Mud On Mars

[IamRAMBO24]

The Spirit rover has run into soft dirt and is spinning its wheels after crawling across the planet for five years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/5427872/Mars-rover-stuck-in-the-mud.html

The typical ISH mind would say, "Mud? So what?" But since I am gifted, I know that mud is a mixture of WATER and soil, which are huge implications for a supposedly "dead" planet.

[CavaliersFTW]

I'm not clicking the link but if it is infact mud, and not just the figure of speech "stuck in the mud" (rover could just be stuck in fine sand... or wheels could be seized up as it's one of the old rovers that weren't designed to last this long), mud indicates liquid mixed with fine strata, the liquid does not have to be water.

And it's already been proven that Mars atmosphere is not dense enough to allow liquid water, water turns from ice straight to a gas on Mars like how CO2 does here on earth. And liquid water on Mars would be far far far bigger news than the rover getting stuck. Let the scientists do their job already. Trust their decades of education and hardwork which you lack and stop being a dick. You nor any other armchair analysts are never going to discover anything on Mars before the trained professionals actually handling and programming that equipment will. You know, the trained professionals that are entirely responsible for releasing all data you've ever looked at? Yeah, they've gone over it all already.

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm not clicking the link but if it is infact mud, and not just the figure of speech "stuck in the mud", mud indicates liquid mixed with fine strata, the liquid does not have to be water. And it's already been proven that Mars atmosphere is not dense enough to allow liquid water, water turns from ice straight to a gas on Mars like how CO2 does here on earth. And liquid water on Mars would be far far far bigger news than the rover getting stuck. Let the scientists do their job already. Trust their decades of education and hardwork which you lack and stop being a dick. You nor any other armchair analysts are never going to discover anything on Mars before the trained professionals do. You know, the trained professionals that are entirely responsible for releasing all data you've ever looked at? Yeah, they've gone over it all already.

Nasa announces flowing water on mars

[quote] PASADENA, Calif. -- Observations from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter have revealed possible flowing water during the warmest months on Mars.

"NASA's Mars Exploration Program keeps bringing us closer to determining whether the Red Planet could harbor life in some form,

[CavaliersFTW]

Nasa announces flowing water on mars



http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/news/mro20110804.html

I'm using Science. You're using faith. You don't even have the ability to use your own eyes to discern anamolies from natural formations. Keep on being ignorant; truth will always prevail.
...billions of years in the past, when the atmosphere supported it. Little detail you forgot :hammerhead:

[CavaliersFTW]

Okay I finally clicked the link

...first sentence:

"The Spirit rover has run into soft dirt and is spinning its wheels after crawling across the planet for five years."

Did I call it or what? :oldlol: "Stuck in the mud" is just a figure of speech used as a clickbait headline.... mud has not been discovered on mars, let alone mud caused by liquid water you dolt :oldlol:

[IamRAMBO24]

Okay I finally clicked the link

...first sentence:

"The Spirit rover has run into soft dirt and is spinning its wheels after crawling across the planet for five years."

Did I call it or what? :oldlol: "Stuck in the mud" is just a figure of speech used as a clickbait headline.... mud has not been discovered on mars, let alone mud caused by liquid water you dolt :oldlol:

Nasa uncovers new 'life on Mars' evidence after rover got stuck in the mud


Researchers at the American space agency made the discovery after the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit became stuck in wet ground on the red planet earlier this year.

Astronomers have become excited by the latest discovery, which they say proves that water favourable for life formed on the red planet more recently than previously thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/8095368/Nasa-uncovers-new-life-on-Mars-evidence-after-rover-got-stuck-in-the-mud.html

[IamRAMBO24]

...billions of years in the past, when the atmosphere supported it. Little detail you forgot :hammerhead:

Are you f*ckin stupid? They're talking about actual flowing water based on video and photographs taken by the rovers.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/576822main_pia14472-226.gif

[IamRAMBO24]

I'm not clicking the link but if it is infact mud, and not just the figure of speech "stuck in the mud" (rover could just be stuck in fine sand... or wheels could be seized up as it's one of the old rovers that weren't designed to last this long), mud indicates liquid mixed with fine strata, the liquid does not have to be water.



What liquid are you talking about?

[Goon Time]

why don't you two just email each other with your little argument seeing as nobody else give a f-ck what either of you have to say

[IamRAMBO24]

why don't you two just email each other with your little argument seeing as nobody else give a f-ck what either of you have to say

No.

[KevinNYC]

But since I am gifted, I know that mud is a mixture of WATER and soil, :roll: :roll: :roll:








http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/parker/TwnPks_RkGdn_left_full.jpg

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

[IamRAMBO24]

NASA called out on their BS:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOHr67OACc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QOHr67OACc)[/URL]

[IamRAMBO24]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/parker/TwnPks_RkGdn_left_full.jpg




But did NASA fiddle with the image to make it look that red? As Mars buffs have pointed out in recent weeks on Web sites like Slashdot.org, a closer look reveals that parts of the rover itself, in the foreground, are oddly garish. Even the color chips placed on the rover to calibrate the color photographs had shifted. What should be bright blue is instead bright pink; what should be bright green is brown.

A few days later, after the rover Spirit made its first roll onto the surface, it took a picture of the empty lander behind it. Again, the Mars buffs zoomed in on a detail. NASA's navy blue logo, often called the "meatball" because of its shape, was now the pinkish hue of rare hamburger. Perhaps more shocking, the spacecraft designers at NASA appeared to have a thing for hot pink: that was the color of the cables strewn around the top of the lander.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/science/space/10COLO.html

http://www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/262bluemars.jpg
http://oceanox.org/image/bluesky-mars.jpg

NASA uses a red filter to distort all their photos. When you take out the filter, this is what Mars really looks like.

[KevinNYC]

URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/science/space/10COLO.html"]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/science/space/10COLO.html[/URL]
NASA uses a red filter to distort all their photos. When you take out the filter, this is what Mars really looks like.

Do you even read the articles you link to?
Do you note the date of them? This article is 10 years old


The fundamental challenge in creating color photographs of Mars, he said, is that the cameras on the rovers take only black-and-white pictures, and the art of making color out of black and white never exactly reproduces what the eye sees.

To produce a color photograph, the rover's panoramic camera takes three black-and-white images of a scene, once with a red filter, once with a green filter and once with a blue filter. Each is then tinted with the color of the filter, and the three are combined into a color image.

In assembling the Spirit photographs, however, the scientists used an image taken with an infrared filter, not the red filter. Some blue pigments like the cobalt in the rover color chip also emit this longer-wavelength light, which is not visible to the human eye.

"This is actually true for a lot of blue pigments," Mr. Soderblom said. The infrared is so bright that it washes out the blue. "That turns this thing from a dark blue chip to a vibrant pink," he said. "This is an incredibly bright pink. The same thing is happening with our green color chip."

The infrared-for-red replacement is also "why the NASA meatball is red instead of blue," Mr. Soderblom said. The same is true of the cables. They are actually blue.

For the scientists, there are good reasons to focus on infrared colors rather than the visible red. "Iron dominates mineral color in the visible, and it causes everything to have shades of red," Mr. Soderblom said.

With the infrared filter, the different iron minerals emit different colors, and the camera can better differentiate between them. "We're trying to identify the minerals in the scene, and the way we're doing this is with subtle differences," Mr. Soderblom said.

What the eye sees, even when the colors are right, is not always quite what is happening. Mr. Soderblom showed pictures of the reddish "lily pads" around the landing site of the Spirit's twin, Opportunity, where its air bags bounced. The soil in the bounce marks is actually no more red than the darker surrounding soil, but for reasons not yet known, it emits less blue light. "By being not as bright in the blue, it appears more red to us," he said.

Still, there was no reason for the Spirit to see pink on Mars. When producing the panorama, the camera also used the red filter.

"We just made a mistake," said Dr. James F. Bell III, the lead scientist for the camera. "It's really just a mess-up."

[IamRAMBO24]

Do you even read the articles you link to?
Do you note the date of them? This article is 10 years old

Why does the date matter? It doesn't matter how old the article is. It is still relevant.


Nasa's Mars Rover Spirit has looked back at its landing pad and taken a stunning colour picture of the platform where it started its Martian adventure.

Colours in the image have been adjusted but scientists have not yet determined the "true" colour of the Martian rocks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3418147.stm

Further on the article states:


The normally blue starscape - or "meatball" - that forms the Nasa logo has turned a muddy red. And blue insulating foam surrounding cables on the lander has turned bright pink.

If I doctored a photo on earth that has something blue in it and turn it red, it goes to reason I will turn the sky blue also.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39767000/jpg/_39767433_naslogo_nasa_203.jpg

[IamRAMBO24]

What I find interesting is how much NASA is revealing to the public and nobody knows about it. Gradually, they are releasing information about the possibility of life. Overtime, I am sure more information will be released about the rich diversity of life on Mars and its history.

NASA's chief has admitted there is the possibility of life on Mars currently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utN02OQRpvU

NASA is releasing it slowly. First they said it's only microbes and it used to have water, now, they are exercising the idea of lifeforms and saying water is currently flowing there.

Keep on being ignorant; truth will always prevail.

[KevinNYC]

Why does the date matter? It doesn't matter how old the article is. It is still relevant.

The date matters because you used the present tense. NASA has acknowledged this for at least a decade. As a secondary point, computers have gotten much, much more sophisticated in the last ten years. Third, the photo you use of what "mars really looks like" is from the 1970's like this one
http://picturespoilers.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/farrah.jpeg

Are these colors right?


If I doctored a photo on earth that has something blue in it and turn it red, it goes to reason I will turn the sky blue also.

The much bigger issue as I pointed out is, NASA's MARS OLDER ROVER CAMERAS TAKE PICTURES IN BLACK AND WHITE

You use terms like doctor and distort, yet you don't seem to understand taking a black and white photo and turning into a color HAS TO INVOLVE manipulation. The images you are showing as the true colors and what "Mars really looks like are just as manipulated, because they also start as black and white photos.

[CavaliersFTW]

Rambo is literally losing his mind before our very eyes :oldlol:

[KevinNYC]

Again NASA has openly discussed this for over a decade.
http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/spotlight/spirit/a12_20040128.html

The panoramic images that the Mars rover take happen over a period of days.
So the same landscape ends being a bunch of different colors in their original source images that they then combine into one panorama.


Spirit doesn't see the whole vista around her all at once," says Jim Bell, Professor of Astronomy at Cornell and Lead Scientist for the Panoramic Camera (Pancam) Team. "It takes days for the rover to complete a full 360-degree panorama of the surrounding landscape."

In an exacting sequence, the rover takes smaller pictures that are later "stitched" together into one larger view, or "mosaic." That means that a single mosaic may be built from images taken when there's more dust in the air or at a different times of day. Such changes in environmental conditions and light levels result in a patchwork quilt of varying lights and darks, and ultimately, oranges, butterscotches, and browns.

"Getting the colors right is not an exact science," says Bell. "Giving an approximate view of what we'd see if we were there involves an artistic, visionary element as well – after all, no one's ever been there before." However, great pains are taken to be as accurate as possible, short of going there ourselves.

To give people a sense of being on Mars, scientists combine views through telescopes, data from past Mars missions, and new information from the current mission to create a color-balanced, uniform scene. Color-corrected mosaics simulate the view a person would see if all the images in the mosaic were taken on the same day, at the same moment.Since no one has ever bee on MARS, there's basically no way to say what TRUE COLOR is on MARS, the best they can do is put color filters on the lens of their black and white cameras, take multiple filtered images and then combine them later. A process that must involve manipulation.


In addition, the rovers can take three pictures in a row of the same surface area on Mars using three different primary color filters – red, green, and blue – to make one color image. "It works a little like an inkjet color printer, which combines primary colors to create various shades on paper," explains Eric De Jong, Lead for the Solar System Visualization Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Then, we can tweak the color just like you can adjust the color balance on a TV screen at home."

So far, however, the images produced are only approximate martian colors. That's because many of the pictures are taken with set of camera filters that include near-infrared or ultraviolet wavelengths, which our eyes do not perceive. Overall, there are 14 "geology" filters (two additional camera filters were designed exclusively to observe the sun). Scientists find these geology filters extremely useful because they provide maximum contrast for analyzing some of the most interesting geological features at the landing site.

"We almost never choose to take the images in natural color, because that's not as helpful to us scientifically," said Eric. "However, we're able to approximate what humans might see because Jim's team lived and breathed with this camera for many years, experimenting to get the colors in the camera models just right."

[niko]

When people say there is life, are they aware it's microbes? It's not going to be a life changing event.

[KevinNYC]

Also the latest MARS Rover, Curiosity, to land on MARS uses the MASTCAM which can take color photos.

Earlier Rovers like Opportunity, use the PANCAM camera discussed in that article above from 2004.
]Pancam images look like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_color#True_color) after they are stitched together and manipulated to approximate true color.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/MarsEndurance.jpg/1024px-MarsEndurance.jpg
This approximate true-color panorama shows the impact crater Endurance on Mars. It was taken by the panoramic camera on the Opportunity rover and is a composite of a total of 258 images taken in the 480, 530 and 750 nanometer spectral bands (blue / green, green and near infrared).

You can find RAW images from the MASTCAM here
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=#/?slide=113
<iframe src="http://mars.nasa.gov/layout/embed/image/500raw/?i=0113MR0006960190200603E01_DXXX" width="500" height="500" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[IamRAMBO24]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/MarsEndurance.jpg/1024px-MarsEndurance.jpg

Keith Laney debunks it pretty well:


Making sense of the Pancam and color

looking into this, we can see that actually the Pancam isn't true color, but it is close, a lot closer than Ody [Odyssey?]. Not that the representations we're seeing are correct.

"What!?!? not true color! exactly what do you mean mr. Laney?"

well, it is in sorts, but it isn't "true" because color response is actually varied depending on observer and other factors such as lighting and atmosphere. We all know that "true" RGB wavelengths are something that cannot be nailed down to a definite value, the response is more a curve. average response for RGB is a given however, and these values are..

Red 650nm+/-
Green 510nm+/-
Blue 440nm+/-

Now we get to the Pancam, which is a remarkable piece of imaging technology, and very complex. It has two "eyes", left and right. they both see differently. Here are the filter positions.

LEFT CAMERA RIGHT CAMERA

L1. EMPTY R1. 430 (SP) *
L2. 750 (20) R2. 750 (20)
L3. 670 (20) R3. 800 (20)
L4. 600 (20) R4. 860 (25)
L5. 530 (20) R5. 900 (25)
L6. 480 (25) R6. 930 (30)
L7. 430 (SP)* R7. 980 (LP)*
L8. 440 Solar ND R8. 880 Solar ND

SP means short pass filter, LP means long pass filter. one lens on each side is coated so it can observe the sun (solar ND) L1 is clear, no filter

Using this chart for reference we see that the left eye is of main use for color imaging, with values covering acceptable rgb values. This means that in order for meaningful evaluation of the color or infrared combinations produced from these images to we will have to have them displayed so that we can obtain all the bands, and in more than compressed jpeg. which doesn't seem to be the case

until then, we have to "trust 'em". which is not imaging or science.

[...] a vitally important point of [this is] that it is ENTIRELY possible for us to get unquestionably true color images out of this thing. I'm looking for more full left side imagery right now, and it will be very soon that I'm fixing to show you what Spirit says is the no crap about it true colors of this area. I just happen to have the answer for this shell game played with spectral bands.


http://www.keithlaney.com/spirit_color_images.htm

He goes on to correct the images and this is what it looks like without the saturation:

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/mars-opp-lanely.jpg

Here is one where NASA forgot to doctor the image:

http://www.goroadachi.com/etemenanki/011004-bluesky.jpg

One picture is a reversal of the saturation and the other is the undoctored one, it's pretty clear Mars is not the reddish, barren planet that you are trying to make it out as. My point still stands, the reddish look on Mars is purely subjective, which you have conveniently agreed with.

[IamRAMBO24]

Rambo is literally losing his mind before our very eyes :oldlol:

What are you talking about? I made you look like a total fool 2x so far.

[IamRAMBO24]

When people say there is life, are they aware it's microbes? It's not going to be a life changing event.

Go play with your little toys and let the big boys handle this.

[Raymone]

Rambo is literally losing his mind before our very eyes :oldlol:

He doesn't have much to lose.

[Raymone]

When people say there is life, are they aware it's microbes? It's not going to be a life changing event.

Expecting rambo to know what microbes are is asking a lot. He thinks there are rats and lizards running around today on the surface of Mars.

[KevinNYC]

Keith Laney debunks it pretty well:
This is not a debunking. This is a disagreement.


He goes on to correct the images and this is what it looks like without the saturation:KEITH LANEY DISTORTS HIS IMAGES!

KEITH LANEY DISTORTS HIS IMAGES!

So he does manipulation after the fact as well? He just uses a different process?

[IamRAMBO24]

This is not a debunking. This is a disagreement.

KEITH LANEY DISTORTS HIS IMAGES!

KEITH LANEY DISTORTS HIS IMAGES!

So he does manipulation after the fact as well? He just uses a different process?

Why are you such a tool?

1. NASA has openly admitted the red color is subjective. They made it red to study the rocks; it is not the actual color of Mars.

2. They are using a red filter and calling it the "true" color of mars. We all know that any filter that does not include red, blue, and green (RGB) is not a true color. Our eyes don't see red. The world isn't red. The only thing red is the color of the herpes on your d*ck.

What is a true color to Keith Laney?

Red 650nm+/- Green 510nm+/- [/COLOR] Blue 440-475nm+/-

He calibrated the photo according to those specs. He's not photoshopping anything. He is reversing the distribution of red saturation NASA has manipulated for research purposes.

http://keithlaney.net/SCI/V3th.jpg
http://keithlaney.net/SCI/B4_small.jpg
http://keithlaney.net/SCI/2P162405270EFFA700P2664L4M1%5B1%5D_small.jpg

How do I know his calibration is correct? Because that is what the rover is supposed to look like. The blue handle is blue; the yellow patch is yellow. And *gasp* the rover looks like it does on earth, so this is not a distortion, this is in fact it's true colors.

This is what NASA wants you to believe the rover looks like on Mars:

http://pmdvod.nationalgeographic.com/NG_Video_DEV/959/735/mars-rover-six-vin_480x360.jpg

Just because Mars is red does not mean the rover should magically turn redder also. This is a misconception. If NASA is using a "true" color filter, then it goes to reason the Rover would look like it does on earth and if Mars truly is red, then it should be red in the background. If everything is red, then that is a distortion.

[IamRAMBO24]

Expecting rambo to know what microbes are is asking a lot. He thinks there are rats and lizards running around today on the surface of Mars.

Go play with niko's lil willy. This is a discussion for adults.

[ballup]

I don't think that's the kind of gifted to brag about.

[gts]

Rambo could be the only thing on Mars and it would still be listed as no intelligent life

[KevinNYC]

Why are you such a tool?

We all know that any filter that does not include red, blue, and green (RGB) is not a true color. Our eyes don't see red. The world isn't red. The only thing red is the color of the herpes on your d*ck.
This is just another example of you being too incompetent to recognize how incompetent you are and the usually sexual inadequacy projection thrown in. And keithlaney.com is not the domain you're trying to link to

Our eyes don't see red. This is up there with heavy things can't float.


How do I know his calibration is correct? Because that is what the rover is supposed to look like. The blue handle is blue; the yellow patch is yellow. And *gasp* the rover looks like it does on earth, so this is not a distortion, this is in fact it's true colors.

Just because Mars is red does not mean the rover should magically turn redder also. This is a misconception. If NASA is using a "true" color filter, then it goes to reason the Rover would look like it does on earth and if Mars truly is red, then it should be red in the background. If everything is red, then that is a distortion.

Why would think the rover on Mars would look the same way the Rover looks earth? They have different atmospheres and are different distances from the sun.

Also, what part of the Martian year was the photo taken? That has a great effect on the colors.

http://mario.tomsk.fm/ximg/14185956775588.jpg

Even on Earth, photographers take great care to white balance their images because the light changes so much.

[KevinNYC]

Anyway, the latest camera that NASA is using on Mars is the MASTCAM. Here's how the colors look on Earth

http://www.msss.com/images/science/mastcam/Mastcam_PI_by_M34_2m_dist.jpg

http://www.msss.com/images/science/mastcam/m34cwb.jpg

Here's the MASTCAM taking a selfie on MARS.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA16238_modest.jpg

[IamRAMBO24]

http://mario.tomsk.fm/ximg/14185956775588.jpg



The camera itself has a red filter: the right is purely infrared, while the left sees in visible light, hence the red hue.

On earth, if I put a filter on my camera, this is what my photo would look like:
http://www.tiffen.com/images/RedBarn_Filter.jpg

If the photo has a filter, then all of it will look red, so even if I try to balance the picture to create a pan photo, I'm just changing the lighting and contrast and not revealing it's true colors. This is what I meant when I said we don't see in all red.

It is pseudo color when an image is taken without a representation of actual blue, green, and red filter. You can't use a red filter, brush it up, and then proclaim it is the actual colors of Mars.

[IamRAMBO24]

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA16238_modest.jpg

What happened to Mars this time? It no longer looks red. I wonder what other bullsh*t they are going to pull to trick the tools. Wait, wait, Mars is a very dusty and brown planet, like the movie Interstellar.

[KevinNYC]

What happened to Mars this time? It no longer looks red. I wonder what other bullsh*t they are going to pull to trick the tools. Wait, wait, Mars is a very dusty and brown planet, like the movie Interstellar.
What happened? They changed cameras, dumbass. I mentioned that several posts ago when I complained about you using the present tense to describe what NASA does.

You can't just talk about "The Camera." You have to specify which camera you are talking about. I'm sure they did it just to piss you off. Also Mars isn't dusty? What's it like? Vermont in October?
http://travelnursingcentral.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/autumn-in-vermont-david-lloyd-glover1.jpg

You either are doing a very poor job of explaining what you are trying to say or just don't have a clue.

The camera itself has a red filter: the right is purely infrared, while the left sees in visible light, hence the red hue.
The "camera," that is to say the camera used on older rovers took black and white photos. Period.
To create color images, it also used not just a red filter, but also a green filter and a blue filter. One image would be taken with each of the three color filters. Later on these three images would be processed into one color image.


If the photo has a filter, then all of it will look red, so even if I try to balance the picture to create a pan photo, I'm just changing the lighting and contrast and not revealing it's true colors. This is what I meant when I said we don't see in all red.The photo you posted is putting a red filter on a color photo. It's not the same process whatsoever.
You don't create a panorama by "balancing the picture." I think you are talking about balancing the colors of the many photos you are going to stitch together into your single image. It's still not clear.
Anyway, since the images that make up your panorama were taken over the course of several days and hence different sunlight and atmospheric conditions, you definitely would be futzing with the color, not just lighting and contrast. In the movie business this is called color matching. Let's say you shoot an outdoor scene over the course of two or three days. Well the natural light would change depending on the cloud cover and time of day. You could shoot the close-ups main actor early in the morning on a Tuesday and not shoot the close-ups actress he talking to in the scene until Friday afternoon. The colorist then has to color match the scene so that it all looks like it's taking place at the same time.

The image I posted above mentioned it was over 200 separate photos that use red, blue, green or infrared filters on the individual photos.



It is pseudo color when an image is taken without a representation of actual blue, green, and red filter. You can't use a red filter, brush it up, and then proclaim it is the actual colors of Mars.
A. That is not what they did with the older cameras. They didn't use a single filter.
B. As I posted in the many colored image above. The colors of Mars change all the freaking time.

[KevinNYC]

Anyway the new MASTCAMs used on the Curiosity rover take color images and you can download the files in RAW format and if you know about demosaicing a bayer filtered image you can look at the un-color-corrected photos yourself.

You could even color correct them to look like they were taken in Earth's atmosphere if you wished.

[KevinNYC]

Anyway the new MASTCAMs used on the Curiosity rover take color images and you can download the files in RAW format and if you know about demosaicing a bayer filtered image you can look at the un-color-corrected photos yourself.

You could even color correct them to look like they were taken in Earth's atmosphere if you wished.

Scratch that, you can get the demosaiced RAW jpegs here.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=842&camera=MAST_

[Nanners]

what exactly would be the point of making photographs of mars appear to be redder?

worst conspiracy theory ever.

[Bandito]

what exactly would be the point of making photographs of mars appear to be redder?

worst conspiracy theory ever.
IRambl24/7 didn't thought that through...as usual.

[IamRAMBO24]

1. Obviously, you don't see my point: if the mastercam is taking pictures of a brown Mars, then it goes to reason they are not pictures of its true colors since the other pictures are red. Whether or not the filters are misrepresenting its true colors or they are manipulating the images to make it more red, the fact of the matter is the photos they are releasing do not truly represent what Mars looks like.

They admitted this. It has been reported. It is a fact. This is no longer debateable. Round 1 goes to Rambo.

[IamRAMBO24]

what exactly would be the point of making photographs of mars appear to be redder?

worst conspiracy theory ever.

It is not a conspiracy. It is a fact. Learn to read before you comment dumbsh*t.

[IamRAMBO24]

IRambl24/7 didn't thought that through...as usual.

You too troll. Go play with the children. ADULTS ONLY.

[IamRAMBO24]

I would like to point out how big of a tool some of you are. Even when NASA has admitted they manipulate the photos, even when they said they are subjective, some of you will argue like your death depended on it to protect your anti-conspiracy hate. All you have to do is to define something as a conspiracy and your mind shuts off all forms of logic. It doesn't matter if there are facts to back it up; it doesn't matter if you see it in your own eyes; it doesn't even matter if the official word has admitted it; as long as you see it as a conspiracy, you just can't accept it because it challenges your perfect fairy tale world and faith in organizations that control the information.

And you guys are calling me stupid? I'm sticking with facts, using a keen observation, and above all, have an open mind to all possibilities based on those facts. You guys are going on faith; how are you any different from a religious fundamentalist?

[KevinNYC]

1. Obviously, you don't see my point: if the mastercam is taking pictures of a brown Mars, then it goes to reason they are not pictures of its true colors since the other pictures are red. Whether or not the filters are misrepresenting its true colors or they are manipulating the images to make it more red, the fact of the matter is the photos they are releasing do not truly represent what Mars looks like.

They admitted this. It has been reported. It is a fact. This is no longer debateable. Round 1 goes to Rambo.

1. No. I see your point and your point is wrong. You think the Mars rover should look the same on Earth as it does on Mars, but for a whole host of reasons, it does not. "White balancing" to make it look like does on Mars is not true color.

2. It only makes sense to use a numbered list, if you have a second point.

3. Your "debate" is out of date as the new camera takes color images in RAW format, meaning anyone can play with the images and make their own color adjustments.

4. Color is incredibly subjective because our eyes/brains compensate and adjust so much. Ever wear a pair of tinted sunglasses? When you first put them on ever thing looks wierd for five minutes. Then everything looks weird for a while. Then when you take them off, reality looks wierd.



B and D are the same color here.
http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/Tcontrastc2.gif

The second card is the same color is both images.
http://fyp-demo-gallery.appspot.com/images/colour_constancy.jpg

The center is the same color in these two images
http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/remotecontrast03.gif

[IamRAMBO24]

1. No. I see your point and your point is wrong. You think the Mars rover should look the same on Earth as it does on Mars, but for a whole host of reasons, it does not. "White balancing" to make it look like does on Mars is not true color.

2. It only makes sense to use a numbered list, if you have a second point.

3. Your "debate" is out of date as the new camera takes color images in RAW format, meaning anyone can play with the images and make their own color adjustments.

4. Color is incredibly subjective because our eyes/brains compensate and adjust so much. Ever wear a pair of tinted sunglasses? When you first put them on ever thing looks wierd for five minutes. Then everything looks weird for a while. Then when you take them off, reality looks wierd.



B and D are the same color here.
http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/Tcontrastc2.gif

The second card is the same color is both images.
http://fyp-demo-gallery.appspot.com/images/colour_constancy.jpg

The center is the same color in these two images
http://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/~akitaoka/remotecontrast03.gif

1. I think it is a disappointing a smart guy like you can't accept the facts.

2. It is a fact Mars is not red. It is a fact NASA has mislead the public. It is a fact they would of gotten away with it if the "conspiracy nutcases" didn't question the authenticity of their images. It is a fact you can't accept a fact because you are passionately anti-conspiracies; it is a fact this attitude has blinded you to rationality.

3. You are arguing against a fact: NASA has admitted it and there should be no further discussion on this matter. They don't know the true colors because there are certain bands that are not representative in their pictures; sure the left eye of the rover shoots in RGB, but the right is infrared, and when you combine both shots, infrared will always trump RGB, hence why their photos are pure red, and Keith Laney has pointed this out and corrected it. He is a professional photographer and you're not. His opinion trumps your's.

[Nanners]

rambo either has a legit mental disability or he is one of the most talented trolls in OTC history.

[KyrieTheFuture]

NASA didn't intentionally mislead people that's just how photos work on mars. Make this topic 9176 that Rambo knows nothing about

[ballup]

rambo either has a legit mental disability or he is one of the most talented trolls in OTC history.
Why can't it be both?:confusedshrug:

[IamRAMBO24]

NASA didn't intentionally mislead people that's just how photos work on mars. Make this topic 9176 that Rambo knows nothing about

If NASA is telling the public Mars is red knowing full well that is not its true colors, then that is misleading.

[KyrieTheFuture]

If NASA is telling the public Mars is red knowing full well that is not its true colors, then that is misleading.
Nothing is actually a color, we only perceive it as such, and people perceive mars as red.

[KevinNYC]

1. I think it is a disappointing a smart guy like you can't accept the facts.

2. It is a fact Mars is not red. It is a fact NASA has mislead the public. It is a fact they would of gotten away with it if the "conspiracy nutcases" didn't question the authenticity of their images. It is a fact you can't accept a fact because you are passionately anti-conspiracies; it is a fact this attitude has blinded you to rationality.

3. You are arguing against a fact: NASA has admitted it and there should be no further discussion on this matter. They don't know the true colors because there are certain bands that are not representative in their pictures; sure the left eye of the rover shoots in RGB, but the right is infrared, and when you combine both shots, infrared will always trump RGB, hence why their photos are pure red, and Keith Laney has pointed this out and corrected it. He is a professional photographer and you're not. His opinion trumps your's.They don't know the true colors because nobody has ever stood on MARS and seen what it looks like. This is why they use the terms "approximate true colors."

And guess what, I have worked professionally as both a photographer and a videographer and am fairly familiar with processing color and understand how different one sensor can produce different images than another. Anyone who has ever comparison shopped for cameras can understand this. Here's an infrared image. Can you elaborate on the babble you have mentioned above to explain why it would "trump" RGB when combined.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn8841/dn8841-1_750.jpg





ps. I love the numbered list.

[IamRAMBO24]

Nothing is actually a color, we only perceive it as such, and people perceive mars as red.

You're a f*ckin idiot. Don't come all up in this intelligent thread with this kind of bullsh*t.

:facepalm

[IamRAMBO24]

They don't know the true colors because nobody has ever stood on MARS and seen what it looks like. This is why they use the terms "approximate true colors."

And guess what, I have worked professionally as both a photographer and a videographer and am fairly familiar with processing color and understand how different one sensor can produce different images than another. Anyone who has ever comparison shopped for cameras can understand this. Here's an infrared image. Can you elaborate on the babble you have mentioned above to explain why it would "trump" RGB when combined.
ps. I love the numbered list.

This is infrared:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/images/content/152221main_rn_IRorbitorwing300.jpg

This is infrared combined with RGB also referred as "IR" photography.

http://www.plexuseco.com/EPOW/EPOW-Archive/archive_2005/EPOW-050613_files/forest%20veg%20DSC06431%20IR.jpg
http://www.astropix.com/IMAGES/I_ASTROP/EQ_TESTS/1DMII_IR.JPG
http://www.photosynthesis-in-nature.com/pictures/photography/IR_wb_a1.jpg

Of course NASA's cameras are a lot more advance than these, but they are using the same methodology. IR trumps blue and green, so even if Mars has color, the near infrared would block it all out making everything look like a desert with a bunch of red rocks.

[niko]

What exactly is the conspiracy? That NASA wants us to think Mars is red? Why would they ****ing care what color people think it is? It's a empty pile of rocks and dirt.

[Raymone]

What exactly is the conspiracy? That NASA wants us to think Mars is red? Why would they ****ing care what color people think it is? It's a empty pile of rocks and dirt.
Empty? You obviously haven't seen the rats, lizards and apes in Rambo's rock photos.

[niko]

If there was a single microbe on mars we'd be told it was there so they could spend 39 trillion dollars sending things to space to find it.

Why is life out there interesting? It's interesting if there are things moving we can see, or intelligent things or something looking like an animal but it's going to be a microbe, it's going to be nothing.

[Bandito]

Empty? You obviously haven't seen the rats, lizards and apes in Rambo's rock photos.
Pfft...niko doesnt have IRamble gifted mind.

[niko]

Pfft...niko doesnt have IRamble gifted mind.
I saw space sharks in picture 3. I'm just hiding them as part of the conspiracy. SHH...

[Bandito]

I saw space sharks in picture 3. I'm just hiding them as part of the conspiracy. SHH...
Sounds like a future hollywood movie.

[KevinNYC]

This is infrared:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/images/content/152221main_rn_IRorbitorwing300.jpg

This was not taken a photographic camera. It's a thermogram taken using a FLIR camera. Similar to this thermogram of a man holding a snake.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Wiki_stranglesnake.jpg/330px-Wiki_stranglesnake.jpg

So it's nothing like the PANCAM camera on the MARS rover. And you showing this as an example means you still haven't grasped the photographic process we are discussing.

This is infrared combined with RGB also referred as "IR" photography.[/B]

http://www.plexuseco.com/EPOW/EPOW-Archive/archive_2005/EPOW-050613_files/forest%20veg%20DSC06431%20IR.jpg
http://www.astropix.com/IMAGES/I_ASTROP/EQ_TESTS/1DMII_IR.JPG
http://www.photosynthesis-in-nature.com/pictures/photography/IR_wb_a1.jpg

Your infrared photography examples are about putting an infrared filter on a camera with a sensor designed to produced color images. The PANCAM on the earlier Mars rover had a black an white sensor. The processing involved is very different. Not the same methodology.

Infrared photography doesn't not mean the resulting image will be red.
http://www.123inspiration.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/infrared-photography-david-keochkerian-7.jpg