New Horizons

[Frida Space]

The one on the left is probably Charon. Pluto is reddish and thus probably has a higher albedo.

Yes, left is Charon, right is Pluto.

Is that an enhanced image (that you enhance yourself) ? Or did you get access to the raw data and process it yourself ?

The LORRI raw images are available to anyone! I just took some images and processed them to make the details emerge. The raw gallery: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php

[r4pt0r]

Just noticed my thread got pushed to the science labs, and I am still the OP!

[Red Iron Crown]

Just noticed my thread got pushed to the science labs, and I am still the OP!

That's my bad. Unfortunately there is no unmerge function. Oh well, still a great thread.

[Kryten]

Latest deconvolved image, from a stacked set of four from yesterday;

and colourised with MVIC data;

[smjjames]

Link to where the deconvolved images are coming from?

[Frida Space]

Link to where the deconvolved images are coming from?

The ones posted above are all user-created. Most of them are shared on this forum http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showforum=20

[KerikBalm]

Well, I'm excited, that deconvolution seems to have brought out a recognizable feature...

So we now have a testable prediction... we should see this feature (and given the tidal locking, we should be able to tell it is the same one by charon's relative position)

If that is an artifact, then this deconvolution is all "hogwash"

[smjjames]

I'm wondering, do the artifacts reproduce exactly the same way every time we look at the same area? If not, then an area that looks the same every time might be a feature and not an artifact.

Also, I wonder what the image looks like before it's been deconvulted.

Edited June 23, 2015 by smjjames

[Fel]

The LORRI raw images are available to anyone! I just took some images and processed them to make the details emerge. The raw gallery: http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php

Just to clarify, those are not raws, they're jpegs which are highly subject to compression artifacts and provide minimal data for detail extraction.

[moronwrocket]

In this case, deconvolution is a mathematical way of separating signal from distortion introduced by your imaging system. No imaging system is perfect, and a point source will have a specific pattern (point spread function) around it. Hubble images with their crosses around bright stars are a great example of this. For smaller telescopes the distortion might be a smudge, or a double image, etc. You can remove some, but not, of the effect with a deconvolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Deconvolution

[Fel]

I'm wondering, do the artifacts reproduce exactly the same way every time we look at the same area? If not, then an area that looks the same every time might be a feature and not an artifact.

It depends on the algorithms being used; see they're not actually extracting data from the pixels, they're manufacturing the data by pushing it through various filters, these filters "create" data based on interpretations of existing data which produce seemingly detailed photos.

Since we're dealing with jpegs instead of RAWs we're also working with a significantly reduced data set (256 colours in black and white), raws often have a significantly larger amount of data (4096 according to NASA) which thus gives more data to work with, more accuracy, etc. JPEGs also have compression artifacts, which are likely to repeat in similar images (i.e. the artifacts are non-random).

You can't really say that repeatability is confirmation, especially when working with "user created" algorithms instead of calibrated ones that have been tested against known objects for comparison.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I'm excited, that deconvolution seems to have brought out a recognizable feature...

So we now have a testable prediction... we should see this feature (and given the tidal locking, we should be able to tell it is the same one by charon's relative position)

https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11214086_10103690392670333_9215096753859609913_n.jpg?oh=f5c3d52e2a1bb26a8ed7fc5a467adee6&oe=561C7D7C

If that is an artifact, then this deconvolution is all "hogwash"

You can see that feature WITHOUT deconvolution

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/data/pluto/level2/lor/jpeg/029723/lor_0297239983_0x630_sci_1.jpg

Look closely, it is clearly and distinctly there

Edited June 23, 2015 by Fel

[Frida Space]

Just to clarify, those are not raws, they're jpegs which are highly subject to compression artifacts and provide minimal data for detail extraction.

I meant "in raw form", meaning that they haven't been processed by human beings.

[benzman]

I may be way behind the times but I did not know about this. From Wikipedia:-

Tombaugh died on January 17, 1997, when he was in Las Cruces, New Mexico, at the age of 90. A small portion of his ashes were placed aboard the New Horizons spacecraft. The container includes the inscription: "Interned herein are remains of American Clyde W. Tombaugh, discoverer of Pluto and the solar system's 'third zone'. Adelle and Muron's boy, Patricia's husband, Annette and Alden's father, astronomer, teacher, punster, and friend: Clyde W. Tombaugh (1906–1997)".

[Frida Space]

I may be way behind the times but I did not know about this. From Wikipedia:-

Tombaugh died on January 17, 1997, when he was in Las Cruces, New Mexico, at the age of 90. A small portion of his ashes were placed aboard the New Horizons spacecraft. The container includes the inscription: "Interned herein are remains of American Clyde W. Tombaugh, discoverer of Pluto and the solar system's 'third zone'. Adelle and Muron's boy, Patricia's husband, Annette and Alden's father, astronomer, teacher, punster, and friend: Clyde W. Tombaugh (1906–1997)".

yes, it's around an ounce or so.

[KerikBalm]

You can see that feature WITHOUT deconvolution

http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/data/pluto/level2/lor/jpeg/029723/lor_0297239983_0x630_sci_1.jpg

Look closely, it is clearly and distinctly there

#1) I hadn't seen the raw data

#2) I don't see the feature based on the image you linked.

Deconvoluted image:

Zooming in on the "raw data" image you linked:

There seems to be a smudge in that area... but nothing I would say looks distinctly crater like.

[lajoswinkler]

It reminds us of craters because there's a brighter patch just right of it, so it looks like a bright rim. However, that part of Pluto is well within its shade so if it really is a crater, its rim would have to be enormous and the whole thing would be sticking out and be visible on rotation.

It's very cool to see the terminator like that.

[georgTF]

I'm not alone in thinking that what i'm seeing here looks a bit like Minmus, am i? I know it's still too far away and pixellated/artificed, and maybe i'm seeing what i want to see, but that planet looks kinda lumpy.

[smjjames]

I'd say wait until we get a heck of a lot closer before determing whether it looks a bit like Mimas or something.

[grawl]

I'm not alone in thinking that what i'm seeing here looks a bit like Minmus, am i? I know it's still too far away and pixellated/artificed, and maybe i'm seeing what i want to see, but that planet looks kinda lumpy.

Definitely with you on this one !

Looks like a planet from the book The Litte Prince as well

It reminds us of craters because there's a brighter patch just right of it, so it looks like a bright rim. However, that part of Pluto is well within its shade so if it really is a crater, its rim would have to be enormous and the whole thing would be sticking out and be visible on rotation.

It's very cool to see the terminator like that.

That brightspot is coherent with the terminator though. That adds to the impression of looking at a massive crater.

Edited June 25, 2015 by grawl

[YNM]

Hmm... AFAIK images from CCDs are FITS or TIFF... So JPEGs would mean a slight processing... no ?

[Kryten]

The images are being converted into JPEG on the vehicle due to low available bandwidth.

[Nuke]

why use a lossy format like that for science, seems like a very bad idea.

[pincushionman]

The RAW files are coming later, they need some data now.

[smjjames]

why use a lossy format like that for science, seems like a very bad idea.

Compromise due to low bandwidth like kryten said?

Still, it's useful for marking potential interesting spots to look at as they flyby.

The RAW files are coming later, they need some data now.

Yeah, like for example, looking for interesting spots that they can aim at, plus being on the lookout for dust and any hidden moons that might become a hazard.

[Meithan]

According to Emily Lakdawalla,

LORRI's images are amenable to lossless compression, especially now when they contain mostly black space; they can be zipped up to about 2.5 Megabits [they're about 12 Mbits uncompressed] without any loss of detail. They can be made even smaller with lossy JPEG compression, but for optical navigation, precision counts; the pictures have to be returned losslessly.

So I'd guess that all science data, which is pretty much most data, is definitely compressed and sent losslessly. It's only when they release images online for the public to view that they might be put in a lossy format.