



IMG to PNG GOD





Group: Moderator

Posts: 2098

Joined: 19-February 04

From: Near fire and ice

Member No.: 38



IMG to PNG GODGroup: ModeratorPosts: 2098Joined: 19-February 04From: Near fire and iceMember No.: 38





QUOTE (Drkskywxlt @ Aug 20 2010, 05:50 PM) Fantastic pic! Did you use ISIS? If so, what were your processing steps?

I didn't use ISIS. Voyager calibration isn't available yet in ISIS 3 and ISIS 2 doesn't work properly on my computer. I think I now know why but I didn't when I made the mosaic.



QUOTE (tedstryk @ Aug 20 2010, 10:08 PM) Awesome. Voyager images are quite good once you remove the gunk.

Yes, that's my experience as well. The problem is that this wasn't done carefully enough ~30 years ago so those old, 'official' color composites and mosaics really need to be reprocessed.



QUOTE (antipode @ Aug 21 2010, 11:10 PM) Are we seeing cloud shadows new the top of the image?

I don't think so. You need higher resolution and/or lower solar elevation angles (mainly the former) for cloud shadows/vertical relief to become apparent. Vertical relief (if one can speak of that in the context of gaseous planets) is visible in higher resolution images but it is usually not obvious unless the images are sharpened. Incidentally, the Voyager images are better than the Galileo images if you are interested in cloud shadows and vertical relief. The highest reolution Voyager images are of higher resolution than the Galileo images. In addition, compression artifacts can be an issue if you want to examine small scale features in the Galileo images.



Actually I now think (after taking a careful look at lots of Voyager images) that the Voyager dataset still is in some ways better than the Galileo dataset. While the Galileo images are more carefully targeted and the wavelength coverage is far better (near infrared filters) the Voyager images have no compression artifacts, there is a significant amount of images of higher resolution than anything Galileo obtained and the Voyager images are a better data source for atmospheric movies. So if you are interested in very small scale details in the Jovian atmosphere the Voyager 1 images are what you want.



I'm currently working on another 12 image mosaic that should be finished soon, possibly this week. I didn't use ISIS. Voyager calibration isn't available yet in ISIS 3 and ISIS 2 doesn't work properly on my computer. I think I now know why but I didn't when I made the mosaic.Yes, that's my experience as well. The problem is that this wasn't done carefully enough ~30 years ago so those old, 'official' color composites and mosaics really need to be reprocessed.I don't think so. You need higher resolution and/or lower solar elevation angles (mainly the former) for cloud shadows/vertical relief to become apparent. Vertical relief (if one can speak of that in the context of gaseous planets) is visible in higher resolution images but it is usually not obvious unless the images are sharpened. Incidentally, the Voyager images are better than the Galileo images if you are interested in cloud shadows and vertical relief. The highest reolution Voyager images are of higher resolution than the Galileo images. In addition, compression artifacts can be an issue if you want to examine small scale features in the Galileo images.Actually I now think (after taking a careful look at lots of Voyager images) that the Voyager dataset still is in some ways better than the Galileo dataset. While the Galileo images are more carefully targeted and the wavelength coverage is far better (near infrared filters) the Voyager images have no compression artifacts, there is a significant amount of images of higher resolution than anything Galileo obtained and the Voyager images are a better data source for atmospheric movies. So if you are interested in very small scale details in the Jovian atmosphere the Voyager 1 images are what you want.I'm currently working on another 12 image mosaic that should be finished soon, possibly this week.