imagej MER basics - Page 10

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next
Author Message
dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 181



PostPosted: June 2, 2012 3:02 AM 

Mizer/JHD>>>

Thank you for your observations, very much appreciated.

yt
dx

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 182



PostPosted: June 4, 2012 11:15 AM 

h>>>

Spirit Sol 617.
Difficult to remove the SEA of blue/green...really too bad it wasn't water, then we'd have something to look at!

yt
dx

Mizar


Posts: 692

Reply: 183



PostPosted: June 4, 2012 11:56 AM 

dx, it IS water! Smile

A joke doesn't hurt...

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 184



PostPosted: June 5, 2012 12:19 PM 

h>>>

Oppy Sol 2071
My take on the 'gypsum vein'. I checked out your false color image. Thanks.

yt
dx

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 185



PostPosted: June 6, 2012 8:38 AM 

h>>>

Oppy Sol 2743
Have you blended 16-bit and RGB images or are RGB's in imageJ 16-bit?

yt
dx

hortonheardawho


Posts: 3465

Reply: 186



PostPosted: June 6, 2012 3:28 PM 

dx, the original MER camera CCD data is actually 12 bits of data per pixel.

Twelve bits of data fits conveniently in 16 bits - ( Programmers, for reasons best not explained here, naturally think in powers of 2 ) - so that is why I work with 16 bits in imagej.

JPG RGB images are 24 bit data ( 8 bits per color channel). To see this, load any color RGB image into imagej and change the image type to RGB stack. Notice that the result is a stack of 3 8 bit images.

For reasons known only to the MER team, the MER public "raw" images ( RAW ) are usually JPG RGB B&W images.

The three color channels of the RAW data should be exactly the same - as they represent a B&W filter image - but sometimes they are not! And sometime they are 8 bit JPG images - as they all should be!!

OK, now to answer your question: No.

The reason is that if I have 16 bit image data I already have everything there is to know about the data.

The RAW data is massaged original data - and exactly what has been done to get from 12 bits to 8 bits of information is unknown ( to me ).

The best MER image data to work with - when it is available - is the RAD format data. It is intended for real scientific work and a number of transforms have been done on the data to normalize it for comparison with other images - and other data sets.

For my purposes, the removal of camera and CCD imperfections is the most useful transforms. The conversion of the data to spectral radiance units is almost useless for making "pretty pictures". I usually start my work with RAD images by converting the spectral data back to 16 bit exposure data!

Anyway, no. I haven't tried to combine the two.

Maybe there is a good reason ( like studying the compression and clipping used to create the RAW images and then trying to "back out" the original data from RAW data which is not yet available as original data. ) for doing so - but I haven't reached terminal boredom - yet.

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 187



PostPosted: June 6, 2012 5:10 PM 

h>>>

WOW![shaking my head]I respect your talent for explanation and methodology.

I am not fluent in bit technology nor the RAD format of cameras. Raw-OK-within reason.

Your 186 has let the wind out of my sails and I hate open water.[I rarely go on boats]

WOW! I am going to have to find out why I asked you that question. Embarassed ,,,with all due respect.

Please bare with me as I review my bubble memory.

You have given me a fabulous sensation that I am absolutely no where near your depth of communication. This could be the end.

I trust that I made a bit of sense with the colored pics I post. [shying away] There is nothing meant by them other than what I saw them as.

truly
dx


hortonheardawho


Posts: 3465

Reply: 188



PostPosted: June 6, 2012 6:50 PM 

dx, sorry to pop your bubble ( memory? ) - better than popping bubble wrap? ( Or better than popping your stack? ( a programmer's joke. You see, a stack is -- oh, never mind. ( pop ) ) ).

I hope my explanations make sense to you ( and others ) and move you forwards in your understanding of image processing.

Keep up the good work. Someday you may combine the RAW data in a unique way and see something that no one else in the world has seen! ( That's why I keep doing it - doin' it - doin' it... )

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 189



PostPosted: June 7, 2012 11:14 AM 

h>>>

Thanks for the encouraging words in 188-I reread all your posts here and on flickr about merging and stacking images.

Oppy Sol 2686

yt
dx

Ben


Posts: 2270

Reply: 190



PostPosted: June 7, 2012 7:32 PM 

DX; The interesting thing about your 189 is the sky. Could those be clouds?

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 191



PostPosted: June 7, 2012 11:34 PM 

Ben>>>

The B/W images indicated the crater wall way back there. A patch of sloping sky can be seen at the top left.

yt
dx

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 192



PostPosted: June 9, 2012 7:24 PM 

h>>>

Oppy Sol 2012

yt
dx

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 193



PostPosted: June 9, 2012 9:24 PM 

h>>>

In my 192 above I tried the sqrt on each L2 L5 L7 and cb, etc...in imageJ and got terrible results. I tried switching the L's around without success. Are there certain images that do not take well using the sqrt?

yt
dx

hortonheardawho


Posts: 3465

Reply: 194



PostPosted: June 9, 2012 11:12 PM 

er, dx, the image in reply 192 is sol 2636 ( Jun 24, 2011 ):

Notice from the file name 1P362198702ESFBER6P2350L257sqtx2va that a square root was followed by a doubling in size followed by a vignette correction followed by a final exposure and white balance.

This one would make a nice HD format image from the original data...

To answer your question about the use of square root...

The main reason for using the square root transform is to recover information in the darker parts of the picture. If there are no important details in the darker part of the picture then don't use it.

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 195



PostPosted: June 10, 2012 4:42 AM 

h>>>

Yes it is 2636, no wonder I couldn't find it in your flickr account! Numbers! Thanks for the correction-too many 'windows' open I guess. Embarassed Will retry 2636.

Beautiful image h, that's the view I was trying to achieve. I understand your L257sqtx2va terminology. I did turn the L's into 16-bit too and added x2 image size to improve quality depth.

You mentioned in a previous post that you turn your final images into .tiff files-I have not tried working with .tiff in imageJ. Would you expect a much better result in image quality while performing its functions on an image?

yt
dx

hortonheardawho


Posts: 3465

Reply: 196



PostPosted: June 10, 2012 8:20 PM 

The "pretty picture", "natural color", HD format version of the sol 2636 picture:

using RAD original data.


dx, I save the images as TIF files mostly because TIF is a "lossless" image format: what you save is what you load. However, JPG format is "lossy".

This means that every time you edit and save a JPG image you lose more of the original data.

Lossys are NOT GOOD for any business.

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 197



PostPosted: June 11, 2012 2:33 AM 

h>>>

Great rendering in your 196. Did you use that BIG RAD formula posted a few weeks ago to make this picture?

I have been investigating the B/W 'Microscopic Imager' photos, can they be made into color pictures? Thanks.

yt
dx

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 198



PostPosted: June 12, 2012 12:40 PM 

h>>>

Spirit Sol 381
There were L234567 and R234567 in the EDR PanCam images. I used R257 only with enhancements. When I used the full spectrum I received a white out image!!! I was expecting a wonderful full colored image. This is not it.

yt
dx

dx


Posts: 1661

Reply: 199



PostPosted: June 12, 2012 1:01 PM 

h>>.

Some of these images can give great benefits of visual depth and imagination. Looking at the debris lines one can not discern in a 'regular' colored image.

yt
dx

hortonheardawho


Posts: 3465

Reply: 200



PostPosted: June 12, 2012 3:18 PM 

sol 381 ( Jan 28, 2005 ) 3D infrared / visible saturated false color of "Peace" RAT hole:

Yes, some of the MER images are unexpected - especially the RAT pictures which are exposing "clean" rocks.

I white balanced the visible image on the rock dust using the theory that most rock dust is colorless.

The infrared image is using a new technique for stretching and highlighting color differences. It works best with the infrared images because there are usually only slight differences in the infrared filters.

If there is interest I will post the macro.

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next


Join the conversation:















Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys