Dawn at Ceres Thread

[1greywind]

Cropped, enlarged and animated gif:

[Talavar]

Cropped, enlarged and animated gif:

https://astro0.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/ceres_whitespots.gif

BS.. it's not even from the same image. the lighting is completely incorrect, and you can't get that level of detail by zooming in on a photo that is already only 128 pixels Max.. It would get more distorted, not clearer. Quit lying >.< !!!

[Albert VDS]

BS.. it's not even from the same image. the lighting is completely incorrect, and you can't get that level of detail by zooming in on a photo that is already only 128 pixels Max.. It would get more distorted, not clearer. Quit lying >.< !!!

Of course it's not from the same image, otherwise he couldn't make an animated gif.

How is the lighting incorrect?

The Ceres photo's aren't 128x128, the ones on the DAWN website is quite large.

Also the image isn't getting distorted if you enlarge it.

You might mean that it gives a misleading view, but it's still giving the same information when it's enlarged.

[smjjames]

Looks like maybe ice or something.

And to echo vanamonde, seriously people, why are you arguing on the definition of 'white'.

[lajoswinkler]

My point is that powdered silver would have a higher albedo than powdered sugar- silver has a higher albedo than white.

Nope, that's just a measure of how shiny things are. Albedo is about reflected versus impacted radiation, not whether it is reflected in a diffuse or specular manner.

You might mean that it gives a misleading view, but it's still giving the same information when it's enlarged.

Not true. Enlarging it using anything other than pixel resize introduces new pixels. New false information appears. It's a popular nutters' trick when they examine "UFOs", enlarging bugs, stars, birds or planes in the sky and causing all kinds of artefacts in the picture and then claiming "halos" and "energy fields". They do the same with Martian surface photos, where they see goblins, Jesuses, Marys, guns, etc. in the rocks.

[1greywind]

Guy, who made this gif has few more: http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum11/topic2349/?PAGEN_1=57

He say's he used some advanced image processing techniques to make them (I'm not sure that I understand how exactly he made them).

[PB666]

Looks like maybe ice or something.

And to echo vanamonde, seriously people, why are you arguing on the definition of 'white'.

Yeah it's racist, . . . . . .uh .. . . . . .colorist.

Just call the asteroid belt police and tell the people on Ceres left their lights on and you can't sleep.

Problem solved.

[lajoswinkler]

Guy, who made this gif has few more: http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum11/topic2349/?PAGEN_1=57

He say's he used some advanced image processing techniques to make them (I'm not sure that I understand how exactly he made them).

It's all BS. If you have a certain amount of digital photo information, that's it. You can't reveal more.

I've cropped and resized the crater in question. First with basic pixel resizing which doesn't add information, and then with one algorithm.

Remember that even the original image I was using wasn't original raw image. Claiming you can reveal more detail is absolute crap. It's impossible. Nutters use these techniques to claim of "walls" and "structures" on Moon. It's all lies.

[sal_vager]

Guys, the only thing we can learn from these images is that we need better images, which will only happen as Dawn gets closer and NASA releases them.

As pretty as processed images can be they are exactly that, processed, neighbouring pixels blended together, their original values lost.

I recommend everyone sticks to material from NASA on this one, and avoids any 3rd party edited images

[rkman]

Things with an albedo of 0.2 are not white

That depends on exposure.

Ceres has an albedo of 0.1, which is a dark grey. In the images we see most of the surface is medium- to light grey, so it has been over-exposed, which is why light colored features turn up as white in the images.

[bdito]

Someone call CSI. We need their image enhancing capabilities.

[vger]

Someone call CSI. We need their image enhancing capabilities.

Someone already DID call them. The white spots are what showed up under U.V. light. I think we have a scandal here.

[Albert VDS]

Not true. Enlarging it using anything other than pixel resize introduces new pixels. New false information appears. It's a popular nutters' trick when they examine "UFOs", enlarging bugs, stars, birds or planes in the sky and causing all kinds of artefacts in the picture and then claiming "halos" and "energy fields". They do the same with Martian surface photos, where they see goblins, Jesuses, Marys, guns, etc. in the rocks.

The blurring is not OK but, but resizing image while keeping there aspect ratio is.

I'm fairly sure that UFO nuts don't need blurred or otherwise altered images to find grays or lizard people.

[lajoswinkler]

The blurring is not OK but, but resizing image while keeping there aspect ratio is.

I'm fairly sure that UFO nuts don't need blurred or otherwise altered images to find grays or lizard people.

You don't understand what I'm talking about.

Read about it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_scaling

Continue with interpolations on the bottom of the page.

[1greywind]

It's all BS. If you have a certain amount of digital photo information, that's it. You can't reveal more.

I've cropped and resized the crater in question. First with basic pixel resizing which doesn't add information, and then with one algorithm.

http://s7.postimg.org/5eh04d0kr/PIA18920_tworesizings.png

Remember that even the original image I was using wasn't original raw image. Claiming you can reveal more detail is absolute crap. It's impossible. Nutters use these techniques to claim of "walls" and "structures" on Moon. It's all lies.

Who is talking about "more details"? Are you communicating with some voices behind the walls? The gifs I provided only shows more suitable PROJECTION. They are made from this rotation sequence: http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/Ceres_Awaits_Dawn.asp frames from NASA gif animation were projected onto sphere, viewpoints camera was fixed relative to sphere surface and new animation exported.

[LordFerret]

It's all BS. If you have a certain amount of digital photo information, that's it. You can't reveal more.

I've cropped and resized the crater in question. First with basic pixel resizing which doesn't add information, and then with one algorithm.

http://s7.postimg.org/5eh04d0kr/PIA18920_tworesizings.png

Remember that even the original image I was using wasn't original raw image. Claiming you can reveal more detail is absolute crap. It's impossible. Nutters use these techniques to claim of "walls" and "structures" on Moon. It's all lies.

Gaussian blur?

[Darnok]

This one glowing spot looks like photoshoped and it is glowing even being on "dark side". Other spots are white only when they are illuminated... it can be liquid water?

I would love to see this in color.

Or maybe someone forgot to turn off flash on camera?

[dryer_lint]

Interesting. Anyone see that other white spot on the left edge?

It's easier to see in the GIF Aethon posted.

[Camacha]

The blurring is not OK but, but resizing image while keeping there aspect ratio is.

I'm fairly sure that UFO nuts don't need blurred or otherwise altered images to find grays or lizard people.

The problem is that, when not downresizing to an exact multiple of the number of pixels, or even worse, upscaling, you are altering or adding information. This is because algorithms are used for interpolation and extrapolation. Depending on those algorithms, different information will be added.

It is impossible to upscale an image without adding information. The safest way is doing it by doubling the amount of pixels along each axis (replacing every pixel with a square of four pixels of the same colour), but generally smarter methods are used that interpret and add information.

[Albert VDS]

The problem is that, when not downresizing to an exact multiple of the number of pixels, or even worse, upscaling, you are altering or adding information. This is because algorithms are used for interpolation and extrapolation. Depending on those algorithms, different information will be added.

It is impossible to upscale an image without adding information. The safest way is doing it by doubling the amount of pixels along each axis (replacing every pixel with a square of four pixels of the same colour), but generally smarter methods are used that interpret and add information.

Hench aspect ratio. The blur part is the problem, it can make something round(er) than it actually is.

Yes when enlarging(minus blurring) there are more pixels and thus more information in the actual file, but it doesn't magically add a UFOs to it.

[Camacha]

Hench aspect ratio.

Aspect ratio is another form of distortion, but has little to do with up-scaling.

Yes when enlarging(minus blurring) there are more pixels and thus more information in the actual file, but it doesn't magically add a UFOs to it.

It does, kind of. The enlargement is done by an algorithm, which creates information. Depending on the algorithms, patterns and shapes can arise that are not actually there. Combined with a rich imagination, all kinds of wrong observations and conclusions can follow.

Remember that these algorithms are designed to somewhat intelligently make sense of an image, but might not be suited for this specific situation. Code that does an excellent job of enlarging portraits and architectural photo's might get totally messed up by noisy, more or less random patterns.

[Newt]

And usually that code is going to make assumptions which may work when dealing with someones face, or a building, where the photo needs to look decent and you sort of know what should be going on anyway, but is hardly a scientific application. In the case of taking an image for scientific research purposes, you cannot make such assumptions without either stating that you are pretty much leaving the realm of evidence, finding good precedent (were I to look at a small mark on a Ceres image, and guess it were a crater, I would be pretty justified, for example) or looking like a fool. We will wait and see these dots in 3D maps with plenty of better understanding before too long. It just takes a bit of time.

[smjjames]

Interesting. Anyone see that other white spot on the left edge?

It's easier to see in the GIF Aethon posted.

I see three, maybe four, more bright spots. One of them might just be a collapsed crater rim though.

[Frida Space]

CAPTURE CONFIRMED!

[Scotius]

Yay! Go Dawn Also: It look just like the Mun. Harv is a genius