Phobos in color and 3D
Pat Flannery
Pat
BradGuth
> New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php
>
> Pat
Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast.
Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER
mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better
illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or
much less that of dynamic range. I wonder what the problem is, as to
why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of
gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo
of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Hmmm, how unfortunate as to what a few honest words of such a simple
question can so easily close down and otherwise slam the doors shut on
a given topic.
Why exactly is there so much fear of the truth?
. - Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
> On Apr 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...@daktel.com> wrote:
>
> > New images from MRO:http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phobos.php
>
> > Pat
>
> Great color saturation and otherwise nifty dynamic range of contrast.
Yes Guth, it sort of looks like the top of your head...
>
> Odd, that of better cameras and better optics of our newer MESSENGER
> mission could not accomplish the same, not even with having far better
> illumination on behalf of getting 10% as good of color saturations, or
> much less that of dynamic range. I wonder what the problem is, as to
> why the planet Mercury was such a pastel and relatively light shade of
> gray, especially when it's mineral and surface deposit dimmed albedo
> of 0.12 is hardly much better off than coal.
Bullcrap! The first few images from Mercury were B&W and you bitched.
The next images from Mercury were color and just fine. Had the imaging
team not done a quick-look and waited until color images had come out
you would have had nothing to bitch about. Back to your stall...
Eric Chomko
You flatter yourself and are clueless how mission teams function.
There was nothing sinister or odd about getting a quick-look image
out, well, quickly. You saw the quick-look Mercury images and then saw
the images which had a time to get color processed like the Phobos
image was, and thought something just HAD to me amiss. You are what is
amiss!
And if you think that Mercury being .36 AU to the sun should look like
coal, then you sort of really don't get albedo, nor solar output nor
physics in general. Go back to your fantasy writing and leave science
to the rest of us.
BradGuth
Even I reprocessed those damn few MESSENGER color images of Mercury,
and as such they looked at least ten fold better and offered loads
more informative mineralogy data than anything team Messenger had to
offer at the time of long since, and to think I didn't even have to
artificially fudge one damn thing.
There was however a rather huge lack of initial color saturation and
of not hardly 10% the worth of dynamic range to begin with. Can you
explain why?
BTW, coal has an albedo of roughly 0.1, and the Mercury average albedo
of 0.12 is only 20% less than being dark as coal. Other than a vie
of its dark side, I didn't see much of anything even remotely close to
an average of 0.12 (12% reflective), unless I cranked up the PhotoShop
contrast in order to compensate for the otherwise piss poor DR worth
of those MESSENGER images of Mercury.
I guess those NASA mirror optics were actually so downright crappy, is
why those images of Mercury turned out looking so pastel and otherwise
pathetic. I've got a cell phone camera that would have accomplished
better color saturation and superior DR/contrast.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Is that why you and others of your silly kind still can't post a good
MESSENGER frame of color saturation and of a full DR worthy image of
Mercury?
. - Brad Guth
Eric Chomko
So , what are you sceptical of then?
>
> There was however a rather huge lack of initial color saturation and
> of not hardly 10% the worth of dynamic range to begin with. Can you
> explain why?
Because the first images were processed very quickly. Brad you do
understand that all space images come down in black and white
(grayscale) and then the color gets added later right? Sometimes even
false color (vegetation done in red, for example) is provided to
better illustrate difference. Another example is making ice blue and
clouds white rather than making the visible white for both even though
that is what cloulds and ice look like to us in the visible spectrum.
They can exploit the thermal differences and also use reflectance,
etc.
>
> BTW, coal has an albedo of roughly 0.1, and the Mercury average albedo
> of 0.12 is only 20% less than being dark as coal. Other than a vie
Coal has an albedo of 0.1 from what distance?
> of its dark side, I didn't see much of anything even remotely close to
> an average of 0.12 (12% reflective), unless I cranked up the PhotoShop
> contrast in order to compensate for the otherwise piss poor DR worth
> of those MESSENGER images of Mercury.
There was nothing wrong with the MESSENGER images. Did you see the
previous Mercury mission (Mariner 10) images? Did you compare those to
MESSENGER's images?
>
> I guess those NASA mirror optics were actually so downright crappy, is
> why those images of Mercury turned out looking so pastel and otherwise
> pathetic. I've got a cell phone camera that would have accomplished
> better color saturation and superior DR/contrast.
Right. Did ever consider why Mercury would look pastel and washed out?
Did you expect a vibrate red, orange, green or yellow like we see from
Jupiter and Saturn?
What color is Venus, Brad??
Eric Chomko
Mercury is the closest planet to the sun and it has no atmosphere. I
suspect that the yellowish tint is mostly due to being so damn close
to a G-2 star! Otherwise it would be sort white-ish gray like our
moon.
What you want from images from Mercury is not true science. Hell you
want a pink false-color image? You can't even add false color to the
damn thing because it has no atmosphere and lacks any serious temperal
differences other than night and day side and that varies so slowly
you can't even get a composite like they get from the much faster
spinning gas planets.
Sorry to disappoint, Brad, but what you see in Mercury is all that
there is. Don't blame the MESSGENGER. hahahahahahahahaha
BradGuth
Good grief, our moon at 11% reflective is NOT "sort white-ish gray".
>
> What you want from images from Mercury is not true science. Hell you
> want a pink false-color image? You can't even add false color to the
> damn thing because it has no atmosphere and lacks any serious temperal
> differences other than night and day side and that varies so slowly
> you can't even get a composite like they get from the much faster
> spinning gas planets.
>
> Sorry to disappoint, Brad, but what you see in Mercury is all that
> there is. Don't blame the MESSGENGER. hahahahahahahahaha
I can't even believe you'd be such a certified born-again LLPOF, of
such a bigoted brown-nosed minion clown, that you clearly are.
Hitler was none better, but then we supposedly got rid of that
bastard.
. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Obviously you can't hardly read, so what's the difference. Do you
even have any version of PhotoShop?
>
> > There was however a rather huge lack of initial color saturation and
> > of not hardly 10% the worth of dynamic range to begin with. Can you
> > explain why?
>
> Because the first images were processed very quickly. Brad you do
> understand that all space images come down in black and white
> (grayscale) and then the color gets added later right? Sometimes even
> false color (vegetation done in red, for example) is provided to
> better illustrate difference. Another example is making ice blue and
> clouds white rather than making the visible white for both even though
> that is what cloulds and ice look like to us in the visible spectrum.
> They can exploit the thermal differences and also use reflectance,
> etc.
A century from now?
Why did they bother to exclude those raw color saturations and better
DR data to begin with?
>
> > BTW, coal has an albedo of roughly 0.1, and the Mercury average albedo
> > of 0.12 is only 20% less than being dark as coal. Other than a vie
>
> Coal has an albedo of 0.1 from what distance?
Distance has nothing whatsoever to do with it, other than the closer
you get the darker it looks to the naked eye, as well as on film,
especially darker if using a polarized optical element. Were you born
perpetually dumbfounded?
>
> > of its dark side, I didn't see much of anything even remotely close to
> > an average of 0.12 (12% reflective), unless I cranked up the PhotoShop
> > contrast in order to compensate for the otherwise piss poor DR worth
> > of those MESSENGER images of Mercury.
>
> There was nothing wrong with the MESSENGER images. Did you see the
> previous Mercury mission (Mariner 10) images? Did you compare those to
> MESSENGER's images?
I'm not the village idiot that you're trying to establish, but then I
don't have that nifty brown-nose like yours. (your clownish gain, my
loss)
>
> > I guess those NASA mirror optics were actually so downright crappy, is
> > why those images of Mercury turned out looking so pastel and otherwise
> > pathetic. I've got a cell phone camera that would have accomplished
> > better color saturation and superior DR/contrast.
>
> Right. Did ever consider why Mercury would look pastel and washed out?
> Did you expect a vibrate red, orange, green or yellow like we see from
> Jupiter and Saturn?
>
> What color is Venus, Brad??
Radar imaging doesn't color skew upon anything. Obviously your incest
mutated DNA has your private parts all screwed up, with your left/
right brains as butt-cheeks.
. - Brad Guth