MARS (wheres the color?)
- Started
- Last post
- 58 Responses
- OnesandZeros0
color doesn't exist in space.
duh.- racism sadly, still does7point34
- you make me colour blind.Milky_joe
- Even though Earth is a part of space, hahahaJaline
- yea, i was pretty much making that up.OnesandZeros
- ********0
wha?
- ********0
it doint?
- drgs0
mars really is grey, many people dont know that
- sikma0
there happy?
- ********0
^ Apart from the always interesting conspiracy theories (mostly concocted from observations on Earth, where light refracts differently due to proper qualities of Earth's atmosphere, mostly nitrogen and oxygen), I don't see any reason why Mars should be colourful (given that 95% of its atmosphere is a sullen carbon-dioxide). Also, most of it's landscape is composed of the same materials and since colour -as we know it- is the result from different light absorption of varied surface materials - such as we have on Earth -, Mars colour spectrum is probably very limited compared to ours.
Also, what's the point of having real-colour cameras on Mars, which has a different atmosphere and a different range of materials? Our cameras were created to mimic our notion of colour. Scientifically, short-length radio pictures maybe more helpful to study that particular atmosphere instead of having a range of colours that most probably only apply to Earth and are theoretically useless or even liable to twist the representation of some data.
- why does mars' atmosphere look blue from hubble? also explain how how color photos work on the earth's moonacescence
- color photos work by capturing 3 channels, rgb, it's how those 3 channels are combined that matters. the cameras on phoenix do indeed capture 3 color channelsacescence
- ... phoenix do indeed capture 3 color channels thru filtersacescence
- because you're just looking at it through a pre-conceived camera? if you have a rgb set it's probable the spectrum...********
- translates into rgb, but that doesn't imply it's really blue when you get there. it was a translation of light differences********
- to a specific colour set.********
- blue light waves are 450–495 nm in length. if a sensor sensitive to those frequencies records light, it exists. it's not like they're shifting the spectrum when they take these photosacescence
- ... like they're shifting the spectrum.acescence
- it is so at our distance from the sun. you cannot be sure that it is so elsewhere.********
- if you're reading from a specific location you can't be sure data is not altered by your position, because no matter...********
- ... what kind of capture you have, it will still be in photons when you LOOK at it here.********
- the interpretation occurs in our brain, so yes, blue is the same everywhere in the universeacescence
- nadnerb0
**SPOILER**
it's red.
- nadnerb0
"480 million bux and no color!!!"
I'm fairly certain they have the capability to capture the entire spectrum of visible light and a good deal beyond that.
- capturing is one thing. transmitting is another.********
- how is transmitting 1 color photo any different from transmitting 3 b&w photos? they transmit THOUSANDS of photosacescence
- I think they transmit over radio. Colour is interpreted by wave-lenght. You can't be sure there's no distortion.********
- even if it's sent via analog carrier, it's encoded digitally, so you can absolutely insure there is no distortion, ie a checksumacescence
- its all digital... wavelengths don't factor in the transmissionribit
- capturing is one thing. transmitting is another.
- mikotondria30
Obviously from a scientific viewpoint it's great and more useful to have false 'color' information because more information = more data, more analysis and more results, but of course it would be interesting to have pictures to show us what it would look to us, if we were there with our eyes. Like a camera does here, simulation or otherwise.
What would we see if we were there ?- That's my point. Are colours the same far-off from the sun and under different gravities and atmospheres?********
- We don't know because they are all interpreted here.********
- That's my point. Are colours the same far-off from the sun and under different gravities and atmospheres?
- sikma0
There is tons of processing that goes into getting a "real color" image off a 3CCD sensor. An average SLR applies something like 10 filters to a capture before writing a raw file. So maybe the exact color of Mars is not as red as NASA says. But I find it hard to believe theres a conspiracy occurring here. Why would they bother?
Maybe next time they need to include one of these.
- skelly_b0
Others have already pointed this out, but a color digital image is RGB channels processed together. The cameras on Phoenix are capturing around 12 channels at very high resolution. They are in a hurry to get images released to the public so no time to get color put together.
Here is stereoscopic image if you got your 3D glasses handy:
Awesome image from the Mars orbiter (again this is captured at very high-resolution in a number of channels):
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/0…more stuff here:
http://fawkes3.lpl.arizona.edu/g…
- mikotondria30
christ, it can't be that difficult.
Get a camera, on earth, takes some pictures - process the raw data so it looks right when you look at the pictures, ie trees are green, the sky is blue, et fucking cetera.
Take the camera to mars, process the data sent back.
That is what it will look like IF YOU WERE THERE.I don't know why Im so angry or even concerned with this - my anger isn't directed at anyone in particular.
- Un0
I blame Cohaagen
- ********0
They stand to learn more by using cameras that can look at spectrum ranges beyond the human eye - just like hubble.
There's also the fact (that any self respecting designer should know) that a greyscale image is a fuck sigh smaller than an RGB one, and a RGB one is smaller than a CMYK one. Seeing a pattern yet?
Also, Phoenix is no asshole (like your clients) and will opt to send you that pic you've been waiting for in a reasonable sized attachment. This email has has to travel several million miles via fucking wireless after all.
Maybe NASA can ask it for Power Point Deck - just for you.
- Milky_joe0
I was watching a thing the other day yet again about conspiracy theories how the USA never got to the moon, at one stage they were talking to some experts and the experts basically said 'yeah the USA put up some reflectors (no idea what sort radio waves or something futuristic) they have been there ever since and we have been bouncing signals back and forth from these reflectors for ages, would you like to see the data and we can answer any questions you have about these reflectors'. The conspiracy theorists when asked about the reflectors just said 'no they don't' it was quite funny how they wouldn't accept what the experts were saying he he.
I do hope the USA got to the moon, I don't care what country it was just as long as one country did go there :D it's an amazing thing to believe and soon the japanese will be going and you can bet your ass there will be loads and loads and loads of pictures hopefully in colour as well.
- ********0
Of course they went to the fucking moon. It's been verified by pretty much every country on the planet that has the capability to look in the right place - including it's "enemies". There is NO DOUBT that they went to the moon.
Don't give these idiots the time of day. They're paranoid. Diana wasn't murdered. Elvis is dead. We went to the moon, and a fucking big plane hit the fucking Pentagon.
- So I can pretty much say you've got my back then yeah :DMilky_joe
- Maybe Elvis is on the moon then.********
- ********0
Aye moon then.
- ********0
