Planet Four Talk

Scale

  • WirelessPaul by WirelessPaul

    I think it would be helpful to have a scale on the images ~ WirelessPaul

    Posted

  • blabyboy by blabyboy

    +1

    Posted

  • mschwamb by mschwamb scientist, translator

    Good idea, i don't think that's something we can do right now, but I'll add it to the list for future improvements after Stargazing.
    Thanks,
    ~Meg

    Posted

  • Ian_Mason by Ian_Mason

    Does this mean the images may differ in scale? I would love to see an image containing say a Mars Rover or Olympus Mons to give an idea of scale.

    I am loving the images.

    Keep up the good work, & many thanks

    Ian 😃

    Ian.

    Posted

  • Portyankina by Portyankina scientist

    Hi Ian!

    In this data set we only used souther polar images, so rovers and Olympus Mons are not in it. But you always can go to HiRISE web page to see those, for example, here is Curiosity: http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_028335_1755 In the search box on top right you can search for some other features. But that site will not let you mark anything, so come back here 😃

    Have fun!

    Anya

    Posted

  • Ian_Mason by Ian_Mason

    Hi Anya,

    Thank you for the link to the HiRise website, it is much appreciated.

    "But that site will not let you mark anything, so come back here 😃"

    Okay okay, I get the message! lol

    Thanks again. 😃

    Ian, UK

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    A scale would indeed be useful in the future. For now, though, can you tell us if all the images are the same scale?

    Posted

  • doylee6 by doylee6

    Approximate scale would help. a sand dune the size of london would probably be a more significant feature than one the size of a house!!

    Posted

  • eardley7 by eardley7

    Agreed would love to know some sort of scale, am I looking at something 1M across or 5000M ...

    Posted

  • RichardDee by RichardDee

    Some indicator of scale would be helpful . Are the sand dune ridges 10m , a 100ms or a 1000m apart? It would be very helpful to know. Congratulations on a brilliant site.

    Posted

  • GraeSaint by GraeSaint

    Also any chance of a rough position of grid being observed, many different scapes, sometimes just want to look at the one to the left. 😃
    Definietly need to know they are all the same scale. Also interesting could be scaleable, small star mildly interesting big star more interesting. I have marked a large bank with a row of stars, but not sure if that is of interest.

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    Are all the images to the same scale? Also are they all presented in the same orientation?

    Posted

  • stargazer54 by stargazer54

    I'm also frustrated at the lack of scale, I saw a previous post that there were two scales 1.0 metres per pixel and 0.5 metres per pixel. Can anyone convert that into two possible fields of view?

    Posted

  • NoahG117 by NoahG117

    sometimes the land features look like they could be canyons or cracks in the ground, deserts or patches of dust, an average scale to go on would really be helpful

    Posted

  • ChrisUK27 by ChrisUK27

    +1

    Posted

  • Ian_Mason by Ian_Mason

    On the Stargazing show this evening, Dr Chris Lintott showed one of the images & I think he said that it was roughly the length of 2 football pitches.

    Its a bit of shame that no pictorial example of scale has be given though isn't it.

    Posted

  • BlueMoon58 by BlueMoon58

    What about the ESA probe I thought that crashed near the south pole region

    Posted

  • BlueMoon58 by BlueMoon58

    Be helpful to know the size of the area these images cover

    Posted

  • michaelaye by michaelaye scientist

    So, I'm not sure if the engineers had to rescale it, but I can tell you that most of the data has a scale of 0.5 meter per pixel, with some of them having 1m per pixel. But that should at least give you a rough idea!

    Posted

  • eagiles by eagiles

    that means what looked like a big cat was 10 metres or 20 metres across

    Posted

  • nixxie_pixx by nixxie_pixx

    On stargazing live they said one image was the size of two rugby pitches.

    Posted

  • hoppynet by hoppynet

    More helpful that a 0.5 or 1m per pixel would be a image is 200 x 150 meters.

    Also the inability to move around in the landscape is frustrating. Is there a way of "Google Mars'ing" them to make the image continuous. I am finding objects at the corners and edges that I cannot classify. Get on the phone to Google on Monday morning!.

    Posted

  • Ian_Mason by Ian_Mason in response to hoppynet's comment.

    Thanks hoppynet, that makes more sense, as I don`t even know how big a pixel is! (I reckon when these scientific lot are trying to get to sleep, they count sheeps legs & then divide by 4) 😃

    I think they should spice things up & add a couple of images containing Where`s Wally/Waldo also.

    Right back to the marking.

    Posted

  • warp_3 by warp_3

    Hello all, I'm new to the site and would agree that without any kind of scale or ref. point it is difficult to evaluate any of the images I've looked at up to now. From what distance are these pictures taken ?? could be close ups of almost anything !!
    Other than that a great site.

    Posted

  • Dev_Chatterjea by Dev_Chatterjea

    It would be an idea if we knew which area on mars we were looking.

    Posted

  • jules by jules in response to dev chatterjea's comment.

    All images are from south polar region. We don't have any more specific info than that. More here.

    Posted

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

    That's a good idea. It's something I'd like to see added as well. I do think it something we're planning on adding in the near future, but I'll check with the development team.
    ~Meg

    Posted

  • ronsbell by ronsbell

    Couldn't agree more about the need for a scale indication, but think it would be easier to classify some features if we had the ability to zoom in (back to 'google maps').

    Posted

  • maryohara by maryohara

    I'm beginning to suspect I am classifying the same photos over and over again .... am I imagining this?

    Posted

  • barriemac by barriemac in response to ronsbell's comment.

    Hi, If you are using IE9 browser you can Zoom in using the View option/zoom or use ctrl shift+ to give up to 1000% magnification or ctrl/- to zoom out. This applies to any image or page.
    I

    Posted

  • bowser62 by bowser62

    Seems like no-one wants to tell us the scale of these photos, just tell us the scale for each photo so we can decide whther we are looking at some huge or minute or what!!! Very frustrating!!

    Posted

  • mschwamb by mschwamb scientist, translator in response to bowser62's comment.

    Most images are about 0.5 meter per pixel, with some of them having ~1m per pixel. The smallest thing that HiRISE can resolve in any image is the size of a dining room table. I hope we'll have a scale bar in the future once other improvements and upgrades to the site get made.

    Cheers,

    ~Meg

    Posted

  • jshoe by jshoe

    Anya & Meg & Michaelaye : Thank you for your comments here. The guidance of 0.5 to 1m per pixel will help me get my bearings on some of these marvelous images. I thought the scale varied all over as the satelIite moved around. It seemed that the features (e.g. fans, hills, rocks and trees etc.) were so small sometimes and so much larger other times, that even the optics on the satellite were being changed between image groups. I have asked for this since I began working on this project but I did not know this was the proper place to ask such questions. It helps to take a ;look around, but, I still get lost trying to navigate this site. More later.

    jer

    Posted

  • Portyankina by Portyankina scientist in response to jshoe's comment.

    I think this topic can show you how much scientists hate to say something they are not really sure about!
    I myself got unhappy telling you "you know, most images are 0.5 m/pix, but some are not and it even can happen, beginning and end of the image are different,...etc." But what I meant was the difference between maybe 0.5 to 2 m/pix, while many of people here were more thinking it varies 1m - 1 km/pix ranges...

    Anya

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    To be fair to the science team we should remember that we're only in phase one of the Planet4 project and, as I understand it, the main aim in this phase is to study wind directions and velocities. Our 'job' at the moment is to help provide the raw data for the scientists to work with, by marking the fans and blobs in the images. For this exercise, scale is irrelevant as far as we are concerned.

    From my experience here, I can say that the science team do take note of what we say and they do feedback to the technical department, so I'm pretty confident that future phases will incorporate most, if not all, of our wishes and wants, if it's possible to do so. I guess they just want us to be patient.

    Scale does become important when we want to work on an idea or theory of 'what's going on' or 'how things work' but we can usually get a handle on this in the discussion chatrooms. Somebody will generally make mention of size and scale in their replies to your posts, if and when it's needed. Don't be afraid to speak up in the discussions and don't worry about asking a 'silly question'. Believe me, some of the silliest questions can generate some of the best discussions. So, back to the fans and blobs.....

    Posted

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

    I agree with most of what you say, however, it is worth noting that, while marking fans and blotches, people still like to relate to the images, whether it be scaling, colouring (types of material) or lighting (to differentiate peaks from valleys). I'm sure you would agree, that this is not such a bad thing.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to JellyMonster's comment.

    Hi JM. Yes I do agree and, no its not a bad thing at all. Good to see you again 😉

    Posted

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

    I agree, but we're also a very small team and the Zooniverse is building and maintaining lots of projects. So it takes time to get added features. It's something I'll try and bring it up when discussions of upgrades and improvements come up.

    Cheers,

    ~Meg

    Posted

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

    The smallest thing that HiRISE can resolve in any image is the size of a dining room table.

    That's amazing!

    Most images are about 0.5 meter per pixel, with some of them having ~1m per pixel.

    The saved images are 840 x 648 pixels. So, would I be right in saying that the actual size, would be somewhere roughly between 420 and 840 wide by 325 and 650 deep (I've rounded it up)? However, Anya had said in a blog post that the images were between 800 and 2000 across. You might both be half right!

    Posted

  • nittahkachee by nittahkachee

    Many others are asking the same questions about scale. If we know the magnification at this point can you possibly provide a picture of the Earth with some identifiable landmark in it to give just some sense of scale? No Mars objects would be needed. GOES satellite pictures might be usable. Even something from Google Earth. I realize it might not be relevant to the search we are doing, but it would help people's perspective.

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to nittahkachee's comment.

    Hi There. I'm not sure that we do know the magnification yet, but don't take that as fact. As I see it, most of the time we've been trying to get a handle on resolution. We've nailed down '0.5 or 1m per pixel' and 'smallest object you see is dining room table size', but somebody's pointed out that whatever went on to capture an image, it could then be 'magnified' (and maybe cropped) and we wouldn't know that unless we were told about it. The questioner is trying to resolve this issue. (Pun intended)

    On the plus side, we do know that the science team have 'got the message' about our scale problems and they've said a couple of times that they will try to get something useful for us to work with in the future. I very much like your idea of Earth objects for comparison. Hadn't thought of that.

    Mind you, that's just the sort of thing we might be able to work out for ourselves. Look out for new discussion called "Measuring With Things You Know".

    Posted

  • JellyMonster by JellyMonster

    Kitharode and nittahkachee, believe it or not, I was putting something together for the 'scale' issue only yesterday... watch this space.

    Update - go here http://talk.planetfour.org/#/boards/BPF0000001/discussions/DPF0000cm4

    Posted