IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Creating images by interpolating between filters?
EDG
post Oct 24 2010, 03:19 AM
Post #1


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 9-October 10
From: Victoria, BC
Member No.: 5483



This post by ugordan on my Ganymede mosaic intrigued me, and I just want to check something here.

It sounds like ugordan's software can just linearly interpolate between (say) a Green filter and a Violet filter image to create a (hopefully reasonably accurate) simulation of what a Blue filter image might look like - and then doing the same with other filters means that a simulated "true colour" image can be constructed.

e.g. (use http://pds-rings.seti.org/voyager/iss/inst...a1.html#filters as a reference). Let's say we had a Green filter image and a Violet filter image of Ganymede where a given pixel had a DN (data number, or 8-bit pixel brightness, from 0 to 255) of 69 in Green and 51 in Violet. Green peaks at 585 nm and Violet peaks at 400 nm, and we want to interpolate an image taken with a Blue filter which would peak at 480 nm. Blue is 80/185 of the way between the two (on the Violet side), which means that the DN of that pixel in Blue should be (69-51)*(80/185)=7.78, or 8 DN higher than the Violet DN, which is a DN of 59.

So if I create a program that can do that interpolation across the whole image, would the result be reasonably accurate simulation of an image actually taken with that filter ? That assumes of course that the surface responds linearly to visible light wavelengths, which isn't necessarily true. But then, I'm not wanting to do this for scientific analysis or anything - this is just for aesthetic purposes really, to try to construct simulated "true colour" images.

And could it be possible to extrapolate a reasonably realistic Red filter image by seeing the difference between (say) Green and Orange and extending that further (linearly) into the red?

Looking at this site it seems that the human eye's sensitivity peaks at 558, 531 and 419 nm for red, green and blue respectively, so (assuming this approach works) would interpolating to those wavelengths instead of the ones described in the ISS filter descriptions actually produce a result that is more like what the human eye would see rather than an eye tuned to Voyager's wavelengths?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Oct 24 2010, 10:55 AM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3585
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (EDG @ Oct 24 2010, 05:19 AM) *
It sounds like ugordan's software can just linearly interpolate between (say) a Green filter and a Violet filter image to create a (hopefully reasonably accurate) simulation of what a Blue filter image might look like - and then doing the same with other filters means that a simulated "true colour" image can be constructed.

That's not really all I have in mind when I say interpolation. Indeed, if all you wanted to do is to approximate the appearance at a different wavelength you can do that by mixing channels in Photoshop.

The difference between my code and this simple channel mixing is that I convolve that interpolated spectra (I think it's in 5 nm increments or something like that, can't check now) through the CIE XYZ tristimulus sensitivity curves. This turns a filter set with wavelengths A,B,C (or just 2 filters, but can also be more than 3) to their approximate color representation (approximate because I linearly interpolate the missing spectral curve points) in XYZ space. Then a conversion formula is used to turn those values into sRGB colorspace. This takes better care of colors that are otherwise hard to fit in the monitor gamut than simple channel mixing does.

QUOTE
So if I create a program that can do that interpolation across the whole image, would the result be reasonably accurate simulation of an image actually taken with that filter ? That assumes of course that the surface responds linearly to visible light wavelengths, which isn't necessarily true. But then, I'm not wanting to do this for scientific analysis or anything - this is just for aesthetic purposes really, to try to construct simulated "true colour" images.

As I said above, you don't really need a program for that. As long as the spectra of the object of interest is relatively smooth and doesn't have large excursions in hue, you should be okay. If it does have large variations, like for example a strong blue (probably red as well) component, that's where differences start appearing. By way of XYZ calculations, a strong blue hue will also affect (suppress) the output sRGB red channel as the monitor gamut is limited. You don't get that with simple channel mixing. This isn't often the case with planetary bodies, but I've seen it while playing with Phoenix surface imagery. I couldn't get the "proper" color of the color calibration chips with channel mixing based on any "scientific" approach like interpolating target wavelengths.

I haven't worked with Voyager Jupiter images so can't say if simple mixing can fix the fact the "green" filter is close to orange - it probably can, but here's an example of what that CIE XYZ interpolation gives as result for OGB color: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&p=162551

QUOTE
And could it be possible to extrapolate a reasonably realistic Red filter image by seeing the difference between (say) Green and Orange and extending that further (linearly) into the red?

Yes, although that increases noise as you're extending the linear segment as opposed to averaging two filters (like for example IR and green to get red). The same is obviously true for my code as well since that extrapolation step is essentially the same. I used that extrapolation from green and violet to get an approximately true color of Titania in this thread: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&p=163385

QUOTE
Looking at this site it seems that the human eye's sensitivity peaks at 558, 531 and 419 nm for red, green and blue respectively, so (assuming this approach works)

I'm not entirely sure of the exact wavelengths you should shoot for. I don't believe it's human eye sensitivity, I think it should be the sRGB gamut corner wavelengths or even the reference monitor phosphors if they're not the same. If you extrapolate for human sensitivity peak and then display it through sRGB phosphors, you don't really improve on the situation where you had spacecraft-specific filters and sRGB phosphors. Either way, the sets are mutually incompatible.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PDP8E
post Jan 10 2012, 04:45 AM
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 529
Joined: 10-October 06
From: Maynard Mass USA
Member No.: 1241



Based on the above threads and other sources, I've been playing working on color routines. The sundial is a good place to experiment. So, here is a recent jpeggy-noisy-downsampled sundial from Sol-2814 (I didn't use Photoshop. I have a directory of cobbled together tools mainly written in C and scripts)
Attached Image

As we all know, the bandwidth of the MER filters are very narrow (20nm) which makes for narrowly saturated colors at their peak frequencies. I am also comparing some PDS calibrated images against their raw-jpgs. The hope is to get future raws-jpegs to look ... better. huh.gif


--------------------
CLA CLL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PDP8E
post Jan 16 2012, 01:01 AM
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 529
Joined: 10-October 06
From: Maynard Mass USA
Member No.: 1241



...color experiments continue... Here is Spirit's sundial on SOL 2102 (PDS data)
Spirit was embedded in Scamander Crater. The late afternoon sun and the tilt of the rover made the lighting dramatic.
What really stands out to me, is the dust load on the sweep magnet.
Attached Image




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

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd December 2014 - 02:22 PM
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.