None photoshopped images of Mars

actually the video is a conspiracy nut guy saying how nasa screwed with the pics, :/

He also claims there are fields on mars

He also claims they screwed with the temperature data, and also shows a spectacular misunderstanding of how dirt without water is affected by the temperature ie saying the ground isn't frozen :/


A wonderfully spectacular retard, nice pictures though.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
well how do you know that picture site is in anyway affiliated with nasa anyway?
Click to expand...

For once, i'll reply to you, since most of the time i ignore everything you say.

First off if you read the page it clearly tells you.....

The images are automatically created daily from raw data available at JPL Marsrovers Gallery.

It also tells you other things about how they create the images.

Now if the above link isn't "nasa" enough for you, i must be lying.
 
Nice pics there (in both entries).

As for the video. His assertions about the lack of red in the modern images compared to the old ones is accurate. NASA made assumptions about Mars in the Viking era and applied those assumptions to the pictures they got back from the landers to yield what they thought at the time would be close approximations of true colour. Those assumptions were wrong and thus, the red hue in the Viking images is also wrong. Both Spirit and Opportunity have calibration targets which provide a similar function to a colourimiter. NASA have acknowledged this error in the Viking images. Yes, Mars does indeed look far more earth-like than you'd have believed from the Viking images. The only dodgy claim there is the bit about fields of algae. That is purely guesswork.

Finally, regarding the frozen soil, he's misinterpreting the way Phoenix works. The frozen soil is rather like permafrost on Earth. On top of that is deposited a layer of dust blown there by dust storms, which can be on a global scale. Phoenix is not capable of digging through the ice layer. It has a rasp-like device that allows it to scrape at the surface. What is shown in the scoop in his picture is mostly the surface. There may be some kicked-up ice in there. NASA have also demonstrated that the ice can melt when exposed, presumably by sublimation. This can make things easier for Phoenix to pick at the ice layer (it can also make it harder because they've found the soil has properties similar to clay soil on Earth).

So, credit where it is due for at least getting part of it right. :)

PS - I dropped off a shorter version of this on the guy's blog.
 
Last edited:
The moon landing yes, because of the cold war race etc.

But mars, why would Nasa go to all that trouble to fake landings on Mars.

And has that guy ever been to mars, if he has he can commit on the mars surface until then his point is moot.
 
If you watch the video you'll realise he didn't make that claim. He made some other claims - some true, some false. See my post above. :)
 
I don't understand the constant calibration and disputes over true color photos in space, and the need for dozens of different color filters etc

Surely a camera that works on earth would would exactly the same on mars? Why are all the space cameras so god damn bad? A cheap digital camera is better than all the cameras they put onto space probes.

There has been much discussion on the Internet how complicated the reproduction of true color images from Mars would be. Of course, a 100% precise reproduction is not possible as the human visual system can only be approximated by technical devices. Taking this fact, some scientist claim, that it is impossible to recreate the Martian colors. These scientists forget that on Mars the same Sun is shining as on Earth with just reduced intensity by 40% and the same optical and physical laws are valid.
Click to expand...

Makes no sense to me. I understand a 100% reproduction isnt possible but like I said cameras on earth do a pretty good job.
 
The problem with cameras on Mars is that most of them are actually black and white cameras 'filming' through colour filters. To recreate the image back on earth, a certain amount of the red image is combined with certain amounts of the blue and green images.

If you don't know how much red, green, and blue to use, as NASA didn't in the Viking era, the best you can do is to combine in a way that you think looks right. That's what NASA did - wrongly. However, modern rovers, though still using the same technique, have colour calibration targets. These are essentially colour wheels/patterns created on earth and using known and precisely measured colour values. If you know what the colours were when you installed the targets, you can adjust the images you get back from photographing them to match what you measured, then apply that adjustment to what you photograph elsewhere.

The problem - it's an inexact science. Imperfections in the filters, dust on the targets and in the atmosphere, changes in lighting conditions, and doubtless other problems can interfere with calibration. Therefore, using current techniques, there will always be some margin of error.
 
Why use these cameras in the first place though instead of more traditional full color ones? Do they get damaged by radiation or something similar?
 
Yes and no.

The cameras have to be space-certified. They have to survive launch, nine months in space, and landing. When all that is done, they absolutely must 'just work'. Repairing them is not an option.

The other problem is that colour images take a whole lot more bandwidth to send back than black and white.

There's one final, and important, benefit to using black and white cameras. They can often 'see' beyond the visual colour spectrum (with the right filters), and can see finer detail across the whole spectrum (this is one reason professional photographers also often shoot black and white). The cameras on the rovers are equipped with several more than the three standard (red/green/blue) filters.
 
Last edited:
Berserker, thanks for the info, it was an interesting read :) I for one never understood that either and I suppose this is my nugget of info that I learnt today!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom