A bit of Mars fun, crazy images anyone can see.

quasar2010

Start off with this image from the European space agency:-
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Mars%20Express&single=y&start=446
Download the hi res image and put it in Adobe Photoshop which is an industry standard piece of software.
Zoom in on the area at the very end of the central mountains which are located in the crater. This is the area to the bottom left of the mountains.
All you have to do is put the image into negative, adjust the brightness and contrast and you come up with these crazy pictures. Strange stuff indeed.

namloc1980

You've discovered image compression artifacts.

quasar2010

namloc1980 wrote: »

You've discovered image compression artifacts.

Is that a fact? Well its strange because the exact same objects are in the exact places taken from different locations, the objects are pointing in the same directions.
So how would you explain that Namloc?
Image compression, pixel distortion appearing in different pictures, in the same location from different camera locations?
I'm not just talking about camera locations nearby, i'm talking about locations 1000's of KM's apart.
I don't know what these objects are but it is nothing to do with either image compression or pixel distortion I can assure you.

quasar2010

quasar2010 wrote: »

Is that a fact? Well its strange because the exact same objects are in the exact places taken from different locations, the objects are pointing in the same directions.
So how would you explain that Namloc?
Image compression, pixel distortion appearing in different pictures, in the same location from different camera locations?
I'm not just talking about camera locations nearby, i'm talking about locations 1000's of KM's apart.
I don't know what these objects are but it is nothing to do with either image compression or pixel distortion I can assure you.

Dude, looking at the raw picture on the site shows these exact same compression artefacts.

None of the altered pictures you provided show "the same structures from different angles".

What exactly is the point of you photo editing? Why would tweeking the brightness and contrast show things that have been edited out?
Why did they release these photos all at if it was so easy to see something they don't want you to see?

namloc1980

Yes it is a fact. The image you linked to is highly compressed. It is 2,283 × 1,522 pixels yet it's only 1.1MB in size. That is a fairly small file size for a such a large image and can only mean that the image is highly compressed. Anyone who has worked with digital images knows that compression decreases fine detail and leaves blocks of data as can be seen in that image.

Why didn't you see if you could find a higher resolution image and less compressed image of the same area? There are plenty of them to be found. Here's is one from the same ESA website taken by the same spacecraft of the same Crater (click the image for higher resolution image):


Photo: ESA

This full size image is 3.1MB and is much less compressed than the one you posted. As a result there is no sign of the artifacts and "structures" that you claimed. Can you explain? Remember the same spacecraft took these images and according to the caption on the ESA website they were taken on the same day on the same orbit in June 2004.

Or what about this image:

Click

(I didn't insert full image as it is over 7MB and would be huge). It is an image of the floor of Hale Crater in the same area as soe of the heavily compressed stuff in the first image. As you can see there are no structures visible. Here is a link to the image page with a map showing what part of Hale Crater it is Link.

So either one of two things is correct:

1. All of the images are genuine images of Mars but the original one posted by the OP has compression artifacts which wipe out any fine detail and create blocks of data which is common in image compression. This is further supported by the small size of the image file relative to the pixel size of the image i.e. compressed.

OR

2. The original image posted by the OP is the only genuine image and the other two much higher resolution/less compressed images are faked.

I know which one I think is correct having dug just a bit deeper and not just making wild assumptions without fully investigating the matter.

squod

namloc1980 wrote: »

You've discovered image compression artifacts.

Says you.

namloc1980

squod wrote: »

Says you.

Read my previous post. I simply kept an open mind, considered ALL the available evidence and didn't just jump to conclusions.

quasar2010

King Mob wrote: »

Dude, looking at the raw picture on the site shows these exact same compression artefacts.

None of the altered pictures you provided show "the same structures from different angles".

What exactly is the point of you photo editing? Why would tweeking the brightness and contrast show things that have been edited out?
Why did they release these photos all at if it was so easy to see something they don't want you to see?

Wow wow wow, slow down. I havn't edited anything. Just brightened the existing edges up. I havn't insisted anyone has been hiding anything, I havn't suggested Alien life or anything and everyone is assuming things.
I will show 2 different pictures with the same detail on, then people can decide whether it is compression artifacts.
I will return shortly.

quasar2010

quasar2010 wrote: »

Wow wow wow, slow down. I havn't edited anything. Just brightened the existing edges up.

Actually you said:

All you have to do is put the image into negative, adjust the brightness and contrast and you come up with these crazy pictures.

And brightening something counts as editing.

quasar2010 wrote: »

I havn't insisted anyone has been hiding anything, I havn't suggested Alien life or anything and everyone is assuming things.

So what are you suggesting then? Why do you have to edit the photo in the first place, if it's not hide and the same compression artefacts are visible without it?

quasar2010 wrote: »

I will show 2 different pictures with the same detail on, then people can decide whether it is compression artifacts.
I will return shortly.

So why didn't you post that one first?

quasar2010

OK here we go, two pictures, the first one is crater hale perspective looking west, the second one is crater hale perspective looking north west, no editing just zoomed in on both the original images.
Looking at the patterns on the ground and get your measuring devices out because both patterns are identical and in the exact same place on two seperate photographs.
So do compression artifacts prefer to location find on the ground?
I don't think they do somehow.

quasar2010

For anyone who can't see them i've outlined them.

quasar2010

I absolutely love it, King mob and namloc's theories blasted out of the water in 10 minutes. Come on boys explain this one with your compression artifacts.
You've been destroyed - admit it.

What are the two sources for the two different views?
Would you might posting links to the full versions of the pics you used?

gizmo

quasar2010 wrote: »

I absolutely love it, King mob and namloc's theories blasted out of the water in 10 minutes. Come on boys explain this one with your compression artifacts.
You've been destroyed - admit it.

Looks like macro blocks to me, at least in the last couple of pics you posted.

quasar2010

King Mob wrote: »

What are the two sources for the two different views?
Would you might posting links to the full versions of the pics you used?

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Mars%20Express&start=38
and...

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Mars%20Express&start=37

first one is crater hale perspective looking west, second one is crater hale perspective looking north west

So quasar why do you think that both of those photos only seem to cover a large square then has nothing but blackness beyond that square?

This and a few other hints on other pictures in this gallery, like this one where it seems that the mountain is cut off:
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Mars%20Express&single=y&size=b&start=447

And that the fact the probe would only be taking photos of straight below, not at an angle means these images you're using are not from two different perspectives on Mars, but two different perspectives of a 3-D model produced from the probe.
First it determines the heights and elevations of the area, forming a 3-D model which then has the flat 2-D image (most likely this one http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Mars%20Express&single=y&size=b&start=448 ) overlaid on top to produce the image.

quasar2010

Thats lame. If that were the case, we would not see either side of any mountain regions in shadow that is of true perspective. I know what you are saying but such images rely on far more images digitally spliced together than you are allowing in your explanation.
According to your explanation there can only be 2 or 3 images to splice the whole region together.
Besides that, when images are spliced together to form 3d panoramic views pixel distortion and compression issues do not appear the same across the entire picture, the splicing forms its own distortion which can be viewed and recognised.
Splicing programs do not copy compression distortion and pixelization from one angle to another.
Try again.

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

I absolutely love it, King mob and namloc's theories blasted out of the water in 10 minutes. Come on boys explain this one with your compression artifacts.
You've been destroyed - admit it.

Perspective looking west and looking north-west are different perspectives of the same 3D model as King Mob said. This is absolutely hilarious, you're clinging onto nonsense here and you still haven't come back in relation to the much higher resolution images posted above of the same area that don't show these artificats. Care to explain or is it that you can't and are just cherry picking the images that show artifacting?

Have you not considered that the image in your OP is only 1.1 MB and therefore has to be compressed and shows things that look remarkably like compression artifacts? Or are you too close-minded to consider this. Why doesn't the high resolution image of the floor of the crater show any structures. Until you can come back on these issues then I can only assume you are cherry picking and your point is moot.

quasar2010

namloc1980 wrote: »

Perspective looking west and looking north-west are different perspectives of the same 3D model as King Mob said. This is absolutely hilarious, you're clinging onto nonsense here and you still haven't come back in relation to the much higher resolution images posted above of the same area that don't show these artificats. Care to explain or is it that you can't and are just cherry picking the images that show artifacting?

Have you not considered that the image in your OP is only 1.1 MB and therefore has to be compressed and shows things that look remarkably like compression artifacts? Or are you too close-minded to consider this. Why doesn't the high resolution image of the floor of the crater show any structures. Until you can come back on these issues then I can only assume you are cherry picking and your point is moot.

Because the hi res pictures are taken from a perspective that can show no shadows and light reflections. The angle of the pictures I chose were at a tangent to the ground allowing for such images to be reflected.
Tell you what to do, you find me any pictures that have compression artifacts that come anywhere near these, where complex 3d shapes are formed and I'll concede.

Monty Burnz

quasar2010 wrote: »

For anyone who can't see them i've outlined them.

What the hell are these supposed to be??
Congratulations, you've found conclusive evidence of smudges on the surface of Mars!

quasar2010

King Mob wrote: »

So quasar why do you think that both of those photos only seem to cover a large square then has nothing but blackness beyond that square?

This and a few other hints on other pictures in this gallery, like this one where it seems that the mountain is cut off:
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Mars%20Express&single=y&size=b&start=447

And that the fact the probe would only be taking photos of straight below, not at an angle means these images you're using are not from two different perspectives on Mars, but two different perspectives of a 3-D model produced from the probe.
First it determines the heights and elevations of the area, forming a 3-D model which then has the flat 2-D image (most likely this one http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=I&mission=Mars%20Express&single=y&size=b&start=448 ) overlaid on top to produce the image.

Mr expert, what can you tell me about the picture in your first link?
There is something very wrong about this picture which can be corrected with the right knowledge.
What is it? its really simple but lets see if you knowledge of digital photography can put it right.

Monty Burnz

quasar2010 wrote: »

Mr expert, what can you tell me about the picture in your first link?
There is something very wrong about this picture which can be corrected with the right knowledge.
What is it? its really simple but lets see if you knowledge of digital photography can put it right.

I don't see what digital photography has to do with that - it's not a photograph, is it? If you're interested in getting an opinion/explanation as to whether these are image compression artifacts or not, you could ask the people on the photography forum - those guys are the real experts on image compression.

quasar2010

quasar2010 wrote: »

Thats lame. If that were the case, we would not see either side of any mountain regions in shadow that is of true perspective.

I said that the picture was taken from directly above, and that they rendered a select area inside that square. Outside of that square is just black.

What do you think is the reason for this blackness?

quasar2010 wrote: »

I know what you are saying but such images rely on far more images digitally spliced together than you are allowing in your explanation.
According to your explanation there can only be 2 or 3 images to splice the whole region together.

No I specifically pointed to the single image that would cover the square.
HRSC the instrutment that took these images produces every high resolution large area photos.

quasar2010 wrote: »

Besides that, when images are spliced together to form 3d panoramic views pixel distortion and compression issues do not appear the same across the entire picture, the splicing forms its own distortion which can be viewed and recognised.

But you've either misunderstood me or misrepresented me. I specifically stated that there was one model with one photo overlaid
If the pixelisation was on the image it would be on that model and in the same place and orientation regardless of perspective
.

quasar2010 wrote: »

Splicing programs do not copy compression distortion and pixelization from one angle to another.
Try again.

Unless it's one image taken at one angle overlaid a model of the measured elevation inside the square.

So what exactly is your explanation of the pure blackness outside of the square?

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

Because the hi res pictures are taken from a perspective that can show no shadows and light reflections. The angle of the pictures I chose were at a tangent to the ground allowing for such images to be reflected.
Tell you what to do, you find me any pictures that have compression artifacts that come anywhere near these, where complex 3d shapes are formed and I'll concede.

The images that you are showing are perspectives from a 3D model built from top down views of the Mars Express as it flew over Hale Crater. They are not actual images taken from those angles by the spacecraft. Why aren't there any structures visible in this image?:


Photo: ESA

It is Hale Crater from Mars Express and is an image from which the perspective images were built. You can see the Sun is coming from the top left of the image and shadows from the mountains etc. Why can't we see shadows from all these structures?

Why can't we see any evidence whatsoever in this very high resolution image of the floor of Hale Crater which has a resolution of 1.5m per pixel? Click for high resolution.


Photo: NASA

The above ESA image from which the 3D model is built has a resolution of 40m per pixel.

quasar2010

quasar2010 wrote: »

Because the hi res pictures are taken from a perspective that can show no shadows and light reflections. The angle of the pictures I chose were at a tangent to the ground allowing for such images to be reflected.
Tell you what to do, you find me any pictures that have compression artifacts that come anywhere near these, where complex 3d shapes are formed and I'll concede.

There is only pictures of things from straight down. The probe cannot do pictures at tangents.
You can simulate this with a model.

And where the hell are you getting the idea that these structures are 3d?

quasar2010

If the pixelisation was on the image it would be on that model and in the same place and orientation regardless of perspective

No it wouldn't. Software compression issues do not re-appear on either spliced or re-mapped digital images. The issue is purely a secondary software issue that appears on digital images. When the image is re-mapped the original issue will appear in a different context. Its not like taking a picture of a picture like you are explaining it, the picture's distortion will not appear again because the raw image is re- processed.

quasar2010

quasar2010 wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Software compression issues do not re-appear on either spliced or re-mapped digital images. The issue is purely a secondary software issue that appears on digital images. When the image is re-mapped the original issue will appear in a different context. Its not like taking a picture of a picture like you are explaining it, the picture's distortion will not appear again because the raw image is re- processed.

You're talking nonsense now.
I never said anything about splicing images or taking a picture of a picture. There is one image, over a 3-d wire mesh like model. Any compression artefacts on the image that is overlaid, either from it's processing or present in the original image would show up on the 3-D and have a set size and orientation regardless of the perspective you're viewing the model from.

The two images you posted are of simulated views of Mars using such a model.
So for the third time, how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?

namloc1980

Quasar2010 click on this link click or this one click. They are perspective images of other parts of Mars taken by Mars Express. You can see the artifacting is all over the image even in the valleys and up the sides of the valleys, on crater walls etc. As we have tried to explain the perspective images are 3D computer models with the 2D top down actual image overlaid on top. This presumably stretches the image and you see some of this stretching especially on the crater and valley walls. This then does not make it representative of the original images taken. Or else the aliens have covered the entire planet including valley and crater walls with strutures that only become apparent when you stretch and manipulate the image onto a 3D model.

looksee

There is a large dark mushroom at the lower edge of the crater on namloc1980's Hale crater photo. I think it is a message.
(that's an amazing photograph).

quasar2010

King Mob wrote: »

You're talking nonsense now.
I never said anything about splicing images or taking a picture of a picture. There is one image, over a 3-d wire mesh like model. Any compression artefacts on the image that is overlaid, either from it's processing or present in the original image would show up on the 3-D and have a set size and orientation regardless of the perspective you're viewing the model from.

The two images you posted are of simulated views of Mars using such a model.
So for the third time, how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?

OK, the pictures have been manipulated to appear at different angles, according to you, the pixel distortion which appears in one particular image is the result of processing and software issues - we have established this. When the next viewing angle is required for a different picture the processor reverts back to the original picture - the one from above not the one it just created with pixel distortion, jesus man its hard to get through to you.
Why would any system create a modified image from an original image then create another image without reverting back to the same original image.
It doesn't take pictures of pictures it created, it always reverts back to the original raw image for its data for the next.
Your hard work

namloc1980

looksee wrote: »

There is a large dark mushroom at the lower edge of the crater on namloc1980's Hale crater photo. I think it is a message.
(that's an amazing photograph).

Looks more like sand dunes....you can just make out the ripples of sand running across it:

Mr Plough

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What the hell are these supposed to be??
Congratulations, you've found conclusive evidence of smudges on the surface of Mars!

Probably a result of the smudge tool in photoshop.

quasar2010

quasar2010 wrote: »

OK, the pictures have been manipulated to appear at different angles, according to you, the pixel distortion which appears in one particular image is the result of processing and software issues - we have established this. When the next viewing angle is required for a different picture the processor reverts back to the original picture - the one from above not the one it just created with pixel distortion, jesus man its hard to get through to you.
Why would any system create a modified image from an original image then create another image without reverting back to the same original image.
It doesn't take pictures of pictures it created, it always reverts back to the original raw image for its data for the next.
Your hard work

This is getting silly.
There is one initial image that is overlaid a three dimensional wire mesh model of the elevation of the area that was photographed.
This image would have compression artefacts on it for various reasons, thus when the image is overlaid onto the mesh the artefacts are still there.
So the artefacts are on the model.
Next you open your 3D model in a program that lets you view it, turn it, zoom in etc. The artefacts form the original image that you used to make the model are still there at the same size and orientation as in the original image.Then you move the model about in your viewer program to simulate what the area would look like, then take a screenshot.
This is what the images you posted are.
This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

And for the fourth time: how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?
Why are you ignoring this question?

Edit: here's a video showing a 3D model of the face on Mars made using the exact same process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXWQdqHLmkk

Here's another showing a crater not unlike the one we're discussing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjlJsw0GIMs

And here's a good one of a canyon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQLd-kbs4Fw

Monty Burnz

King Mob wrote: »

And for the fourth time: how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?
Why are you ignoring this question?

I think you'll find that's the corner of Mars.

Your explanation sounds pretty convincing to me. I'd love to find a few castles and pyramids on Mars, it would be the greatest discovery in history - by sadly I don't think we have any evidence of that sort of thing here.

quasar2010

King Mob wrote: »

This is getting silly.
There is one initial image that is overlaid a three dimensional wire mesh model of the elevation of the area that was photographed.
This image would have compression artefacts on it for various reasons, thus when the image is overlaid onto the mesh the artefacts are still there.
So the artefacts are on the model.
Next you open your 3D model in a program that lets you view it, turn it, zoom in etc. The artefacts form the original image that you used to make the model are still there at the same size and orientation as in the original image.Then you move the model about in your viewer program to simulate what the area would look like, then take a screenshot.
This is what the images you posted are.
This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

And for the fourth time: how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?
Why are you ignoring this question?

No, completely and utterly wrong.
Imagine you have an aerial picture and you want to create a simulated picture from a particlar angle - the west. The processor takes the available data and re-creates the image for you. Very simple.
Lets say the newly created picture has distortions because of this process.
Next, you want to create another image from the northwest, what does the processor do to create this image?
It reverts back to the original image to create the angle the best it can. It doesn't go back to the previous picture it created because the previous picture is of the wrong prospective ie - from the west.
The processor creates a complete new simulation without the same distortions it made in the first simulation.
If the processor wanted to create simulations from the north, the west, the east or the south then it will revert back to the original overhead picture not to the one it created previously and replicate the same image distortions.
Or it may combine the original and the west picture together, in which case it would create a different distortion pattern.

Mr Plough

Pretty good site to see th effects of compression to jpeg.

Quasar has a point, considering the clarity of the images on the esa site, there is very little compression.

http://www.ammara.com/support/technologies/jpeg.html#JPEG_COMPRESSION

quasar2010

quasar2010 wrote: »

No, completely and utterly wrong.
Imagine you have an aerial picture and you want to create a simulated picture from a particlar angle - the west. The processor takes the available data and re-creates the image for you. Very simple.
Lets say the newly created picture has distortions because of this process.
Next, you want to create another image from the northwest, what does the processor do to create this image?
It reverts back to the original image to create the angle the best it can. It doesn't go back to the previous picture it created because the previous picture is of the wrong prospective ie - from the west.
The processor creates a complete new simulation without the same distortions it made in the first simulation.
If the processor wanted to create simulations from the north, the west, the east or the south then it will revert back to the original overhead picture not to the one it created previously and replicate the same image distortions.
Or it may combine the original and the west picture together, in which case it would create a different distortion pattern.

Except it only has one skin to go on. The actual surface of the model is a photo laid onto a wire mesh.
The actual original overhead photo used to create the skin has these artefacts.
The compression artefacts are inherent to the skin of the model, regardless of perspective or rendering.

And for the fifth time: how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?
Why are you ignoring this question?

Mr Plough

Mr Plough wrote: »

Pretty good site to see th effects of compression to jpeg.

Quasar has a point, considering the clarity of the images on the esa site, there is very little compression.

http://www.ammara.com/support/technologies/jpeg.html#JPEG_COMPRESSION

Unless they used lower res, compressed versions of the overhead images when making the models. Then you'd agree there'd be plenty of artefacts.

Monty Burnz

quasar2010 wrote: »

It reverts back to the original image to create the angle the best it can.

This doesn't make any sense to be honest. If it's only working from one image, and has one model of elevation to work from, it's going to come up with the exact same thing every time. It's just that whatever perspective the 'viewpoint' is placed at, you're going to see different things (e.g. you'll see one side of the hill the first time, and the opposite side of it from the opposite viewpoint). There's no new information in the original picture to make an improved model.

Again, I'm sure there are people on Boards who have intimate knowledge of how such models are created - GIS folks etc. I would suggest though that the idea of one model created from one photo image overlaying one terrain model is correct. You then move your viewpoint around that one model to create the different perspectives (like spectator mode in Counter Strike or whatever).

Mr Plough

King Mob wrote: »

Unless they used lower res, compressed versions of the overhead images when making the models. Then you'd agree there'd be plenty of artefacts.

No... I'm pretty sure I wouldn't actually. On the site I linked to, you can click the lower rez links... as low as 10% quality.
The whole image is affected.
Whereas the images on the esa are crystal clear.

There is no comparison.

Mr Plough

Mr Plough wrote: »

No... I'm pretty sure I wouldn't actually. On the site I linked to, you can click the lower rez links... as low as 10% quality.
The whole image is affected.
Whereas the images on the esa are crystal clear.

I don't understand your point.
Some of the images on the ESA site are of every high resolution, particularly the raw overhead ones from the orbiter.
Even the images used for the model have a very high resolution, but they likely use a lower resolution to the other overhead ones on the site.

I would imagine this is because it makes rendering the models a lot easier.

quasar2010

King Mob wrote: »

Except it only has one skin to go on. The actual surface of the model is a photo laid onto a wire mesh.
The actual original overhead photo used to create the skin has these artefacts.
The compression artefacts are inherent to the skin of the model, regardless of perspective or rendering.

And for the fifth time: how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?
Why are you ignoring this question?

Something you are forgetting here, there are two pictures not one. The creator of the first simulated picture asked a processing system to create an image using available data from an aerial shot and it did just that.
The same creator then asked the same system to create another simulated picture at a different angle from the same aerial shot and it did just that.
King mob is telling us that the the creator of these pictures instead of using the same aerial shot to create each individual picture actually used the newly created west picture to form the newly created northwest picture when that makes absolutely no sense at all.
The big original overlay which king mob explains does not exist in a two stage operation which he imagines. The processor doesn't create an overlay then swivel around it taking pictures. It creates each picture from a completely new original prospective.

quasar2010

quasar2010 wrote: »

Something you are forgetting here, there are two pictures not one. The creator of the first simulated picture asked a processing system to create an image using available data from an aerial shot and it did just that.
The same creator then asked the same system to create another simulated picture at a different angle from the same aerial shot and it did just that.
King mob is telling us that the the creator of these pictures instead of using the same aerial shot to create each individual picture actually used the newly created west picture to form the newly created northwest picture when that makes absolutely no sense at all.
The big original overlay which king mob explains does not exist in a two stage operation which he imagines. The processor doesn't create an overlay then swivel around it taking pictures. It creates each picture from a completely new original prospective.

That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that they used one and only one overhead image to create the overlay on top of a model then they simply moved the model about in a viewer as demonstrated in the videos I posted, then took two separate screenshots of the same model at different angles.

But you know that. You're just trying hard to make a strawman.

So again for now the sixth time: how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?
Why are you ignoring this question?

namloc1980

quasar2010 wrote: »

Something you are forgetting here, there are two pictures not one. The creator of the first simulated picture asked a processing system to create an image using available data from an aerial shot and it did just that.
The same creator then asked the same system to create another simulated picture at a different angle from the same aerial shot and it did just that.
King mob is telling us that the the creator of these pictures instead of using the same aerial shot to create each individual picture actually used the newly created west picture to form the newly created northwest picture when that makes absolutely no sense at all.
The big original overlay which king mob explains does not exist in a two stage operation which he imagines. The processor doesn't create an overlay then swivel around it taking pictures. It creates each picture from a completely new original prospective.

You haven't told us why almost all the perspective images on the ESA website show artifats. You also haven't told us why the much higher resolution images of the floor of the Hale Crater show no sign of these supposed strutures?

Mr Plough

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that they used one and only one overhead image to create the overlay on top of a model then they simply moved the model about in a viewer as demonstrated in the videos I posted, then took two separate screenshots of the same model at different angles.

But you know that. You're just trying hard to make a strawman.

So again for now the sixth time: how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?
Why are you ignoring this question?

Blackness = photoshop.

Mr Plough

Mr Plough wrote: »

Blackness = photoshop.

So why did they photoshop away everything outside the square even is it cuts through a mountain, yet leave the incriminating stuff in the middle?

Does it not look like the borders of the rotating 3D images in the video I posted?

quasar2010

King Mob wrote: »

That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that they used one and only one overhead image to create the overlay on top of a model then they simply moved the model about in a viewer as demonstrated in the videos I posted, then took two separate screenshots of the same model at different angles.

But you know that. You're just trying hard to make a strawman.

So again for now the sixth time: how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?
Why are you ignoring this question?

When those images are rotated in the viewer, there is absolutely no way on this planet that those image distortions can be replicated in a still shot twice.
The same compression distortion that appears on one shot cannot appear on another because of all the data the processor is using at any given time.
Like I have said, the processor is using every available date, not the data contained in just one particular image that for some reason you believe the processor is clung onto for life.
You are completely wrong and you know it.
processors create beautiful things for us to see, the use ALL available data in which to create those images, they DONT swivel around a central overlay remembering the last image, THEY RE-PROCESS EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Mr Plough

King Mob wrote: »

So why did they photoshop away everything outside the square even is it cuts through a mountain, yet leave the incriminating stuff in the middle?

Does it not look like the borders of the rotating 3D images in the video I posted?

They like to wave it in your face but always leave speculation. They know we'll argue like idiots over it. But you can never say they didn't tell you.

Georgia guidestones for example.

Monty Burnz

quasar2010 wrote: »

processors create beautiful things for us to see, the use ALL available data in which to create those images, they DONT swivel around a central overlay remembering the last image, THEY RE-PROCESS EVERY SINGLE TIME.

What is this 'processor' you keep referring to?

How do you know for certain that they use the cumbersome and odd system you describe, rather than the common-sense system that I know for a fact is used in other applications?

And there is no 'last image' - there is a model. The model is composed of a visual image of the surface (the photo, with whatever artifacts are in there) stretched over a wireframe representation of the surface. This is a commonly used system. This model is then rotated at will to show a '3D' image from whatever perspective. This is very simple to understand.

The black bits in the picture are presumably the edges where the single photo ends.

Here's how they do it on Google Earth - surely you can follow this video. I'm referring to the bit at the start where the satellite photo is stretched over the terrain detail that they have. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DndO_Myk20

THEY RE-PROCESS EVERY SINGLE TIME.

No they don't. I think the burden of proof is now on you to show that they do it the odd way that you describe. Good luck with that

quasar2010

quasar2010 wrote: »

When those images are rotated in the viewer, there is absolutely no way on this planet that those image distortions can be replicated in a still shot twice.
The same compression distortion that appears on one shot cannot appear on another because of all the data the processor is using at any given time.
Like I have said, the processor is using every available date, not the data contained in just one particular image that for some reason you believe the processor is clung onto for life.
You are completely wrong and you know it.
processors create beautiful things for us to see, the use ALL available data in which to create those images, they DONT swivel around a central overlay remembering the last image, THEY RE-PROCESS EVERY SINGLE TIME.

This is getting ridiculous now.
I have stated repeatedly that the model uses one image as it's skin.
I am not saying that the compression artefacts are on the images of the model which are on the sight I am saying (have have been saying very clearly in each and every post) that the compression artefacts are on the model itself.

Processors mightn't swivel around an overlay if they are rendering a totally simulated object (but even this seems like a stupid way to do 3d models). However the model is question is not totally simulated because it uses a real photograph as a skin. And this photograph has compression artefacts.

And again for the seventh time: how do you explain the blackness beyond the square area?
Why are you ignoring this question?

the fact you've not even acknowledgeing this question for which there is only one honest answer means you know well you're talking nonsense.

Mr Plough

Mr Plough wrote: »

They like to wave it in your face but always leave speculation. They know we'll argue like idiots over it. But you can never say they didn't tell you.

Georgia guidestones for example.

Or, and bare with me cause this might be crazy, it's an image of a 3-D model of a set area of Mars, and some one is mistaking compression artefacts for something else.

Since you ignored the other question I'll assume you don't want to give the honest answer: Yes, it looks exactly like what happens at the edges of the 3-D model is the videos posted earlier.