I think NASA's mission to save its own credibility turned out to be a flop. If any of the UFO community had submitted this garbage as proof that space aliens had landed on the moon and had some sort of land vehicle the UFO community would have been excoriated by the pompous UFO debunkers.
why is it that all these so called propagandists always resort to calling names and defacing and are always angry. if you think you have some info just share it coz if its the truth why should you be bothered if someone else thinks otherwise. if NASA went to the moon, so be it, if someone else thinks otherwise, why not just state your facts without resorting to verbal violence or go watch something else.NASA might be full of intelligent people too bad their followers are immature.
well its obvious to the average NASA employee what has happened, the astronaut has forgotten to set the parking brake and the moonquakes have caused it to roll six miles away.
Most moon landing conspiracy theories are rooted in anti-American bias. The fact this 30 year-old virgin isn't from the US only further bolsters that statement.
ha ha black blob where the rover is parked - lamest image ever.
Given that taking pics of the alleged landing sights wasn't the primary objective of the LRO, and the camera wasn't designed specifically for the supposed landing sites, so why did they even bother to release these (in my opinion pathetic) images?
Man, you really need to read some REAL stuff about image compression, the text shows the same effect because you took them from a screen shot jpeg compressed image. The image WITH the text will always show the same effects as the background because they have superposed the text with the raw image and then they COMPRESSED IT into a jpeg image format. Read ahead, there's plenty of stuff about the artifacts expected in an JPEG image.
Okay, I see that someone has explained to Jarrah about 8x8 JPEG blocks, which is why the image is broken up and compressed in 8x8 blocks. I need to point out that when you put text or arrows over the image and JPEG compress it again, it changes the graphic artifacts in the 8x8 blocks. Objects with sharp and high contrast edges amount to high freq info in that compressed block and that affects the whole 8x8 block. That's normal, so there's no NASA conspiracy there.
@Aurinkohirvi: Well the part with the Arrow affecting the background is definitely a JPEG image, and a quite crappy one at that. As for some of the other images, I don't really know in what form NASA transmits images back to earth. Maybe they're just less compressed JPEG images that are transmitted, but are stored as TIFF files on computers back on earth. But like you say, no raw uncompressed image should show any kind of 8x8 block pattern.
The LRO team merely quickly enhanced that photo. The raw photo shows detail within that "black blob" dark area. Jarrah also only has used screen captures of the raw images as presented by the LRO web site's Zoomify software. The problem is that Zoomify uses JPEG versions of the raw images.
3:38 "...the image is broken into squares of 8 by 8 pixels."
Jarrah, you obviously never did download and examine any of the LRO's true raw 256MB TIFF images. The LRO's raw TIFF images do NOT contain any 8x8 JPEG artifacts. Likewise, regarding the LRO team's published annotated images, those images are JPEGs or are JPEGs converted to PNGs.
And yet you spin this into implying that the photos are fake, knowing full well that you didn't ever download any of the raw TIFF images.
Actually, I downloaded them but they were so large my image-software froze, so I resorted to screen captures. But I managed now to find a computer with Photoshop and open them there. It appears the tiffs are different to what 'Zoomify' shows - they are bright and don't have the 8x8 pattern but all have vertical stripes even when Zoomify doesn't. This explains why the 4x extract has stripes - it was based on the tiff file whereas the 1x extract was based on Zoomify.
You can load those LRO 256MB tiff images in GIMP, but only if you have at least 2MB of RAM installed on your computer. Actually, you can load them in GIMP if you only have 1MB of RAM, but first you must configure GIMP to completely disable all undo actions.
In short, if your computer has 2MB or more of RAM, install GIMP, and then you can load the raw LRO 256MB tiff images successfully. Once loaded, draw a box around the general area of the landing site, then crop and save the image.
Yep. The vertical banding is mostly caused by electrical harmonic noise, but some of it is caused by spacecraft jitter. Anyway, the banding is mostly caused by clocking out the CCD at the very high speed rate needed in order to keep up with the LRO's rapid movement as it orbits the moon in its polar orbit since the vertical component of the image is built up simply by recscanning the camera's 1 pixel high by 5064 pixel wide CCD chip.
So, while I can now account for the stripy 4x oddity, the other points remain and there's now an additional mystery as to why there are 2 mismatching raw files. Also found some interesting details in the tiff files that were not on zoomify. Might bring them up in an addendum.
Zoomify (if you look at their web site) specifically works with jpeg images. Thus the LRO team had to convert the LRO's raw tiff images to jpegs so that they could be used by the zoomify software.
In any event, you have to download the true raw tiff images from the LRO web site for further examination since the zoomify images plus all of the other images which the LRO team has presented have, at some point, been first converted to jpegs. Thus, only the 26MB tiff images are accurate.
@GoneToPlaid What I'm getting from this LRO series, and I've only bothered to watch part 1 all the way through, is that the quality of the photos sent back from LRO, should be, in my suspected opinion of Jarrah's opinion, (long sentence here) absolutely miraculous and crystalline.
And in spite of Jarrah's response to you, your comment is quite valid. The poor guy suffers from paranoid schizophrenia.
yep, this is the work of retardation. And the "Dark" images you speak of are merely negatives on the web. the TIFF has streaking, (it also may be flipped because of LROC components or which of 3 cams was used) but your analysis of JPG nastiness is pretty funny, and somewhat embarrassing. Go smoke some weed, bang your head against the wall and find a new profession. This is insulting to the alternative community, almost as bad as Richard Hoagland's photo "evidence".
@yesiamawizardjonny The LRV is dark for three reasons. First , the LRV's frame is covered with a fine layer of lunar regolith. Disturbed regolith is darker than undisturbed regolith. That is also why the astronaut foot paths are darker than the surrounding terrain. Second, the raw LRO images are companded images which compress the NAC sensor's 12-bit dynamic range via a square-root-like companding scheme to an 8-bit dynamic range. Companding makes dark areas appear even darker. More...
@yesiamawizardjonny And third, the inherent 12-bit dynamic range (0 to 4095 shades of gray) is horrible compared to any modern 16, 24, 32 or 48-bit digital camera. The result is that the LRVs themselves are underexposed in comparison to the surrounding terrain when the LRO photographs the scene at high sun elevations.
@yesiamawizardjonny Again, the NAC cameras have a limited inherent dynamic range of only 0 to 4095 since they are 12-bit cameras. And the LRO team can control the inherent gain of the CCD sensors or how the 0 to 300K electrons in each detector well get mapped out to the 12-bit range. The result is that dark areas on the lunar surface can be underexposed, just as would occur with conventional film on a sunny day where shadow details are underexposed.
I was thinking, a tiff photo can have a 16 bit greyscale with 65536 shades of grey, while normal "true colour" 16 million colour images only have 256 shades of grey.
Could this, and the computer colour display depth (or the imaging program greyscale depth) result into showing "sub-pixls" in the tiff raw image pixel, when it is magnified?
Anyways retouching tiff images shouldn't change them, if they do edit them (add text or something).
continuing a bit (as run out of space in the previous post).
If you have a 32bit colour depth in your computer desktop settings, that equals to 24bit RGB colour depth (the extra 8 bits do not add to the available colours!).
That 24bits is called "true colour" and can show about 16 million colours, each colour 8bit depth. Giving you 256 shades of grey.
Good points. There's any number of mundane explanations for what Jarrah sees as evidence of some kind of tampering or subterfuge. If he had genuine questions, he could always put them to the LROC imaging team and find out the asnwers that way.
Sorry for the terse reply -- I used a jackhammer for 3 hours yesterday and my arms last night felt like spaghetti. "No" was all that I could type on my keyboard!
When you zoom in on a 16bit tiff image, then merely the individual pixels are shown -- unless you are using a program for viewing the 16bit tiff images which automatically subsamples the image when zooming in. The computer's graphic card driver and most graphics programs do not resample the image on the subpixel level when zooming.
@GoneToPlaid Normally you make a lot of sense but this time your explanation does not make sense. The sub-sampeling has nothing to do with 16 bit or TIFF. The 16 bit represents the number of grey levels. Which most monitors cannot show.
Something tells me that you are trying to explain something differently.
16bit represents the data range for the image. 8bit images have gray tone real numbers ranging from 0 to 255. 16bit images have gray tone real numbers ranging from 0 to 65535. CRT monitors with analog VGA inputs can display the full dynamic range of a 16bit image, but only if the graphics card and software support displaying 16bit gray scale images without having to do any data downscaling to 8bit. Your eye, of course, can't discern 65535 individual shades of gray.
GoneToPlaid, it's not a driver issue and every graphic displaying application needs to deal with it. And when zooming in, it's upsampling or interpolating.
Some applications solve it easy: they downscale the image, downsampling the 16 bit greyscale into a 8 bit greyscale image.
But if your application can maintain the 16 bit greyscale (e.g. Photoshop), and your desktop greyscale depth is only 8 bits (as it usually is), it needs to solve the issue differently.
If you do not magnify the image, the application will use the 8 bit 256 shades of grey to show you the best possible match to the actual image information.
When you zoom in, the application now has more than one display pixels in its use per an image information pixel.
The application still uses the 8 bit 256 shades of grey (as you have no more in your use), but adding the pixels it uses the 16 bit greyscale information.
The application can use different algorithms to show these added pixels. "Nearest neighbor" makes all the new pixels same colour. But supersampling uses different 256 shades of grey, averaging a larger area show that it appears best match to the 16 bit greyscale information.
Anyways, it is a greyscale depth issue apparently, as these are tiff images.
Right. Basically, depending on the brightness, contrast and gamma slider settings in effect when viewing a 16bit tiff image, the graphics program basically converts a window of 16bit data to 8 bit for output to the graphics card driver.
MaxIm DL is a program which is capable of displaying 16bit, 32bit, 64bit and unlimited bit depth tiff images.
The first time i looked at the LRO images i was laughing my guts out. I was thinking to my self "maybe that small dark pixel to the left is half the LEM and the pixel to the right is the moon buggey". People are even telling me they can see footpaths from theses images. fottpaths!? i can barely discern anything "only craters" and these guys see footpaths. Its probably something psychological. Appollogist believe so hard that they choose to see the things NASA claims are on the images
You can't have seen the latest images from the 50km orbit. Tracks are clearly visible in several images, take Apollo 11 for example.
3w's dot nasa gov/images/content/400202main_lroc_apollo11_20091109_full dot jpg
Tracks very clear around the LM, leading to the flag, West Crater, and science expts to the south. If you can't see them, might be an issue with your monitor settings.
6:50 "If this were a raw image, it wouldn't be possible to extract an image any clearer than what's here"
Wrong!
Investigate deconvolution, as GTP proposed.
Before it had its lens fixed, blurred Hubble images were improved using deconvolution techniques. That's just one way of improving a RAW image. Your argument fails.
Before it had its lens fixed, are you insinuating, that the LRO camera, not only is the most crappy camera you could've expected to put on a mission of such an important scale, but have its lens damaged?
I was talking about Hubble. It lens was ground wrongly due to incorrectly calibrated equipment. The blurred images were able to be much improved using deconvolution algorithms. Ergo, it IS possible to extract a clearer image from a raw image, contrary to what JW states. That renders the rest of that particular argument false.
My advice is, contact the LROC team, let them know about your doubts, ask them to explain, listen to their explanations. But don't storm in telling them there camera is crappy, and that it should be smaller so it has a higher resolution, or that weight is just an excuse, because they'll probably just think you're wasting their time and ignore you.
So far, you are the one wasting everyone time, with your insinuation, that a crappy camera (a fact, there is no two way around this hard fact, that their camera is crappy, it is established)
will be what you need to study the moon, while considering, that unlike earth orbit, you don't see orbiting probe around the moon launched every few weeks, so you can be certain, that they will put the best camera they can fit in, and this one is crappy.
Well, who am I to gainsay a Youtube warrior who clearly knows more about spacecraft optics than the entire LRO/LROC team! I'm sure they'll be grateful for your constructive input once you contact them and Kodak to ask for explanations re the "burned out" rover.
HLAR ... I'm afraid your condescending tone and lame Hubble non compare "rebuttal" won't help in your defense of NASA's crappy LRO camera very much.. but you have learned well from your mentors MID and Jay "Even if Neil Armstrong himself admitted it was a hoax, I still wouldn't believe it" Windley.
The state of denial among all of the Apollogists is quite profound.. and all I can say to that, is that I'm glad I don't allow NASA, the US government and Occam's Razor to do my thinkng for me.
Actually I had a small part to play with the Hubble and helping to resolve the conflicting issues of servo drive motors and a out of spec mirror. So without the specific knowledge of what is causing the resolution problem and having a known control you are just slapping paint over rust and acting like it is fixed.
JW stated that you can't extract more information from a raw image. I gave Hubble as an example that proves him wrong. There are several issues affecting the clarity of the LROC images that can be examined in order to improve the quality of the pictures, I expect enhanced images at some point.
Burlbark said, "without specific knowledge what is causing the resolution problem" you can't fix it. I think he has a point.
With Hubble it was known how the lens distortion changed the light pathways, and thus they could use deconvolution to calculate new images.
If JW said you can't extract more information from the raw image, basically that's right. At least not with deconvolution. It can clear blurs but does not ADD information. In fact the result is an estimation, and not even real data.
Why must they take the highest quality (i.e. resolution) camera available? Why do you not understand that there are other considerations, such as payload size, data transmission rates? One of the mission objectives was to map possible future landing sites with 1m resolution, they've exceeded that with 0.5m resolution, and still people allow their own ignorance of the LRO mission to smugly insist it should have been done their way?
Why must they NOT take the highest quality camera they can fit in? Are you aware, that the size tend to get smaller even though they get BETTER resolution?
the space or weight is a lame excuse, since more likely lower quality camera will be heavier and bigger! this is how technology goes today for the camera.
What is your excuse for this? Let me tell you this, you have none, there is NO EXCUSES! to not bring the best matarial, in a moon orbit mission, you don't go to moon orbit every day.
If you really think that the size of the camera gets smaller as the resolution gets better, there's little point in continuing.
If you think that space and weight considerations aren't important in space missions, there's little point in continuining.
You've demonstrated zero knowledge, and nothing but resistance to educating yourself on the matter and finding out the truth - perfect bait for JWs videos.
I said, the technology as it evolve currently, is making smaller component YET allowing better resolution, this is a fact, by misrepresenting by insuniating, that i meant that YOU HAVE to have smaller camera to get a better reoslution, you are only showing that you have nothing to counter the hard fact, that their camera is shitty.
Your argument makes little sense. How do you know the camera isn't as small as possible (weight considerations again) using new technology, yet still manages an impressive 0.5m resolution, which is better than required for the stated primary mission objectives? You did read up what they are? Why must they image every pebble just to satisfy you? Even if they did, would you not just say the images are fake anyway?
An impressive .5m resolution you say? ONLY TWICE better than what they already got 40+ years ago! is that impressive for you? Is that impressive, compared to the GeoEye .4 resolution at 650km up? No, nothing is impressive here, or yes, something is impressive, and this is your inability to realize that their camera is nothing close of impressive, and that it is crappy.
And your weight argument is bull, there is no direct relation with the capacity of the captor, and the increase in weight, because of how technology goes, it tend to get smaller and lighter, while being more powerfull/sensitive, it how it goes today, and you still fail to comprehend, that you don't have an moon orbit opportunity every 3 days, this is not earth orbit we're talking about, you MUST bring the best material, there is again, no excuses to be found here.
Please feel free to contact any space agency of your choosing, public or private, and tell them that weight considerations when it comes to space experiments are bull, I'm sure they'd be most interested to hear your re-writing of orbital mechanics and Newton's Laws.
That is the second time, that you try this misrepresentation of my argument! Apparently, my first answer didn't get through. Again, the weight consideration is one thing, and your premise, that a better camera will absolutely have to weight more, and in this case too much to be considered worthy, is another one, that is what I called bull; no one, here, is saying that weight consideration is bull; your vision of the weight consideration for a better camera, is bull.
Your argument is still nonsense. Let's say you wanted to put the GeoEye scope in lunar orbit. It's HEAVIER than the LROC NAC, so you have to drop other experiments off the LRO, such as LOLA, CraTER, LAMP, LEND, DIVINER, mini-RF. Now, justify discarding them, just so you can have higher res images than are required of the primary mission objectives.
Don't take my word for it: contact the LRO team and tell them their camera is crappy and their reasons for not taking a higher res one are bull.
You have ONLY twice higher resolution images, that they already got 40 years ago, that should ring a bell to anyone with even a vague idea of common sense, but for YOU, everything is fine right ? their camera that is allegedly orbiting at 50km of the lunar surface, without any atmospheric effect to counter (unlike the 650 km orbiting earth satellite) is having only the same, if not inferior resolution that this earth satellite! And it is normal ? Give me a break, and yeah, Happy New Year.
It's difficult to continue this discussion. If they wanted to, and had the money, they could probably have put a camera similar to GeoEye in lunar orbit. That would almost certainly have meant losing other experiments such as LOLA and LCROSS, and what would they gain? Photos of billions of pebbles. What would they lose? All the other valuable data, such as the 3D laser mapping data.
HLAR: How do you know a camera of greater accuracy would add weight? And so much more that they would have lost other scientific devices? Considering other imaging gadgets, it generally does not add weight.
I'm with fivemorex5 here, you don't get oppprtunities to send cameras orbiting the Moon too often, so you should try to get the best you can.
Obviously, there could be other reasons than weight why they chose this camera. Or... can't dismiss it, it could be a conspiracy.
Very basically, bigger = better resolution. (Heavier lens/mirror etc). As an example, the GeoEye camera is a LOT bigger than LROC, but then it needs to be in order to get 0.5m (commercial) res at 650km. LROC needs to be the size it is to get 0.5m res at 50km, which is required to fulfill 1 of the 2 primary mission objectives.
Engineering is almost always about compromise, not "the best" or "most expensive".
Why don't you enquire as to what may contribute to this effect, rather than believing JWs explanation? You could contact the LRO team, or the LROC team, or even the manufacturers of the Kodak KLI-5001G detector used in the NAC of the LROC.
Or are you happy just to accept JWs insinuations at face value, without bothering to check the facts?
I did checked the facts, this picture show a black splotch en lieu of a supposed LRV
And the camera is crappy, since it can't resolve better resolution than another camera put in an earth orbiting satellite at 650 km! Are you denying these facts? Are you trying to say, that the black splothc, in in fact a perfectly distinguishable LRV, and that the camera resolution is amazing? And to return your question, are you happy just accepting NASA's insinuations at face value?
What have you done to find out what might contribute to the LRV looking like that? Anything, or nothing?
Crappy camera? Do you understand that it takes more fuel to get a payload into lunar orbit than Earth orbit? That the LRO payload contains 9 experiments, all vying for weight, space and bandwidth? That LCROSS and LRO were launched to the moon on the same rocket? That the LROC NAC is possibly going to be smaller than GeoEye? Your answer suggests not.
@ Jarrah What do you think of the new LRO images?
benzomerc 5 months ago in playlist More videos from WhiteJarrah
I think NASA's mission to save its own credibility turned out to be a flop. If any of the UFO community had submitted this garbage as proof that space aliens had landed on the moon and had some sort of land vehicle the UFO community would have been excoriated by the pompous UFO debunkers.
mujaku 6 months ago in playlist More videos from WhiteJarrah
why is it that all these so called propagandists always resort to calling names and defacing and are always angry. if you think you have some info just share it coz if its the truth why should you be bothered if someone else thinks otherwise. if NASA went to the moon, so be it, if someone else thinks otherwise, why not just state your facts without resorting to verbal violence or go watch something else.NASA might be full of intelligent people too bad their followers are immature.
azraelblame 11 months ago
well its obvious to the average NASA employee what has happened, the astronaut has forgotten to set the parking brake and the moonquakes have caused it to roll six miles away.
datzfast 1 year ago
Most moon landing conspiracy theories are rooted in anti-American bias. The fact this 30 year-old virgin isn't from the US only further bolsters that statement.
Drpepper687 1 year ago
at 2:30 you say that your seeing an overhesad view of the rover.its more of a birds eye view (constructive criticism) :)
wardydave 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Gee, maybe from the LRO web site. Just a thought.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Uh, no, since each original file is 256 megabytes in size. Go download them for yourself and then learn how to process and enhance them.
GoneToPlaid 1 year ago
Jarrah, have you seen the alleged site of apollo 11 on google earth?? Explore -> moon
The lander location is the same colour as the undisturbed regolith.
I haven't looked into what exact image google earth use for this, but google earth prolly doesn't allow it's images being used on YT
blank000blank 2 years ago
I use Google Earth screen captures in my videos all the time.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
ha ha black blob where the rover is parked - lamest image ever.
Given that taking pics of the alleged landing sights wasn't the primary objective of the LRO, and the camera wasn't designed specifically for the supposed landing sites, so why did they even bother to release these (in my opinion pathetic) images?
blank000blank 2 years ago
Man, you really need to read some REAL stuff about image compression, the text shows the same effect because you took them from a screen shot jpeg compressed image. The image WITH the text will always show the same effects as the background because they have superposed the text with the raw image and then they COMPRESSED IT into a jpeg image format. Read ahead, there's plenty of stuff about the artifacts expected in an JPEG image.
smlbstcbr 2 years ago
where can i find the "jumbling effect" in photoshop?
kooldog98 2 years ago
Okay, I see that someone has explained to Jarrah about 8x8 JPEG blocks, which is why the image is broken up and compressed in 8x8 blocks. I need to point out that when you put text or arrows over the image and JPEG compress it again, it changes the graphic artifacts in the 8x8 blocks. Objects with sharp and high contrast edges amount to high freq info in that compressed block and that affects the whole 8x8 block. That's normal, so there's no NASA conspiracy there.
Elhardt 2 years ago
Elhardt, you're right, saving an image with a compressed JPEG format will result into 8x8 blocks in the image.
Also making a note here that text can be rendered on an image so that the edges are smoothed, or that they remain sharp.
However, Jarrah says these are RAW images. Listen video time starting 03:47 and again 06:45. Jarrah doesn't think he is looking at JPEG images.
If those are lossless TIFF raw images, they naturally should not show JPEG 8x8 compression blocks.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
@Aurinkohirvi: Well the part with the Arrow affecting the background is definitely a JPEG image, and a quite crappy one at that. As for some of the other images, I don't really know in what form NASA transmits images back to earth. Maybe they're just less compressed JPEG images that are transmitted, but are stored as TIFF files on computers back on earth. But like you say, no raw uncompressed image should show any kind of 8x8 block pattern.
Elhardt 2 years ago
The LRO team merely quickly enhanced that photo. The raw photo shows detail within that "black blob" dark area. Jarrah also only has used screen captures of the raw images as presented by the LRO web site's Zoomify software. The problem is that Zoomify uses JPEG versions of the raw images.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
What "excuses", and why are they impossible? Specifics please.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
3:38 "...the image is broken into squares of 8 by 8 pixels."
Jarrah, you obviously never did download and examine any of the LRO's true raw 256MB TIFF images. The LRO's raw TIFF images do NOT contain any 8x8 JPEG artifacts. Likewise, regarding the LRO team's published annotated images, those images are JPEGs or are JPEGs converted to PNGs.
And yet you spin this into implying that the photos are fake, knowing full well that you didn't ever download any of the raw TIFF images.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Actually, I downloaded them but they were so large my image-software froze, so I resorted to screen captures. But I managed now to find a computer with Photoshop and open them there. It appears the tiffs are different to what 'Zoomify' shows - they are bright and don't have the 8x8 pattern but all have vertical stripes even when Zoomify doesn't. This explains why the 4x extract has stripes - it was based on the tiff file whereas the 1x extract was based on Zoomify.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Hi Jarrah,
You can load those LRO 256MB tiff images in GIMP, but only if you have at least 2MB of RAM installed on your computer. Actually, you can load them in GIMP if you only have 1MB of RAM, but first you must configure GIMP to completely disable all undo actions.
In short, if your computer has 2MB or more of RAM, install GIMP, and then you can load the raw LRO 256MB tiff images successfully. Once loaded, draw a box around the general area of the landing site, then crop and save the image.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Yep. The vertical banding is mostly caused by electrical harmonic noise, but some of it is caused by spacecraft jitter. Anyway, the banding is mostly caused by clocking out the CCD at the very high speed rate needed in order to keep up with the LRO's rapid movement as it orbits the moon in its polar orbit since the vertical component of the image is built up simply by recscanning the camera's 1 pixel high by 5064 pixel wide CCD chip.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
So, while I can now account for the stripy 4x oddity, the other points remain and there's now an additional mystery as to why there are 2 mismatching raw files. Also found some interesting details in the tiff files that were not on zoomify. Might bring them up in an addendum.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Zoomify (if you look at their web site) specifically works with jpeg images. Thus the LRO team had to convert the LRO's raw tiff images to jpegs so that they could be used by the zoomify software.
In any event, you have to download the true raw tiff images from the LRO web site for further examination since the zoomify images plus all of the other images which the LRO team has presented have, at some point, been first converted to jpegs. Thus, only the 26MB tiff images are accurate.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah I suggest you update your video to account for the 8x8 pixel JPEG compression blocks, now that you know the explanation.
Simboiss 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah
So basically you are drawing conclusions based on your inability to use appropriate technology. Typical of you.
MoronAntidote 1 month ago
@GoneToPlaid What I'm getting from this LRO series, and I've only bothered to watch part 1 all the way through, is that the quality of the photos sent back from LRO, should be, in my suspected opinion of Jarrah's opinion, (long sentence here) absolutely miraculous and crystalline.
And in spite of Jarrah's response to you, your comment is quite valid. The poor guy suffers from paranoid schizophrenia.
TremorHellborn 1 year ago
@GoneToPlaid
Ditto. JPG artifacts. 12 years pro here btw. I'm downloading the 500MB Tiff Files now because my mac pro can chew them up for breakfast ;)
liquidPalindrome 11 months ago
yep, this is the work of retardation. And the "Dark" images you speak of are merely negatives on the web. the TIFF has streaking, (it also may be flipped because of LROC components or which of 3 cams was used) but your analysis of JPG nastiness is pretty funny, and somewhat embarrassing. Go smoke some weed, bang your head against the wall and find a new profession. This is insulting to the alternative community, almost as bad as Richard Hoagland's photo "evidence".
liquidPalindrome 11 months ago
Comment removed
yesiamawizardjonny 9 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny The LRV is dark for three reasons. First , the LRV's frame is covered with a fine layer of lunar regolith. Disturbed regolith is darker than undisturbed regolith. That is also why the astronaut foot paths are darker than the surrounding terrain. Second, the raw LRO images are companded images which compress the NAC sensor's 12-bit dynamic range via a square-root-like companding scheme to an 8-bit dynamic range. Companding makes dark areas appear even darker. More...
GoneToPlaid 9 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny And third, the inherent 12-bit dynamic range (0 to 4095 shades of gray) is horrible compared to any modern 16, 24, 32 or 48-bit digital camera. The result is that the LRVs themselves are underexposed in comparison to the surrounding terrain when the LRO photographs the scene at high sun elevations.
GoneToPlaid 9 months ago
Comment removed
yesiamawizardjonny 9 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny Again, the NAC cameras have a limited inherent dynamic range of only 0 to 4095 since they are 12-bit cameras. And the LRO team can control the inherent gain of the CCD sensors or how the 0 to 300K electrons in each detector well get mapped out to the 12-bit range. The result is that dark areas on the lunar surface can be underexposed, just as would occur with conventional film on a sunny day where shadow details are underexposed.
GoneToPlaid 9 months ago
About the raw images and shades of grey.
I was thinking, a tiff photo can have a 16 bit greyscale with 65536 shades of grey, while normal "true colour" 16 million colour images only have 256 shades of grey.
Could this, and the computer colour display depth (or the imaging program greyscale depth) result into showing "sub-pixls" in the tiff raw image pixel, when it is magnified?
Anyways retouching tiff images shouldn't change them, if they do edit them (add text or something).
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
continuing a bit (as run out of space in the previous post).
If you have a 32bit colour depth in your computer desktop settings, that equals to 24bit RGB colour depth (the extra 8 bits do not add to the available colours!).
That 24bits is called "true colour" and can show about 16 million colours, each colour 8bit depth. Giving you 256 shades of grey.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Good points. There's any number of mundane explanations for what Jarrah sees as evidence of some kind of tampering or subterfuge. If he had genuine questions, he could always put them to the LROC imaging team and find out the asnwers that way.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
No.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
No what?
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Sorry for the terse reply -- I used a jackhammer for 3 hours yesterday and my arms last night felt like spaghetti. "No" was all that I could type on my keyboard!
When you zoom in on a 16bit tiff image, then merely the individual pixels are shown -- unless you are using a program for viewing the 16bit tiff images which automatically subsamples the image when zooming in. The computer's graphic card driver and most graphics programs do not resample the image on the subpixel level when zooming.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
@GoneToPlaid Normally you make a lot of sense but this time your explanation does not make sense. The sub-sampeling has nothing to do with 16 bit or TIFF. The 16 bit represents the number of grey levels. Which most monitors cannot show.
Something tells me that you are trying to explain something differently.
obaeyens 2 years ago
16bit represents the data range for the image. 8bit images have gray tone real numbers ranging from 0 to 255. 16bit images have gray tone real numbers ranging from 0 to 65535. CRT monitors with analog VGA inputs can display the full dynamic range of a 16bit image, but only if the graphics card and software support displaying 16bit gray scale images without having to do any data downscaling to 8bit. Your eye, of course, can't discern 65535 individual shades of gray.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
I checked into this.
GoneToPlaid, it's not a driver issue and every graphic displaying application needs to deal with it. And when zooming in, it's upsampling or interpolating.
Some applications solve it easy: they downscale the image, downsampling the 16 bit greyscale into a 8 bit greyscale image.
But if your application can maintain the 16 bit greyscale (e.g. Photoshop), and your desktop greyscale depth is only 8 bits (as it usually is), it needs to solve the issue differently.
(continues)
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
(continued)
If you do not magnify the image, the application will use the 8 bit 256 shades of grey to show you the best possible match to the actual image information.
When you zoom in, the application now has more than one display pixels in its use per an image information pixel.
The application still uses the 8 bit 256 shades of grey (as you have no more in your use), but adding the pixels it uses the 16 bit greyscale information.
(continues 2)
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
(continued 2)
The application can use different algorithms to show these added pixels. "Nearest neighbor" makes all the new pixels same colour. But supersampling uses different 256 shades of grey, averaging a larger area show that it appears best match to the 16 bit greyscale information.
Anyways, it is a greyscale depth issue apparently, as these are tiff images.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Right. Basically, depending on the brightness, contrast and gamma slider settings in effect when viewing a 16bit tiff image, the graphics program basically converts a window of 16bit data to 8 bit for output to the graphics card driver.
MaxIm DL is a program which is capable of displaying 16bit, 32bit, 64bit and unlimited bit depth tiff images.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Amazing! Maybe aliens took the rover for a spin...
Or rather zapped it with a ray gun. Coud explain the darkened ground around it. Can't figure why else it is a black circle.
Seriously, this is way weird.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
The first time i looked at the LRO images i was laughing my guts out. I was thinking to my self "maybe that small dark pixel to the left is half the LEM and the pixel to the right is the moon buggey". People are even telling me they can see footpaths from theses images. fottpaths!? i can barely discern anything "only craters" and these guys see footpaths. Its probably something psychological. Appollogist believe so hard that they choose to see the things NASA claims are on the images
Bilderbergz 2 years ago
You can't have seen the latest images from the 50km orbit. Tracks are clearly visible in several images, take Apollo 11 for example.
3w's dot nasa gov/images/content/400202main_lroc_apollo11_20091109_full dot jpg
Tracks very clear around the LM, leading to the flag, West Crater, and science expts to the south. If you can't see them, might be an issue with your monitor settings.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
ill take a look into it
Bilderbergz 2 years ago
5.12 NASA will you please stop putting your Text messages on the surface of the Moon its making it look quite unsightly
ccc771 2 years ago
wooooow jarrah you have eagle eyes looool.
liquidus2172 2 years ago
6:50 "If this were a raw image, it wouldn't be possible to extract an image any clearer than what's here"
Wrong!
Investigate deconvolution, as GTP proposed.
Before it had its lens fixed, blurred Hubble images were improved using deconvolution techniques. That's just one way of improving a RAW image. Your argument fails.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
Before it had its lens fixed, are you insinuating, that the LRO camera, not only is the most crappy camera you could've expected to put on a mission of such an important scale, but have its lens damaged?
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
I was talking about Hubble. It lens was ground wrongly due to incorrectly calibrated equipment. The blurred images were able to be much improved using deconvolution algorithms. Ergo, it IS possible to extract a clearer image from a raw image, contrary to what JW states. That renders the rest of that particular argument false.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
Is the LRO lens damaged, or its calibrating equipment yes or no?
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
My advice is, contact the LROC team, let them know about your doubts, ask them to explain, listen to their explanations. But don't storm in telling them there camera is crappy, and that it should be smaller so it has a higher resolution, or that weight is just an excuse, because they'll probably just think you're wasting their time and ignore you.
Oh, Happy New Year. :)
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
So far, you are the one wasting everyone time, with your insinuation, that a crappy camera (a fact, there is no two way around this hard fact, that their camera is crappy, it is established)
will be what you need to study the moon, while considering, that unlike earth orbit, you don't see orbiting probe around the moon launched every few weeks, so you can be certain, that they will put the best camera they can fit in, and this one is crappy.
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
Ah, you've established it's a crappy camera!
Well, who am I to gainsay a Youtube warrior who clearly knows more about spacecraft optics than the entire LRO/LROC team! I'm sure they'll be grateful for your constructive input once you contact them and Kodak to ask for explanations re the "burned out" rover.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
HLAR ... I'm afraid your condescending tone and lame Hubble non compare "rebuttal" won't help in your defense of NASA's crappy LRO camera very much.. but you have learned well from your mentors MID and Jay "Even if Neil Armstrong himself admitted it was a hoax, I still wouldn't believe it" Windley.
The state of denial among all of the Apollogists is quite profound.. and all I can say to that, is that I'm glad I don't allow NASA, the US government and Occam's Razor to do my thinkng for me.
straydog02 2 years ago
Actually I had a small part to play with the Hubble and helping to resolve the conflicting issues of servo drive motors and a out of spec mirror. So without the specific knowledge of what is causing the resolution problem and having a known control you are just slapping paint over rust and acting like it is fixed.
burlbark 2 years ago
I can't have explained my point properly.
JW stated that you can't extract more information from a raw image. I gave Hubble as an example that proves him wrong. There are several issues affecting the clarity of the LROC images that can be examined in order to improve the quality of the pictures, I expect enhanced images at some point.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
Burlbark said, "without specific knowledge what is causing the resolution problem" you can't fix it. I think he has a point.
With Hubble it was known how the lens distortion changed the light pathways, and thus they could use deconvolution to calculate new images.
If JW said you can't extract more information from the raw image, basically that's right. At least not with deconvolution. It can clear blurs but does not ADD information. In fact the result is an estimation, and not even real data.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Possibly they could use deconvolution to reduce jitter blur from LRO images. That's just a guess. I don't know if they do.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
NASA "returns " to the Moon, courtesy of Adobe Photoshop.
straydog02 2 years ago 4
Who the fuck are they trying to fool?
They have no excuses to not bring the highest quality camera they could fit in this probe, and this burned rover...
Fivemorex5 2 years ago 2
Why must they take the highest quality (i.e. resolution) camera available? Why do you not understand that there are other considerations, such as payload size, data transmission rates? One of the mission objectives was to map possible future landing sites with 1m resolution, they've exceeded that with 0.5m resolution, and still people allow their own ignorance of the LRO mission to smugly insist it should have been done their way?
Why not read, ask questions, learn?
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
Why must they NOT take the highest quality camera they can fit in? Are you aware, that the size tend to get smaller even though they get BETTER resolution?
the space or weight is a lame excuse, since more likely lower quality camera will be heavier and bigger! this is how technology goes today for the camera.
What is your excuse for this? Let me tell you this, you have none, there is NO EXCUSES! to not bring the best matarial, in a moon orbit mission, you don't go to moon orbit every day.
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
If you really think that the size of the camera gets smaller as the resolution gets better, there's little point in continuing.
If you think that space and weight considerations aren't important in space missions, there's little point in continuining.
You've demonstrated zero knowledge, and nothing but resistance to educating yourself on the matter and finding out the truth - perfect bait for JWs videos.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
I said, the technology as it evolve currently, is making smaller component YET allowing better resolution, this is a fact, by misrepresenting by insuniating, that i meant that YOU HAVE to have smaller camera to get a better reoslution, you are only showing that you have nothing to counter the hard fact, that their camera is shitty.
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
Your argument makes little sense. How do you know the camera isn't as small as possible (weight considerations again) using new technology, yet still manages an impressive 0.5m resolution, which is better than required for the stated primary mission objectives? You did read up what they are? Why must they image every pebble just to satisfy you? Even if they did, would you not just say the images are fake anyway?
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
An impressive .5m resolution you say? ONLY TWICE better than what they already got 40+ years ago! is that impressive for you? Is that impressive, compared to the GeoEye .4 resolution at 650km up? No, nothing is impressive here, or yes, something is impressive, and this is your inability to realize that their camera is nothing close of impressive, and that it is crappy.
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
And your weight argument is bull, there is no direct relation with the capacity of the captor, and the increase in weight, because of how technology goes, it tend to get smaller and lighter, while being more powerfull/sensitive, it how it goes today, and you still fail to comprehend, that you don't have an moon orbit opportunity every 3 days, this is not earth orbit we're talking about, you MUST bring the best material, there is again, no excuses to be found here.
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
Please feel free to contact any space agency of your choosing, public or private, and tell them that weight considerations when it comes to space experiments are bull, I'm sure they'd be most interested to hear your re-writing of orbital mechanics and Newton's Laws.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
That is the second time, that you try this misrepresentation of my argument! Apparently, my first answer didn't get through. Again, the weight consideration is one thing, and your premise, that a better camera will absolutely have to weight more, and in this case too much to be considered worthy, is another one, that is what I called bull; no one, here, is saying that weight consideration is bull; your vision of the weight consideration for a better camera, is bull.
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
Your argument is still nonsense. Let's say you wanted to put the GeoEye scope in lunar orbit. It's HEAVIER than the LROC NAC, so you have to drop other experiments off the LRO, such as LOLA, CraTER, LAMP, LEND, DIVINER, mini-RF. Now, justify discarding them, just so you can have higher res images than are required of the primary mission objectives.
Don't take my word for it: contact the LRO team and tell them their camera is crappy and their reasons for not taking a higher res one are bull.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
You have ONLY twice higher resolution images, that they already got 40 years ago, that should ring a bell to anyone with even a vague idea of common sense, but for YOU, everything is fine right ? their camera that is allegedly orbiting at 50km of the lunar surface, without any atmospheric effect to counter (unlike the 650 km orbiting earth satellite) is having only the same, if not inferior resolution that this earth satellite! And it is normal ? Give me a break, and yeah, Happy New Year.
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
It's difficult to continue this discussion. If they wanted to, and had the money, they could probably have put a camera similar to GeoEye in lunar orbit. That would almost certainly have meant losing other experiments such as LOLA and LCROSS, and what would they gain? Photos of billions of pebbles. What would they lose? All the other valuable data, such as the 3D laser mapping data.
Horses for courses. Look it up.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
HLAR: How do you know a camera of greater accuracy would add weight? And so much more that they would have lost other scientific devices? Considering other imaging gadgets, it generally does not add weight.
I'm with fivemorex5 here, you don't get oppprtunities to send cameras orbiting the Moon too often, so you should try to get the best you can.
Obviously, there could be other reasons than weight why they chose this camera. Or... can't dismiss it, it could be a conspiracy.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Very basically, bigger = better resolution. (Heavier lens/mirror etc). As an example, the GeoEye camera is a LOT bigger than LROC, but then it needs to be in order to get 0.5m (commercial) res at 650km. LROC needs to be the size it is to get 0.5m res at 50km, which is required to fulfill 1 of the 2 primary mission objectives.
Engineering is almost always about compromise, not "the best" or "most expensive".
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
Take the "burned rover".
Why don't you enquire as to what may contribute to this effect, rather than believing JWs explanation? You could contact the LRO team, or the LROC team, or even the manufacturers of the Kodak KLI-5001G detector used in the NAC of the LROC.
Or are you happy just to accept JWs insinuations at face value, without bothering to check the facts?
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
@HeadLikeARock
I did checked the facts, this picture show a black splotch en lieu of a supposed LRV
And the camera is crappy, since it can't resolve better resolution than another camera put in an earth orbiting satellite at 650 km! Are you denying these facts? Are you trying to say, that the black splothc, in in fact a perfectly distinguishable LRV, and that the camera resolution is amazing? And to return your question, are you happy just accepting NASA's insinuations at face value?
Fivemorex5 2 years ago
What have you done to find out what might contribute to the LRV looking like that? Anything, or nothing?
Crappy camera? Do you understand that it takes more fuel to get a payload into lunar orbit than Earth orbit? That the LRO payload contains 9 experiments, all vying for weight, space and bandwidth? That LCROSS and LRO were launched to the moon on the same rocket? That the LROC NAC is possibly going to be smaller than GeoEye? Your answer suggests not.
HeadLikeARock 2 years ago
Absolutely undeniable.
burlbark 2 years ago 4