- Thank you received: 0
New image of the Cydonia Face 4-13-06
- Zip Monster
- Offline
- Premium Member
Less
More
18 years 6 months ago #15293
by Zip Monster
Replied by Zip Monster on topic Reply from George
Neil,
I agree - there is good reason to support the artificiality hypothesis for Mars. If you would like to see more reasonable analysis of the two-faced model take a look at The Cydonia Institute's web site:
[url] the2001face.50megs.com/Cydonia/index.html [/url]
Zip Monster
I agree - there is good reason to support the artificiality hypothesis for Mars. If you would like to see more reasonable analysis of the two-faced model take a look at The Cydonia Institute's web site:
[url] the2001face.50megs.com/Cydonia/index.html [/url]
Zip Monster
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 6 months ago #10777
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by starjim</i>
<br />In reading this thread I see a couple of issues that really keep our feet in the mud and it is fast turning hard........
If I process an image on my own is it OK? How do I avoid the complaint of you introduced those artifacts........
We need to agree to agree somewhere.........
<br /> Lets set the parameter of just whose images are acceptable and leave it at that, Laney, Malin, NASA????? If I process an image on my own is it OK? How do I avoid the complaint of you introduced those artifacts...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
starjim, (this is a belated response to a previous message)
Those are fair questions on a subject that we have been bantering back and forth for awhile.
I think there is a fairly straightforward answer to it, although I don't presume to know everything there is to know about the subject. Far from it.
Here are some of the criteria that I think should apply. I don't pretend this is complete or absolutely 100% right, it's just what I think about the subject.:
1. We have to start with the raw data, from some reliable source. In this case we're mostly dealing with MOC data from the MSSS website. If we don't start from the raw data, we have to be able to reproduce the starting image by some know set of steps. As PheoniX_VII said in a previous message, that could mean using a specific program and version. But the key is reproducibility. Plus, we should not add or remove data indiscriminately (that's pretty obvious), except when producing a "key" to be used as a reference to the real data. Or, as Tom has explained many times, we should not introduce "bias".
2. It has long been accepted that contrast and brightness adjustments are acceptable, because they are just making the composition easier to see, and not changing it's basic makeup. Saturation must be avoided in the process, though, because a saturated pixel contains no data.
3. Smoothing and averaging are useful, for the same reason as they are when charting something. They can help in seeing the big picture, without drastically altering the image. But they do need to be explained, because there is always a trade-off when doing this type of filtering. Detail is lost. Some of it may have been noise, and not really there, but some of it is real detail that is lost.
4. As we showed in the Nefertiti topic (and Tom explained) Histogram Equalize is a useful tool for spreading the data over the range of the eye, without introducing bias.
5. I tend to agree with Neil, that "negatives" or "brightness reversal" should not be used as the final product, anymore than you would sit around Thanksgiving Dinner with your family looking at negatives. They may serve some intermediary purpose, though, when trying to "eke" out detail in the image, as would certain more sophisticated techniques used when making measurements, such as Fourier transformations.
6. In general, I think "effects" should be avoided, for anything other than artwork or photography. There are so many wild effects available today, where would one draw the line? That's my personal opinion, there could be exceptions.
As to whether or not "you" did it, or "I" did it, and whether or not we introduced those artifacts, and how to defend ourselves, other than what I said above, I'd have to say that the starting point would be that we have to be able to explain what we did, and take it from there. That's easier said than done sometimes, but we have just as much right to try it as anyone.
rd
<br />In reading this thread I see a couple of issues that really keep our feet in the mud and it is fast turning hard........
If I process an image on my own is it OK? How do I avoid the complaint of you introduced those artifacts........
We need to agree to agree somewhere.........
<br /> Lets set the parameter of just whose images are acceptable and leave it at that, Laney, Malin, NASA????? If I process an image on my own is it OK? How do I avoid the complaint of you introduced those artifacts...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
starjim, (this is a belated response to a previous message)
Those are fair questions on a subject that we have been bantering back and forth for awhile.
I think there is a fairly straightforward answer to it, although I don't presume to know everything there is to know about the subject. Far from it.
Here are some of the criteria that I think should apply. I don't pretend this is complete or absolutely 100% right, it's just what I think about the subject.:
1. We have to start with the raw data, from some reliable source. In this case we're mostly dealing with MOC data from the MSSS website. If we don't start from the raw data, we have to be able to reproduce the starting image by some know set of steps. As PheoniX_VII said in a previous message, that could mean using a specific program and version. But the key is reproducibility. Plus, we should not add or remove data indiscriminately (that's pretty obvious), except when producing a "key" to be used as a reference to the real data. Or, as Tom has explained many times, we should not introduce "bias".
2. It has long been accepted that contrast and brightness adjustments are acceptable, because they are just making the composition easier to see, and not changing it's basic makeup. Saturation must be avoided in the process, though, because a saturated pixel contains no data.
3. Smoothing and averaging are useful, for the same reason as they are when charting something. They can help in seeing the big picture, without drastically altering the image. But they do need to be explained, because there is always a trade-off when doing this type of filtering. Detail is lost. Some of it may have been noise, and not really there, but some of it is real detail that is lost.
4. As we showed in the Nefertiti topic (and Tom explained) Histogram Equalize is a useful tool for spreading the data over the range of the eye, without introducing bias.
5. I tend to agree with Neil, that "negatives" or "brightness reversal" should not be used as the final product, anymore than you would sit around Thanksgiving Dinner with your family looking at negatives. They may serve some intermediary purpose, though, when trying to "eke" out detail in the image, as would certain more sophisticated techniques used when making measurements, such as Fourier transformations.
6. In general, I think "effects" should be avoided, for anything other than artwork or photography. There are so many wild effects available today, where would one draw the line? That's my personal opinion, there could be exceptions.
As to whether or not "you" did it, or "I" did it, and whether or not we introduced those artifacts, and how to defend ourselves, other than what I said above, I'd have to say that the starting point would be that we have to be able to explain what we did, and take it from there. That's easier said than done sometimes, but we have just as much right to try it as anyone.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- neilderosa
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 6 months ago #10778
by neilderosa
Replied by neilderosa on topic Reply from Neil DeRosa
ZM,
I'll look at it, but I honestly can't say I'll change my mind on this, for the reasons I've given. I suppose time will tell who is right.
Neil
I'll look at it, but I honestly can't say I'll change my mind on this, for the reasons I've given. I suppose time will tell who is right.
Neil
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 6 months ago #15878
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by starjim</i>
<br />Gregg
While the explanation of a meteor crashng through and creating heat underneath a metal structure is indeed plausable it has to assume that the face is indeed made of metal.
Jim Miller, You can find anything if you want to!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have no opinion as to the artistic nature of the Face (who or what it portrays). However, overlaying an artificial surface above the ground would probably be the easiest and most economical way to make the Face. In my experience, overengineering is a very rare thing. For instance, the sarcophagus in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid was carefully made in order to contain an exacting amount of "payload" material, but the outside walls were not smoothed and finished at all. It wasn't necessary. Likewise, the 80 ton overhead blocks of granite were carefully cut on sides and bottom for fitting, but the top sides were left unfinished because it didn't matter.
It is interesting to look at objects which are supposedly "divine" or "miraculous" or "impossible" and see where the "architect" minimized his work. In engineering, this is called creative laziness.
One should look for evidence of minimized effort in any artificial structure.
Gregg Wilson
<br />Gregg
While the explanation of a meteor crashng through and creating heat underneath a metal structure is indeed plausable it has to assume that the face is indeed made of metal.
Jim Miller, You can find anything if you want to!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I have no opinion as to the artistic nature of the Face (who or what it portrays). However, overlaying an artificial surface above the ground would probably be the easiest and most economical way to make the Face. In my experience, overengineering is a very rare thing. For instance, the sarcophagus in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid was carefully made in order to contain an exacting amount of "payload" material, but the outside walls were not smoothed and finished at all. It wasn't necessary. Likewise, the 80 ton overhead blocks of granite were carefully cut on sides and bottom for fitting, but the top sides were left unfinished because it didn't matter.
It is interesting to look at objects which are supposedly "divine" or "miraculous" or "impossible" and see where the "architect" minimized his work. In engineering, this is called creative laziness.
One should look for evidence of minimized effort in any artificial structure.
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Zip Monster
- Offline
- Premium Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 6 months ago #10762
by Zip Monster
Replied by Zip Monster on topic Reply from George
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 6 months ago #10763
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Zip Monster</i>
<br />All the detail is still there in both the reversal and the normal view - just like the Face.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ok Zip, I'll admit that was pretty funny. But, I don't know, I'm thinking the turkey on the right looks alot more tasty.
rd
<br />All the detail is still there in both the reversal and the normal view - just like the Face.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ok Zip, I'll admit that was pretty funny. But, I don't know, I'm thinking the turkey on the right looks alot more tasty.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.318 seconds