Mro--First Looks

Wow. Nice stuff. These are on the order of 55cm/p. That's 3 times better than the best MOC images. This could answer alot of questions, if they go to the right places.

Tom, I've been saying for awhile that we need 10 times better resolution to really tell. I take that back. 3 times is going to do it. Check out the "Zoomify" tool.

Right now they have only a couple of images, and I don't know what the plan is, but these are pretty amazing.

(correction) The best images will be 25cm/p, or 6 times better than the best MOC images. Yahooooo!

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />Dont forget you need to navigate to the Larger 100mb files of these images<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Trinket, thanks for starting this topic, and reminding us about HiRISE. This is great.

You do realize don't you, that this might end the debate a lot sooner than anybody might ever have imagined?

I just did.

rd

Think about what 25cm/p is going to mean. That's 10 inches.

Mark off 10 inches on the front of your house, and then walk away from the house as far as it takes before you pretty much can't see it anymore. It won't be very far. Maybe 100 feet or less. At that point you're at binocular distance, which would continue back for a few hundred more feet (or whatever).

So, these pictures are going to get us into the area of naked eye distance.

rd

I'm sorry to be skeptical Richard..
But The best evidence is the spirit/opie pathfinder landers..(and Nasa has no problem muddying those up..with no complaints from "anyone"

It's always a case of the next thing is going to be clearer.... They have probably spent easily over a couple billion dollars over the last 45 years just on optics.. But to date either
Mr Magoo is designing the optics or the floride in our water is working.. I know these are the best Images from any satellite so far.. But opposition is all for steady as she goes ( stay the course..

Your Pareidolia Thread was a great way to get maybe just a few to peek outside the box..
But the word stubborn must come to mind if your thinking fortyfive years of coverup.. That couldn't happen without participation whether unintended or not..


Bob.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's always a case of the next thing is going to be clearer.... They have probably spent easily over a couple billion dollars over the last 45 years just on optics.. But to date either Mr Magoo is designing the optics or the floride in our water is working.. I know these are the best Images from any satellite so far.. But opposition is all for steady as she goes ( stay the course..[Bob]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Trinket may be right again, at least partially. I just downloaded and did preliminary surveys of two images. "Ius Chasma," and "Condor Chasma." My goal is to match landmarks and "faces" I'm familiar with from the hi-res MOC swaths, with those in the new images. As Richard says, the new images have (or claim to have) a resolution of 25cm/p. So that should be about 6 times better resolution than 1.5 m/p for the best MOC images, Right? So if we view each raw data image at 100% that should be what we would get. Correct me if I'm wrong. This means that at 16.6% magnification, the new image should pretty much match the best MOC images at 100%, right? (Albeit the sharpness should be different, theoretically.)

So far I haven't found anything but I'm still trying. Even if “there are no faces” we should still be able to match landmarks. So far, I suspect the new "science experiment" still has bugs in it (I'm saying nothing about tampering--just bugs). For one thing, at higher magnification you can see two sections of the image patched together, which is fine, but one section is blurry and the other is clearer. Only one of those sections could have 25 cm/p, if that. I'll keep working on it and report back to the forum.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br />Correct me if I'm wrong. This means that at 16.6% magnification, the new image should pretty much match the best MOC images at 100%, right? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Right, assuming 25cm/p. But, some of then are currently ~50cm/p, but the best is supposed to be 25.

You're right about it possibly being buggy for awhile, but I would be suspicious as Trinket if it went on too long. I mean, if they can get the ship to Mars, they ought to have photography down. He's got a good point, there.

rd