BREAKING! FINALLY, FIRST COLOUR PICS OF MARS RELEASED BY NASA. Of course still in LOW Resolution!!!

2.5 billion and they photo shop some color onto a half assed pic.

still half assed pics. im waiting until they deploy the full mast and take some proper photos.

Agreed, still totally unimpressed. These are still terrible low res photos, and the colouring is even terrible at best. BULLSHIT!

I returned my 2.5 billion dollar phone BTW.

[link to www.nasa.gov]

its great that they made it to mars with that rover. But this is a terrible picture its too blury to even pic out interesting rocks.
wtf is this shit. Remember the first modern mars rover back in like 1998 or something, that barnacle like rock and it was sharp and clear pictures.

they forgot to color in the sky that fake red color like they usually do.

its a jpg but even the original must have been an even worse compression format because of all the color separation.

And they cant fool me with these low qual pics i have a 10bit pro monitor 2560x1440.

i still think we will see much better images once they have done all the testing and initial planning.
But for 2.5billion you best hope so.

"You see these beautiful layered PS brush markings,"

Haha jokes. I watched the landing. So cool even if just a fairy tale.

The images were taken late Aug. 8 PDT (Aug. 9 EDT) by the 34-millimeter Mast Camera. This panorama mosaic was made of 130 images of 144 by 144 pixels each. Selected full frames from this panorama, which are 1,200 by 1,200 pixels each, are expected to be transmitted to Earth later. The images in this panorama were brightened in the processing. Mars only receives half the sunlight Earth does and this image was taken in the late Martian afternoon.



that is only 1.2MP(mega pixel) GULP! is that the best they can do?????

interesting how they say " the processing" shouldn't the enthusiasts simply be able to access the RAW images just as in the HAZ cam raw images?? they can process the ones for the media, but why no direct raw images?????


[link to mars.jpl.nasa.gov]

You skipped over the three different mentions in that one linked article ALONE that explained that this was stitched from the thumbnails? That the actual images were still in storage waiting to be transmitted?

I bet when you connect your nice digital camera to your computer, you only save the icons and you throw the actual pics away, right? Or you call and complain because you think the bluidy ICON is the image!

If it is anything like other astronomical photography, the original data files are gigabytes and require specialized tools (and understanding) to interpret properly.

Not that this matters to conspiracy-seekers. They thrive on uncorrected digital noise and drop-outs. Heck...they even see buildings and cities in the edges of MCU blocks on a multiply-compressed JPEG.

High Resolution photos that are gigabytes in size? Are you kidding me sir lmao? It better be so clear that you can see molecules at a photo Gigabytes in size lmao. And if you're referring to a data packet gigabytes in size with photos embedded, why not just have software that can download/uploaded photos alone! Cuz I dunno what you are trying to say here, because really no photo can be GIGABYTES IN SIZE. All they have so far are photos that are what 100-500kb maybe? Seriously dude.

Even an uncompressed photo could not reach that level... why would they have software even linked up that links photos Gigabytes in size in the first place? Isn't that a little stupid.

As I understand it (and I've never looked at one myself, just followed along in the blogs of some working astronomers), it basically has an EXIF the size of the original file. All sorts of data and history about each pixel of the detector. After all, an astronomer doesn't want to declare she's found a new supernovae because she got mislead by a cosmic ray hit on the detector.

How it is all listed and encoded I have no idea, but the working stiffs seem to describe it as looking more like a table (and that's the way they interact with it), than like a bitmap.

Gigabyte files are nothing new for the scientific community. They tend to store and send a LOT of data. And all forms of lossy compression are of course abhorred.

For all I know, though, some of the cameras on Curiosity are sending ordinary bitmapped images. And all you'd really need is knowledge of the response curves of the CCDs/the filters in use to reconstruct the original colorspace.

Always been a puzzle to me how exactly you'd go about displaying the "real" color of the Martian surface, though. I mean, to a person, not as a data representation. The "real" color where? If that dirt was Earth, under a blue sky? As seen under artificial light which wasn't in the original picture? To eyes that are adapted (as human eyes do) to the color correction of a studio environment? Or eyes that have color-adapted to the Martian environment?

Once you get outside of "54 lumens at 535 nanometers" and start asking what it "looks" like to those ever-changing and highly adaptable human eyes -- in lighting conditions that aren't anything like those found on Mars -- it gets very hard to define what is the "correct" color.

wow imagine the cam turning, to there suprize they find a old rusty toilet seat from the 80s ..

I have to add...I'm betting a lot of this stuff gets attached after transmission. Because at least some of it is going to describe the transmission itself, dropouts and artifacts and noise and conditions and re-tries and so forth. The actual communications from the spacecraft are low data rates.

Practically speaking, it is worth more to take two or three overlapping pictures, use various comparative algorithms to sort out the noise from the desired data, and then stitch up a photo for general release from that after you've finished with the more important image analysis. You get a lot more useful data that way then trying to send a single picture multiple times in order to resolve transmission errors.

But again I'm guessing, based on blogs I've read an my own experience with similar media.

The essential error, though, is imagining that there is such a thing as a "perfect" capture of the world in any photograph, and that human visual preferences are the only good measure of the scientific utility of an image.

I don't want to know what a nebula "looks like" (pretty much, a dim grey.) I don't want to know what it would "sorta" look like, if you assumed you could boost the brightness but correct for the different response of my rods and cones at different illumination levels. I want to know what the relative luminance of the H2 lines tell me about new star formation.

Well we can be sure about one thing, they didn't go to Mars to take pictures.

My guess is that the camera is just a PR jippo to make people love NASA, not anything they take seriously or even bother much with.

I sent them an e-mail where I offered to lend them my cellphone free of charge next time they're going to Mars. At least it takes better pictures than this.

That looks like a road in front of it. Like an old road thru the desert or something. Sooooo is this just a pic from Iraq or is there occasional traffic thru the crater on Mars?

gigabyes my ass! its not a telescope its a mars rover, they will compress it or else it would take forever to transmit.

1 word.

Mohave.

Prove it. It's all on you now, go find the Curiosity.

Another word, Nibooboo!

Dear NASA (formed by NAZIS)




I give my full consent to any extraterrestrial groups to openly expose you and all the lies you tell.

I believe NASA is what holds humanity back from reaching out to the cosmic family we are all a part of.

How corrupt you are showing ancient technology as today's, and how corrupt you are for not working for humanity and all those that are part of it.

If you work at NASA you should be ashamed of yourself.

By the way you ever noticed their logo is that of a forked tongue:


[link to upload.wikimedia.org]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
"A forked tongue is a tongue split into two distinct tines at the tip; this is a feature common to many species of reptiles. Reptiles smell using the tip of their tongue, and a forked tongue allows them to sense from which direction a smell is coming. Sensing from both sides of the head and following trails based on chemical cues is called tropotaxis.[1] It is unclear whether or not forked tongued reptiles can actually follow trails or if this is just a hypothesis.[2][3][4]"

"The phrase "speaks with a forked tongue" means to deliberately say one thing and mean another or, to be hypocritical, or act in a duplicitous manner. In the longstanding tradition of many Native American tribes, "speaking with a forked tongue" has meant lying, and a person was no longer considered worthy of trust, once he had been shown to "speak with a forked tongue"."

Wow Interesting...

So JayJ do you also give your full consent to extraterrestrials to expose NASA and all its BS?

I reckon if we get 10 posters agreeing we might actually see something.

Consent is what ETs need to move on requests, so the more the merrier! :)

Would it really change anything is what i need to ask lol?

I think so. :P