Nefertiti's Family

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /> So apparently were many or perhaps even most of the "public request" images. If the contrast and resolution are not present in the original, they cannot be added back by image processing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Agreed. That's pretty much our conclusion, too.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It might not occur to you gentlemen trying to do good science that you are regarded as less important, time-wise and budget-wise, than school children. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I think you'd find we have no trouble believing that at all.

All we've been trying to say all along is: wouldn't it be nice if we could get a real good look at the PI scene? We're not holding our breath, though. You never know, though, maybe we stir up enough interest to get them to take a closer look with the MRO.

You gave some good reasons why R07 and R12 are disappointing. That's a whole different thing than someone trying to make the case that they're really good images.

rd

R12 is a really good image. It is the same resolution as M03.

Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />R12 is a really good image. It is the same resolution as M03.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">R12 has the same resolution, but for whatever reason it has only 1/4 of the contrast in the Profile Image vicinity as M03. And that contrast reduction makes anything artistic very hard to see.

Specifically, by my estimate, 90% of the darker terrain in R12 is represented by about 30 greyscale levels, whereas M03 represents it with about 120 grayscale levels.

And both images have only about 1/4 the resolution capability of the camera. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
R12 has the same resolution, but for whatever reason it has only 1/4 of the contrast in the Profile Image vicinity as M03. And that contrast reduction makes anything artistic very hard to see.

Specifically, by my estimate, 90% of the darker terrain in R12 is represented by about 30 greyscale levels, whereas M03 represents it with about 120 grayscale levels.

And both images have only about 1/4 the resolution capability of the camera.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for quantifying that for us Tom. That's what we're getting at.

I know there are many things at work here, but I'd say it should be a general rule that any "public request" image be of the finest quality. I know it would be, if I had anything to say about it. If it doesn't improve the situation, don't waste our time.

I had the pleasure of working with many great software people over the years. One of my favorites once gathered his team together and told them (in all seriousness) that the "software is supposed to get better each version, not worse."

They were mystefied by his comment, but it made perfect sense to me.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />R12 is a really good image. It is the same resolution as M03.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

emanuel, there is one simple way for you to make your case. Take R12, crop it, enhance it, and post that image which you think improves upon our knowledge of the scene. Maybe compare your results with the M or E image.

That's all we're after, a better view of the scene. If you can help us with that, than great.

rd

Rd, the case I am trying to make (or rather suggesting, because I don't know anything for sure here) is that the lower contrast is the result of natural processes, like cloud cover or more likely dust storms. After all it seems significant that JPL has chosen to photograph this general area every single year multiple times under the heading of "dust event monitoring." That should really be a clue.

I actually went back and looked at all the strips in the general vicinity of Nefertiti. There were a lot of them taken every year MGS has been operational. In fact this area contained (by a long shot) the highest concentration of strips in the entire region. So clearly this is a high-interest area for JPL. And clearly it is high-interest because of the dust storms, which is their stated reason for photographing the area. It said so at the top of every page. Dust storms implies the moving around of a lot of dust. So it doesn't come as a surprise to me that the area looks different in photos taken years later.

I bet if we compared images taken of another near-by location we would also see that it looks different year after year, and that sometimes there is less contrast than at other times. Maybe I'll do this soon and post the results, though others could help. In fact, it would be a good thing for you to do, rd, because it is a test whose outcome is likely to go against your own bias.

Emanuel