting surface normal map matches up with the Clementine version 2 base map, in most areas. Computationally expensive to do - and took quite a long time to work out - but worth it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mhoward
post Jan 22 2011, 02:42 PM
Post #65


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: 11-August 04
From: USA
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Jan 21 2011, 07:43 PM) *
This is going to be a fantastic dataset.


It's a real pleasure watching the map fill in over the months. I'm already looking forward to the next release.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Jan 22 2011, 05:35 PM
Post #66


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 5327
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



"I was pleased - and more than a little surprised - to see how precisely the resulting surface normal map matches up with the Clementine version 2 base map, in most areas."

And remember that it's the Clementine map that is wrong if there's a difference. Clementine control, based on a patchwork quilt of thousands of images, will be greatly inferior to this dataset. LOLA is going to be our ultimate lunar control system.

Phil


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mhoward
post Jan 22 2011, 06:07 PM
Post #67


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: 11-August 04
From: USA
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Jan 22 2011, 10:35 AM) *
And remember that it's the Clementine map that is wrong if there's a difference.


Yes, I've kind of discovered that the hard way smile.gif Except: I suspect now that some of the surface normal maps that have been generated may have slight but problematic offsets, because of the way they're derived from the gridded height map. My previous ones certainly did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mhoward
post Jan 22 2011, 08:11 PM
Post #68


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: 11-August 04
From: USA
Member No.: 98



For fun, here is the illumination map from above generated from LOLA data, combined with the Clementine map. So basically: the Clementine map with the lighting synthetically shifted to the right to bring out the topography more. The image comes in two three sizes: Preview-size, Large and Extra Large, all generously hosted by UMSF (your donation dollars at work).

LOLA + Clementine lunar map - Preview Size (5760x2880 pixel JPG; 8.9MB)

LOLA + Clementine lunar map - Large (11520x5760 pixel JPG; 30.8MB)

LOLA + Clementine lunar map - Extra Large (23040x11520 pixel JPG; 92.5MB)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnVV
post Jan 22 2011, 09:49 PM
Post #69


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 444
Joined: 18-November 08
Member No.: 4489



QUOTE
but if you mean removing the vertical banding artifacts

that is what i meant .
the processing of the rdr data

the gdr is very banded

QUOTE
And remember that it's the Clementine map that is wrong if there's a difference

i found that out with the kaguya data .Kaguya lines up well with LOLA. But most of the Clementine map is "predictably " off .An over all warp brings most of it
into alignment. However some small areas are just off by what looks like a random amount ( +- 5 to 20 pixels )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mhoward
post Jan 22 2011, 11:43 PM
Post #70


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: 11-August 04
From: USA
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (JohnVV @ Jan 22 2011, 02:49 PM) *
the gdr is very banded


I'll probably get around to posting my own version of the GDR, so you can see if it's any better. I'm not quite ready yet, as I usually bypass that step now. Also, it's a very big file.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JohnVV
post Jan 23 2011, 08:04 AM
Post #71


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 444
Joined: 18-November 08
Member No.: 4489



no kidding it is a big file
the *.dat's alone would be a bit much
then rdr2csv and filter that to the required data
I was looking in to doing that but the overall drive space required is more than i could do
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 04:44 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.