Galileo Imagery, I couldn't find a topic not specific to one moon.... |
Galileo Imagery, I couldn't find a topic not specific to one moon.... |
Mar 12 2010, 04:29 AM
Post
#46
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1585 Joined: 14-October 05 From: Vermont Member No.: 530 |
|
|
|
Mar 12 2010, 04:33 AM
Post
#47
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8784 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Those are just mind-blowing, Jason.
I never knew that there were features like that on Io...(sorry, couldn't resist! ) -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Jul 26 2010, 09:15 PM
Post
#48
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
Shamelessly stealing volcanopele's 10ISIOGLOC03 Io image and running it through CIE XYZ color calculation code based on Galileo's filter wavelengths (R 665, G 559 and V 413 nm):
It's also gamma-corrected (assuming the original composite is straight-up RGB substitution, judging by contrast and terminator line). Io's one of the few moons that doesn't really look bland this way. -------------------- |
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 12:29 AM
Post
#49
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1276 Joined: 25-November 04 Member No.: 114 |
Oh wow Gold!
|
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 05:01 AM
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 890 Joined: 18-November 08 Member No.: 4489 |
I thought that this one was the correct color and gamma
and have been planing on redoing the color on my map ( i white balanced it ) { http://celestiamotherlode.net/catalog/show...p?addon_id=1110 } [attachment=22188:21ISCOLOR_01.jpg] http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~perry/io_images/c21.htm http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~perry/io_i...1ISCOLOR_01.png |
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 06:04 AM
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 28-August 07 From: San Francisco Member No.: 3511 |
Really brilliant work here, much appreciated...
-------------------- 'She drove until the wheels fell off...'
|
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 06:22 AM
Post
#52
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 3234 Joined: 11-February 04 From: Tucson, AZ Member No.: 23 |
I thought that this one was the correct color and gamma and have been planing on redoing the color on my map ( i white balanced it ) http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~perry/io_images/c21.htm http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~perry/io_i...1ISCOLOR_01.png Yes, true color...umm... Well gamma, quite frankly, gamma correction has always made images looks too washed out and bright, which maybe more correct, but I don't know, you lose what you gain with our fancy CCD and CMOS detectors. As far as true color. No it isn't. That uses an Infrared image centered at 756 nm for red, though I tried to not stretch the colors unnecessarily. -------------------- &@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io |
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 07:10 AM
Post
#53
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 890 Joined: 18-November 08 Member No.: 4489 |
color ???? "that is the question " when i did my map i did what i would do in the photo darkroom and balanced for white - then tweeked it for ascetics .I always thought that there was too much green in them
and used the http://pdsimg.jpl.nasa.gov/data/cassini/ca...0K_0_0_SIMP.IMG the eastern half [attachment=22189:tx_1_0.jpg] |
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 07:17 AM
Post
#54
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 3234 Joined: 11-February 04 From: Tucson, AZ Member No.: 23 |
Wow, yeah, that is WAYYYY too red and dark.
Bjorn has a decent tutorial on Io's color at http://www.mmedia.is/bjj/3dtest/io/index.html . Another true color approximation that is quite good is at http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02308 -------------------- &@^^!% Jim! I'm a geologist, not a physicist!
The Gish Bar Times - A Blog all about Jupiter's Moon Io |
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 12:53 PM
Post
#55
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
gamma correction has always made images looks too washed out and bright, which maybe more correct It is indeed more correct. The images look more washed out because the objects of interest really are that washed out in reality. If you want to scrutinize the surfaces, higher contrast is great, but if you want more realistic looking images you need to apply gamma correction. I personally don't like the way the terminator appears in higher phase, uncorrected images. It's barely visible and erodes much of the visible disc toward the sunlit terrain. QUOTE you lose what you gain with our fancy CCD and CMOS detectors It's actually more demanding of those fancy CCDs as it exposes any low level noise that would otherwise be drowned out in the darks. Voyager 8 bit is barely workable this way, Galileo is a bit better. It's hard to illustrate what gamma correction does or why it's important with these distant objects as it's hard to relate to them. I'll give a more down to "Earth" example with a Phoenix image. The left side is uncorrected data, the right side is sRGB correct gamma, same calibrated image, click to enlarge: You'll notice that apart from vastly higher contrast, there is color shifting present - the surface is redder (not simply more saturated color). It makes talking about "true color" uncorrected images sort of moot. -------------------- |
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 02:18 PM
Post
#56
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
QUOTE It is indeed more correct. The images look more washed out because the objects of interest really are that washed out in reality. Not true. On any computer monitor, the dynamic range is much smaller than in real life. Because of this, the "washed out areas" would not appear that way to the eye. These gamma corrected versions are not "more realistic" than other versions. It is simply a matter of picking your poison and deciding which trade-offs you are willing to make. -------------------- |
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 05:33 PM
Post
#57
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
QUOTE On any computer monitor, the dynamic range is much smaller than in real life. Because of this, the "washed out areas" would not appear that way to the eye. Based on what? The original data is 8 bit. That means a difference of 1 DN translates into 1/256 of total dynamic range covered - determined by exposure, etc. There isn't dynamic fidelity that the eye might otherwise be able to pick out in the original data to begin with. You are mixing display brightness output and target object contrast. The fact a monitor can not display true luminance of anything other than perhaps Uranus or Neptune systems does not diminish the value of accurate contrast portrayal. Looking at a gamma correct display of a bright target on a monitor is equal to looking at the target through a neutral density filter that dims the object. There is no such filter for the effect straight up RGB substitution gives because it's not a natural effect. It's an artifact of the processing just as incomplete calibration would be. sRGB gamma was introduced with the sole purpose of mapping more DNs to lower brightness levels because that's where the eye is more sensitive and banding would otherwise be present with 8 bit data. Gamma correction is just a inverse of that so that linear radiometrically calibrated data is presented in the proper way on the screen. It doesn't change the contrast, it brings the actual contrast on screen to par with reality. You're telling me the above left Phoenix image is just as real as the right one because the computer screen is too dim? All your digital camera images are sRGB gamma correct by default, even though the things you take pictures on Earth are vastly brighter than even Io. So how come they don't appear washed out? Cramming wider dynamic range into a computer screen output is the domain of HDR processing and even it doesn't inherently affect contrast. See example in this site. The irony is that if the sRGB standard never introduced gamma, i.e. if it left the linear 8 bit approach, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We'd be talking about either natural color and/or contrast-enhanced or saturation-enhanced versions. When an image would be produced and it looked too bland (most of the time), it would be deliberately contrast-enhanced and clearly labeled as such. -------------------- |
|
|
Jul 27 2010, 06:56 PM
Post
#58
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
I'm not confusing anything. Not only is the monitor not as bright, the darkest blacks aren't all that dark. As for the two Phoenix images, yes, I am saying that. One is faithful to the brightness of the reflection, one suppresses it in the name of preserving more interesting parts of the image.
-------------------- |
|
|
Jul 28 2010, 01:44 PM
Post
#59
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 378 Joined: 21-April 05 From: Portugal Member No.: 347 |
My non technical argument would be that we use monitors to view every day photographs and video (of ordinary subjects) and the images look correct and "as it should be".
So if we replicate the same processing that our normal digital cameras do and apply it to raw image data, the results should in practice be the same as is if the images were originally taken with that camera. As for the Phoenix image posted, I'm forced to say that the right version does look like a normal digital photo taken on Earth. Therefore, it's as real as any photo viewed on a PC screen. But this is just my opinion of course. But more technically speaking, the left Phoenix image is NOT faithful to image reflexion values unless you forced your monitor to display also with a linear response! If the monitor is sRGB, it will apply gamma to that image, resulting in a non-linear display. So the right version has the correct linear response. -------------------- _______________________
www.astrosurf.com/nunes |
|
|
Jul 28 2010, 04:24 PM
Post
#60
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 207 Joined: 6-March 07 From: houston, texas Member No.: 1828 |
color ???? "that is the question " when i did my map i did what i would do in the photo darkroom and balanced for white - then tweeked it for ascetics .I always thought that there was too much green in them and used the http://pdsimg.jpl.nasa.gov/data/cassini/ca...0K_0_0_SIMP.IMG the eastern half [attachment=22189:tx_1_0.jpg] nice job! what was the color data source / images? -------------------- Dr. Paul Schenk, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston TX
http://stereomoons.blogspot.com; http://www.youtube.com/galsat400; http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/schenk/ |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th June 2024 - 11:42 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |