True enough the raw uncalibrated data records could be released immediately and they would provide image processing nuts (like everyone here) with most of the data they could ever want. As I understand it the decision to release the images as auto-stretched jpg's was primarily made in order to increase the likelihood that they would look better for folks browsing them on the web.

Scientifically - it's as fair as it can possibly be

Doug

Yeah, I don't know how many times we've debated this "release all data now, because it is public data" issue. The fact is that this mission is absolutely the last one that anyone should have any complaints about. The raw jpegs aren't perfect, but they are available in nearly real time, and they seem to provide all of us with ample fodder for the endless speculation and discovery that we have so much fun with. Those who would like to have all of the data only need to wait 90 days, right? Compare this mission's data release record with some other space missions, and then come back here to report your findings.

I wasn't sure which thread would be best to mention this in, but I have been looking a lot at the 3D imagery of the crater, and especially the left side. I want to question the identification of some features there, and this thread seems to be the one where such geometry is most often discussed. The bay between capes E and F is the one I am talking about, and the features on either side of it.

I noticed that in the anaglyphs of this area there seemed to be some distance information available from the opposite side. It is closer than most of the opposite side that we can see. I've taken James' orbiter/rover view and shifted the rover view quite a bit to the left, and then I drew lines ABC with my suggestions. Below, I placed my anaglyph made from the L and R panoramas so nicely provided by NASA/JPL recently.

Point B is what I first noticed. It seems to be noticeably closer to the camera than the bay to the right of it. I won't have time to also post the flicker gif, but that was pretty convincing, too. I am thinking this rim may be more difficult to label than we thought, but I suspect the view will improve when we get closer.

What do you people think?
Click to view attachment

CR, I don't agree that there really is and 3D effect over on the far rim, I can't see it anyway. Maybe someone could do some Photogrammetry? As for the left section being closer, when I measure it on the map it seems to be further away than some of the outcrops near Sofi.

If your going to shift the image along that much then you're going to have a problem matching the rest of the rim arn't you? For instance, Bay F4 is now matched with a clear outcrop in your image.

To my eye, the match between Bay F1 and the bay between A & B in your image is one of the most striking across the whole far rim. It has quite a distictive 'question mark' shape from this point of view that can be seen in both the MOC and pancams.

James

EDIT: To help avoid confusion, here is the my comparison post in another thread.

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ost&p=69352

James: I'm really at a disadvantage here, since I am away from home, and in Austin, Texas with a machine that has none of my image processing software. Fortunately I was able to send a carrier pigeon back home, requesting that someone find my flicker gif and email it to me.

I understand that making such a large shift causes major alignment problems elsewhere, but I haven't had time to reconcile that problem. Perhaps there is another way to adjust for my suggestion. I also realize that the 3D relief in my anaglyph was just barely visible at this distance, but I am surprised that no one else (out of the 95+ people who have so far downloaded my image) has spoken out to agree with me. The flicker gif I have available to me is over 5 MB, and I have no available software to reduce it's size at the moment. It was made from the full JPL L&R panoramas of sol 943. The most convenient location for me to host it is at my ISP's site which is not supposed to allow me space for this image, but it seems to be available so far.

I think the flcker gif is significantly more convincing than the anaglyph. I am sorry I can't reduce it's size. Please take a look at the left side. The point I originally labelled as "B" seems to clearly show a stereo effect, and to show that the outcrop to the left of B is closer to the camera than the area to the right. How else can this be explained?

A flicker gif for James

You just missed me at work and am now home and on dialup - but hopefully in a few hours we'll get a much better view which should resolve things anyway.

If I get a chance I'll do further analysis on the pancam and MOC images to get it scaled and aligned using the pointing data from the tracking database.

James

OK here is the comparison (just one pancam frame) using the tracking data to scale and align the images, not by eye as I did before.

Click to view attachment

James

I'm inclined to agree with James. All due respect, but CR seems to be "one-bay off" on the ID's. I've "faded" the original green lines and added my own guesses as blue lines and dotted yellow lines.

--Bill

I'm in agreement with James. But now with the new navcams it's clear what's what anyway.

I'm afraid that this may go down in history as one of my more foolish blunders, but I still don't understand the parallax I am seeing at point B. James' correlations were difficult to argue with from the start, and with the new set of navcams it's absolutely clear that he is correct. I've been staring at that flicker gif for so long that I am bleary-eyed and still confused by the part left of B seeming to move back and forth in front of the area to the right.

Would you guys do me a big favor and not tell anyone else at UMSF about my mistake?