Planet Four Talk

Any ideas?

  • netdude by netdude

    Any ideas what the perfectly straight 'dark-dash' is in the bottom right corner?

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle

    @netdude,

    I worked on a similar image today that had 3-4 features like that.
    In my head, they're sudden cracks or fissures that open up and puff their dust without any prevailing wind . The ones I saw today were wind-blown, but NOT in fan shapes, just straight edged, rectangular fields

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle

    ....but then FWIW, I still can't tell the 'ridges' from the 'channels' or the bumps from the holes!

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster

    Rotate the image through 180 degrees. You stand a better chance then. See my post 'Seeing is believing?.

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle

    Jelly,
    Thanks for your instruction. But that re-orienting only works if you're using a ipad or similar device. If you're using a computer/monitor you've got tro rely on photo software to do your rotating or negating. That makes this process PAINFULLY slow.
    Is the 'goal' of this science team dependent on proper "seeing"?.......or do they just want identification of the dust shapes? Which don't seem to change, no matter how we "see" them.
    I want to "see" these images the 'right' way too, and it's FRUSTRATING, not being able to do so, but it doesn't seem to change the result in the vast majority of images. Would you agree?

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster

    I want to "see" these images the 'right' way too, and it's FRUSTRATING, not being able to do so, but it doesn't seem to change the result in the vast majority of images. Would you agree?

    From my experience, I think it works for most or nearly all photos.

    If you save your favourite images first, then batch process the whole lot in one go... shouldn't take too long. I normally just take a snapshot of the screen, paste it into an image editing program, crop it, then invert it.

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle

    JellyMon,
    Sorry. I was not very clear.
    When I said it doesn't change the result, I wasn't referring to the literal image.
    I was referring to the fan/blotch identification. Would you agree that regardless of how one sees the "channel/ridge" thing, it has little or no effect on the determination of 'fan' or 'blotch'??

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator in response to AUricle's comment.

    The wisdom of the science team is that seeing things as troughs or ridges doesn't affect the actual task in hand - identifying and sizing all the fans and blotches. Understanding what's going on isn't required for that task, just the ability to pick out a dark shape on a mottled background.

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to AUricle's comment.

    I was referring to the fan/blotch identification. Would you agree that regardless of how one sees the "channel/ridge" thing, it has little or no effect on the determination of 'fan' or 'blotch'??

    Oh I see... yes I would agree.

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to wassock's comment.

    Understanding what's going on isn't required for that task, just the ability to pick out a dark shape on a mottled background.

    This is a valid point but some people just like to look at the pictures.

    Posted

  • michaelaye by michaelaye scientist

    Jelly, despite your restating of "something was overlooked", we still stand by our opinion that it has nothing to do with the task at hand and therefore the images displayed here are just exactly the way they were recorded. The reason why sometimes the sun comes from the lower right or the upper left is that some images have been taken at the 'north-south' part of the orbit going towards the south pole, and sometimes from the 'south-north' part of the orbit, having just crossed the south-pole and going towards north again. But this does not happen close in time, as it takes days or weeks to be 'under' the spacecraft again after several observations have been done.'. As the spacecraft is rotated with respect to the ground feature observed, that's why the sun's direction is different in some images, even so the local observation times is almost always between 4-6 pm approx.

    I also can share the frustration with some of you of not being able to see things the correct way, it makes me mad not being able to do it, even sometimes when the light comes from the upper left. All I can do about is, to study the features carefully and zoomed in until the brain finally understands what is going on in the image. And then it magically switches for the whole image.

    Another thing I want to comment is, that from the beginning one starts to work in space-related activities one learns that conventions like up, down, left and right are very difficult to apply with observations and mostly up to personal definitions and preferences, leading often to useless discussions. That's why it has become common 'style' to just not change anything with taken spacecraft data and therefore not to impose a preferential view of somebody to anybody else. This way, each image analysing scientist always has to work out for her/himself where features are pointing to, how they are positioned in space and so on. (Jokingly, it would be not politically correct to rotate all images wit the sun coming from the upper left, as the 'from-right-viewers', which certainly exist somewhere, would start to complain imminently about the discrimination.)

    So, I really would prefer it if we can focus on the tasks at hand and immerse into constructive dialogue to create reasonable cause-effect scenarios for the things we see, something that I have seen here happening already, and it's great to create this enthusiasm with this project. Restating assumptions that have been negated several times sounds a bit like that it is being stated by someone who just prefers his or her own 'version' of reality, and is indeed, in my humble opinion, the opposite of progress.

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster

    Mr. Monster to you... 😃

    I apologise if I have been seemingly disruptive. It wasn't my intention to blame anyone.

    All I can do about is, to study the features carefully and zoomed in until the brain finally understands what is going on in the image. And then it magically switches for the whole image

    Have tried this technique but it is hard work. I much prefer to dabble, in an image editing program, to bring out the detail. I will be posting a few more images soon which I hope you will find interesting.

    If I get a few minutes, I'll edit some of my posts to eliminate any blame.

    Posted

  • netdude by netdude

    Err... So... Any ideas what the 'dash' is?

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle

    Jelly,
    One thing that DOES matter, is that I've noticed that if you see something that you think is really interesting, and you're seeing it 'wrong', when you see it right, it isn't interesting at all. Of course the opposite is just as likely. That happened to me earlier today, and I was jumping out of my skin over an image, until I saw it 'right'. Then it was like, "what were you thinking"?
    My guess is that the "interesting feature" tool is being grossly mis-used. Worst part is, I left the "classify" page, didn't save it my computer, and now I can't even get back to it........and it was the most awesome image I'd seen to date. Major(ly) bummed-out!

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle in response to netdude's comment.

    Yeah dude,
    The "dash" is a crack in the ice where gas brought up dust which collected on the surface of the ice sheet. Had there been a wind blowing at the time , that dust would have formed a 'fan' eminating from the crack.

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to AUricle's comment.

    I think it happened to me a couple of times. Once you revert back to the 'classify' page, the image that was previously displayed is immediately replaced with another one, as images are chosen randomly. It is just how the interface works I'm afraid. So are you saying that you didn't 'collect' the image and/or didn't right click on it to save it to your hard drive?

    Posted

  • mschwamb by mschwamb scientist, translator in response to AUricle's comment.

    All the images you classify are stored in your recents (if you go to the main interface and click on profile all the images you classified should be accessible). A classification is sent to the database if you've marked the fans and blotches and interesting features and hit Finish. That means the classification is sent and then you have the option to load another image or go to Talk. So if you go to Talk via that route the image will show up under your accounts recents and from your recents you can favorite it so it's easier to find. When you click on profile you'll see the link for favorite will appear under the Profile tab. I should note there is one caveat. You have to be logged in when classifying for the image to get listed under your recents.

    Cheers,

    ~Meg

    Posted

  • eagiles by eagiles

    i am fed up with jelly saying rotate the image it does not matter it is an optical illusion unless there is solid proof you do not know

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster in response to eagiles's comment.

    Where did that come from?

    Scientists have confirmed that the veins are channels. Generally speaking, It is better to have the lighting emanate from top left to bottom right. Inverting the image is one solution but It won't work for everyone, I admit, I have been a bit pushy, but my intentions were sincere. I was only trying to help people that have had difficulty in interpreting the photos.

    Posted

  • eagiles by eagiles

    i actually find without the ability to rotate is to squint it seems to work for me, i was also told that because of the path of the orbitor the sun does shine that way with some of the images in any case

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster

    Yes, I think the suns direction must change, depending where the orbiter is at the time but I have yet to see spider channels, unless I invert the image. Take a look at the images in 'Martian landscape (experiment)' in 'Chat' and let me know what you see.

    Posted

  • AUricle by AUricle in response to JellyMonster's comment.

    ......." but some people just like to look at the pictures".

    So true, JM! Furthermore, I have found some totally 'off the chart' interesting features...when viewed 'wrong', that turn out to be nothing at all, when viewed 'right'. Objects that seemingly float above the terrain, or arc over other objects, things jutting skyward in ways that defy nature, structures and 'faces'.....There must be THOUSANDS of "interesting" features that'll totally waste someones time going through them, just because of this perceptual glitch. I understand the why of it all, but I just can't help feeling that my brain is in mutiny against ME!

    Posted

  • eagiles by eagiles

    could it be that i am dyslexic that i can see them, then a gain it took me a long time to see the 3d pictures that was popular a while back, i basically squint until the whole image is a blob then refocus and the image appears as it should look,

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster

    The 3D stereogram (Magic Eye) pictures I think you are referring to were quite different. If you were to use the same technique here, the images would just be a blur but then you seem to have a knack, of turning a blurred image into something that makes sense. Did you have a look at the 'Martian landsacpe (experiment) post?

    Posted