Juno perijove 39, January 12, 2022 |
Juno perijove 39, January 12, 2022 |
Jan 15 2022, 02:01 AM
Post
#1
|
|
IMG to PNG GOD Group: Moderator Posts: 2254 Joined: 19-February 04 From: Near fire and ice Member No.: 38 |
|
|
|
Jan 16 2022, 08:52 PM
Post
#2
|
||
Member Group: Members Posts: 425 Joined: 18-September 17 Member No.: 8250 |
PJ39 initial download images, Exaggerated Color/Contrast
Full resolution version available at https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=12297 |
|
|
||
Jan 16 2022, 08:59 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 425 Joined: 18-September 17 Member No.: 8250 |
FYI, there is a new SPICE "Satellite Ephemeris" jup380s.bsp.
Also note the "s" in the file basename, previous versions didn't have that. |
|
|
Jan 19 2022, 07:31 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 425 Joined: 18-September 17 Member No.: 8250 |
Mike, do you have information about the change between jup363.bsp and jup380s.bsp?
I haven't done (and probably won't do) a through analysis, but it does appear to change Juno's position relative to Ganymede by 6.5km (PJ00) to 10.9km (PJ38). While this magnitude change won't have much effect in most cases, it may be meaningful for Ganymede mapping (PJ34 10.5km). |
|
|
Jan 19 2022, 05:02 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Mike, do you have information about the change between jup363.bsp and jup380s.bsp? I don't, and not much can be inferred from the comment files. I expect that the Ganymede ephemeris could be updated from Juno flyby data, but whether that's what this is or not I can't tell. In my experience, you have to try using two files to see if there is a significant improvement, and obviously any adjustment done with an older file may well break with a newer one. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Jan 21 2022, 01:00 AM
Post
#6
|
|||
IMG to PNG GOD Group: Moderator Posts: 2254 Joined: 19-February 04 From: Near fire and ice Member No.: 38 |
The PJ39 images are really spectacular. Highly photogenic areas are now imaged at considerably higher resolution than earlier in the mission. This is processed from image PJ39_23:
Lots of cloud shadows are visible. The solar elevation angle near the center is ~30 degrees. I recently made several improvements to my JunoCam processing pipeline following fairly extensive photometry from various JunoCam images and various experimentation with photometric parameters and photometric functions. The result is that the enhanced images now require considerably less post-processing and should be slightly better, especially at high latitudes. It turns out that it makes a big difference to use photometric parameters that vary as a function of latitude. Photometrically, the polar regions seem to differ significantly from areas closer to the equator. This is not unexpected (and has been known for a long time) but seems to make a bigger difference than I was expecting. |
||
|
|||
Jan 21 2022, 05:44 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 425 Joined: 18-September 17 Member No.: 8250 |
I recently made several improvements to my JunoCam processing pipeline following fairly extensive photometry from various JunoCam images and various experimentation with photometric parameters and photometric functions. The result is that the enhanced images now require considerably less post-processing and should be slightly better, especially at high latitudes. It turns out that it makes a big difference to use photometric parameters that vary as a function of latitude. Photometrically, the polar regions seem to differ significantly from areas closer to the equator. This is not unexpected (and has been known for a long time) but seems to make a bigger difference than I was expecting. Nice. Care to elaborate? Did you develop your own model or use a standard model? Have any pointers to discussion/analysis/research on the latitude variation? At some point, knowing that Jupiter isn't lambertian, I started looking at creating a model based on computer graphics folks' subsurface scattering and volumetric rendering models, but didn't get too far, and currently just use a low degree polynomial fit to brightness. |
|
|
Jan 21 2022, 10:20 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 4 Joined: 19-November 21 Member No.: 9121 |
Nice. Care to elaborate? Did you develop your own model or use a standard model? Have any pointers to discussion/analysis/research on the latitude variation? At some point, knowing that Jupiter isn't lambertian, I started looking at creating a model based on computer graphics folks' subsurface scattering and volumetric rendering models, but didn't get too far, and currently just use a low degree polynomial fit to brightness. I would be very interested in this as well. At some point, I tried to look up I/F corrections used for e.g., Hubble images, but it appears that it's very difficult to port for JunoCam. Most papers that I've looked at tend to fit the coefficients used for the correction by studying limb darkening effects (e.g., Mendikoa et al. 2017), which would not work for JunoCam. |
|
|
Jan 29 2022, 12:41 AM
Post
#9
|
|
IMG to PNG GOD Group: Moderator Posts: 2254 Joined: 19-February 04 From: Near fire and ice Member No.: 38 |
Nice. Care to elaborate? Did you develop your own model or use a standard model? Have any pointers to discussion/analysis/research on the latitude variation? At some point, knowing that Jupiter isn't lambertian, I started looking at creating a model based on computer graphics folks' subsurface scattering and volumetric rendering models, but didn't get too far, and currently just use a low degree polynomial fit to brightness. This is all still highly experimental. Lambert works well in some cases and in some cases not. Rather unexpectedly to me, I have found that combining slightly modified versions of Lambert and Lommel-Seeliger works rather well - this surprised me somewhat since I had assumed (maybe incorrectly) that Lommel-Seeliger was mainly used for solid bodies (e.g. the Moon). I experimented a bit with this a few years ago, then reverted back to modified Lambert combined with a limb darkening function but now I'm back to using Lambert/Lommel-Seeliger and a limb darkening function. I also experimented with a Minnaert function but it didn't work very well and much worse than it does when processing e.g. Voyager images. I am not quite sure why but possibly it is because the Voyager images are narrow angle images and the phase angle is (almost) uniform across the images. In contrast, the phase angle near e.g. the left edge of a JunoCam image can differ quite a bit from the phase angle near the right edge. It might be possible to correct this with a phase function (e.g. Henyey-Greenstein) and I've been experimenting a bit with that. I still haven't experimented with polynomials but that's something I probably really should do - it might work even better than what I'm currently using. It certainly seems to work very well in e.g. Gerald's images except for very close to the limb. I'm familiar with the Mendikoa et al. paper mentioned above but each set of photometric parameters I am using covers a much bigger latitude range than 1 degree. I'm currently using 6 sets, one for the equatorial region, three in the northern hemisphere and two in the southern hemisphere. The biggest change between parameters sets probably occurs near latitude 65 degrees N/S. The number of parameter sets will probably increase. In particular, the number will increase to three in the southern hemisphere once I start processing southern hemisphere PJ39 images. Which reminds me: Mike, do you know if there have been problems with the PJ39 downlink? No images of the equatorial and southern latitudes have appeared at the missionjuno website (I'm assuming the imaging was similar to what it has been for recent perijoves). |
|
|
Jan 29 2022, 07:50 AM
Post
#10
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Mike, do you know if there have been problems with the PJ39 downlink? I'm not authorized to discuss problems. You can look at DSN Now or https://twitter.com/dsn_status to see what Juno downlink passes have looked like recently. The Earth-Jupiter range over 5.8 AU right now. As a general rule, we put up the images shortly after we receive them in their entirety. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Feb 7 2022, 10:53 PM
Post
#11
|
||
Member Group: Members Posts: 425 Joined: 18-September 17 Member No.: 8250 |
PJ39 Image Collection, exaggerated color/contrast
Full Resolution version at https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=12479 |
|
|
||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st September 2024 - 03:07 PM |
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. |