Sol 676
Finally i found out how to create true color images our of 3 different filtered b/w images.
Here my first, of course not so spectacular, processed true color image of Mars, Sol 676 PanCam
Full Version: Methods For Colorization Of Pancam Images
It's a neat pic but I would rather see the term 'false color' 
Did you choose filters 6,7,2 or is that an error?
I propose to open a new thread on colorization in particular if you'd like to discuss it.
Nico
Did you choose filters 6,7,2 or is that an error?
I propose to open a new thread on colorization in particular if you'd like to discuss it.
Nico
@NIX
Yes, unfortuantely Filter 4 was not available.
Look at that webseite, it loks pretty much the same as the version there. So i chose true color, knowing i would get some NO nos...
http://areo.info/mer/
Yes, unfortuantely Filter 4 was not available.
Look at that webseite, it loks pretty much the same as the version there. So i chose true color, knowing i would get some NO nos...
http://areo.info/mer/
Calibrated and processed image of Homeplate?
Credit: Nasa/JPL/Cornell
Robot Spirit Sol 673
Calibration and processing by me.
Hope u like it. my 2nd one...
Credit: Nasa/JPL/Cornell
Robot Spirit Sol 673
Calibration and processing by me.
Hope u like it. my 2nd one...
(UP) 
Good coloring and maybe it is the authentic color...
Rodolfo
Good coloring and maybe it is the authentic color... Rodolfo
The NASA publication that covers the Viking missions has a very nice appendix discussing the "true colors" of Mars. What spaceffm has come up with is an almost perfect example of what that appendix would call "What Mars would look like under Earth outdoor lighting conditions."
This look is more contrasty and a little bluer than how the same scene would appear on Mars. The actual in-situ look is a little redder and has less contrast, partially because the diffuse light from the sky is in the yellow-orange range.
But, if Home Plate and the Pitcher's Mound were magically transported into the high desert of the United States southwest, it would look pretty much *exactly* like this.
-the other Doug
This look is more contrasty and a little bluer than how the same scene would appear on Mars. The actual in-situ look is a little redder and has less contrast, partially because the diffuse light from the sky is in the yellow-orange range.
But, if Home Plate and the Pitcher's Mound were magically transported into the high desert of the United States southwest, it would look pretty much *exactly* like this.
-the other Doug
A quick "instant" process gives me those colors...
@dvandorn, thx for the explanation
@vikingmars
Great colorisation, how did u make the sky if i may ask?
@vikingmars
Great colorisation, how did u make the sky if i may ask?
It's its natural color : NO colorization, just the filters superimposed together.@vikingmars
Great colorisation, how did u make the sky if i may ask?
[/quote]
QUOTE (vikingmars @ Nov 30 2005, 08:41 AM)
A quick "instant" process gives me those colors...I seem like that if the astronaut has landed on Mars, he will be somewhat depressed, uneasy or uncomfortable due to a high difusse of light (like a very clouded day) and less sunshine due to the greater distance to Sun than to Earth.
Rodolfo
What is the MER2RGB-process noted in Post #377?
--Bill
--Bill
QUOTE (vikingmars @ Nov 30 2005, 06:08 PM)
It's its natural color : NO colorization, just the filters superimposed together.Yes ok, but how did u make it, i used the same filtered images and got a totally different result, can u give a tutorial or description?
I am kind a stuck at the moment.
@BillHarris
http://areo.info/mer/
Yes ok, but how did u make it, i used the same filtered images and got a totally different result, can u give a tutorial or description?
I am kind a stuck at the moment.
OK : it's a matter of saturation, because the MER pictures are generally over-saturated when being taken, so try to reduce the image saturation somewhat. The "fine-tuning" of colors depends also on the good calibration of your computer screen.
I am kind a stuck at the moment.
OK : it's a matter of saturation, because the MER pictures are generally over-saturated when being taken, so try to reduce the image saturation somewhat. The "fine-tuning" of colors depends also on the good calibration of your computer screen.
Ok thx for the answer, i am still stuck, it doesn't matter what i try it looks even worse than my first try.
Could you if u use photoshop give me an explanation of every step to your result please?
If u like via PM, thank You.
Could you if u use photoshop give me an explanation of every step to your result please?
If u like via PM, thank You.
QUOTE (spaceffm @ Nov 30 2005, 02:21 PM)
It's its natural color : NO colorization, just the filters superimposed together.http://areo.info/mer/
spaceffm,
While many of us (including myself) have generated interesting looking 3-filter images, to be able to call something "true" or "natural" colour based on the raw (and stretched for our JPG viewing pleasure) images is impossible (yes - impossible!). One can approximate something close to true colour by using the radiance calibrated images and by using all available L pancam filters and by using some fancy math and processing. This web page has a very good description of the process:
http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/methods.html
The rest of adjust the ranges of the typically just 3 filter images (4,5, 6 if you are lucky, or 2, 5, 7 etc. more often than not because it provides better rock contrast for the scientists) so that they look "right", but we can not claim any resemblence to actual colours. The levels and/or curves tools are probably best for those kind of adjustments. The sundial images tend to have better colour balance because of their white and dark areas that reduce the contrast stretching, so they are good examples to use as a guide.
Good luck and have fun!
Airbag
thx for the link airbag, though the second sentence you quoted ( It's its natural color : NO colorization, just the filters superimposed together. ) was not written by me...
Ah, sorry - indeed you did not write that. Natural or true colour, they are not, anway!
Airbag
Airbag
QUOTE (spaceffm @ Nov 29 2005, 10:24 AM)
Sol 676
Finally i found out how to create true color images our of 3 different filtered b/w images.
Here my first, of course not so spectacular, processed true color image of Mars, Sol 676 PanCam
Finally i found out how to create true color images our of 3 different filtered b/w images.
Here my first, of course not so spectacular, processed true color image of Mars, Sol 676 PanCam
QUOTE (spaceffm @ Nov 30 2005, 06:02 AM)
Calibrated and processed image of Homeplate?
Calibration and processing by me.
Hope u like it. my 2nd one...
Calibration and processing by me.
Hope u like it. my 2nd one...
spaceffm please read this:
QUOTE
JPEG is "lossy," meaning that the decompressed image isn't quite the same as the one you started with. (There are lossless image compression algorithms,
but JPEG achieves much greater compression than is possible with lossless
methods.) JPEG is designed to exploit known limitations of the human eye,
notably the fact that small color changes are perceived less accurately than
small changes in brightness. Thus, JPEG is intended for compressing images
that will be looked at by humans. If you plan to machine-analyze your
images, the small errors introduced by JPEG may be a problem for you, even
if they are invisible to the eye.
A useful property of JPEG is that the degree of lossiness can be varied by
adjusting compression parameters. This means that the image maker can trade
off file size against output image quality. You can make *extremely* small
files if you don't mind poor quality; this is useful for applications such
as indexing image archives. Conversely, if you aren't happy with the output
quality at the default compression setting, you can jack up the quality
until you are satisfied, and accept lesser compression.
but JPEG achieves much greater compression than is possible with lossless
methods.) JPEG is designed to exploit known limitations of the human eye,
notably the fact that small color changes are perceived less accurately than
small changes in brightness. Thus, JPEG is intended for compressing images
that will be looked at by humans. If you plan to machine-analyze your
images, the small errors introduced by JPEG may be a problem for you, even
if they are invisible to the eye.
A useful property of JPEG is that the degree of lossiness can be varied by
adjusting compression parameters. This means that the image maker can trade
off file size against output image quality. You can make *extremely* small
files if you don't mind poor quality; this is useful for applications such
as indexing image archives. Conversely, if you aren't happy with the output
quality at the default compression setting, you can jack up the quality
until you are satisfied, and accept lesser compression.
In these 2 quoted posts you have attached 2 images in jpeg format.
Now I don't know if you did this on purpose or not but those 2 images are staggering 840 kilobytes...
What I'm trying to say is : try using that compression...some people here are still on dial-up internet conection...
Thank you!
I'm not having a bad day...
QUOTE
n these 2 quoted posts you have attached 2 images in jpeg format.
Now I don't know if you did this on purpose or not but those 2 images are staggering 840 kilobytes... blink.gif huh.gif mad.gif blink.gif huh.gif mad.gif
What I'm trying to say is : try using that compression...some people here are still on dial-up internet conection...
Thank you!
I'm not having a bad day... rolleyes.gif
Now I don't know if you did this on purpose or not but those 2 images are staggering 840 kilobytes... blink.gif huh.gif mad.gif blink.gif huh.gif mad.gif
What I'm trying to say is : try using that compression...some people here are still on dial-up internet conection...
Thank you!
I'm not having a bad day... rolleyes.gif
It seems to me u have. Did on purpose? Am i in a court Mister? If u have a suggestion or remark which is gladly accepted, do it in a behaved and friendly manor and not in a rude and disrespectful (as if i would be a stupid person) way.
now leave me alone U "friendly" guy.
thank You
If u have some further comments to make to me about our good relation do it via PM and kindly not in this thread. Further rude comments posted publicly will be ignored:)
P.S. Sorry if someone had a long loading time, i just did not think about compressing.
Was to happy that i managed the first colorisation...
Take it easy guys, you both use english as a second language, so it is sometimes inevitable that the tone one reads in a post was not originally intended.
We should all be open to suggestions from other users and talk nice to each other.
Peace
We should all be open to suggestions from other users and talk nice to each other.
Peace
Two suggestions wrt images on a post:
- Use thumbnails linking to the real picture as much as possible. This forum's attachments do it automatically, while ImageShack (among others) provide the mechanisms to do it.
- Include an indication about the image/file size in the post.
- Use thumbnails linking to the real picture as much as possible. This forum's attachments do it automatically, while ImageShack (among others) provide the mechanisms to do it.
- Include an indication about the image/file size in the post.
QUOTE (spaceffm @ Dec 1 2005, 02:27 PM)
Further rude comments posted publicly will be ignored:)
English ain't my first language either, but I don't believe TomaB was being rude or offensive at all. He merely suggested that the images you posted were too big for their resolution. A couple of roll-eye smileys don't make a threatening post either.
Seems to me you took it way too personally, lighten up a bit!
And no, I'm not being offensive either
If I may add that in addition to file size for inline images, please be aware that if the pic is too wide, it messes up the text formatting on the PHPBB - you have to scroll sideways to read all the text in a post... annoying for those of us on "legacy" monitors.... Best to post a thumbnail if the image is large.
Best to post a thumbnail if the image is large.
I'm sure Toma B ain't having a bad day...I can imagine the frustration visiting from dial-up and have the text cluttered with heavy images.
spaceffm, nobody's implying you're stupid.
Nico
spaceffm, nobody's implying you're stupid.
Nico
QUOTE (lyford @ Dec 1 2005, 06:11 PM)
If I may add that in addition to file size for inline images, please be aware that if the pic is too wide, it messes up the text formatting on the PHPBB - you have to scroll sideways to read all the text in a post... annoying for those of us on "legacy" monitors.... Best to post a thumbnail if the image is large.
Best to post a thumbnail if the image is large.You can have your little "legacy" monitor - mine is a fine antique!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.