Celestia Forums

--- edit ---

Are these available in .zip formats?

Sorry,this server is paid.I can??t download from it.
Anyway,your 16k VT Venus map is still black and white...

john Van Vliet wrote:hi all well hear is a preview before celestia motherlode is updateded
venus level 0 1 and 2 is hear ( based on my 64k map)
http://z11.zupload.com/download.php?fil ... path=41199
level 3 isthis
http://www.zupload.com/download.php?fil ... path=45268
normalmap level 0 1 and 2 is hear
http://www.zupload.com/download.php?fil ... path=45271
and normal map level 3 is hear
http://www.zupload.com/download.php?fil ... path=45276

level 4 , 5 and 6 is to cum

danielj wrote:Sorry,this server is paid.I can??t download from it.
Anyway,your 16k VT Venus map is still black and white...

Daniel,

it works for me! We should you be forbidden to download? What does the server say?

As to Venus colors, please remember that there are NO color photographs from the Venus surface! The data that John is using are RADAR data, I suppose.

So why are you complaining about missing color, although nobody knows what colors we shall have down there? You should know meanwhile that Celestia is not trying to present "phantasy" in its more serious add-ons, at least.

Also it's very easy to add color with any image software...

Bye Fridger

No direct link for download.I click in something and the server offers plans to do downloads,no one is free.
About the color,we have an idea,because some probes actually land in Venus and so it??s not absolutelly fictional.It??s the same problem as Titan...

t00fri wrote:

danielj wrote:Sorry,this server is paid.I can??t download from it.
Anyway,your 16k VT Venus map is still black and white...

Daniel,

it works for me! We should you be forbidden to download? What does the server say?

As to Venus colors, please remember that there are NO color photographs from the Venus surface! The data that John is using are RADAR data, I suppose.

So why are you complaining about missing color, although nobody knows what colors we shall have down there? You should know meanwhile that Celestia is not trying to present "phantasy" in its more serious add-ons, at least.

Also it's very easy to add color with any image software...

Bye Fridger

danielj wrote:No direct link for download.I click in something and the server offers plans to do downloads,no one is free.
About the color,we have an idea,because some probes actually land in Venus and so it??s not absolutelly fictional.It??s the same problem as Titan...

Daniel,

it's NOT! Show me a true-color image of the surface of Venus, please!

Here is a true-color image of the surface of Titan:



Bye Fridger

You're wrong, Fridger - we do have some colour images of Venus. I'm surprised you forgot about the Venera landers... there's some very good remastering work done here on them:

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogVenus.htm


The image below is greyscale but I've never seen it before - an actual perspective mosaic from the Landers, instead of the down-looking fisheye type picture I've seen before. Looks fantastic!

I saw the original photo from Huygens on Titan's surface was black-and-white. I thought that the colour one above had the colour added to it. I wasn't aware it was a true colour image.

danielj wrote:Sorry,this server is paid.I can??t download from it.
Anyway,your 16k VT Venus map is still black and white...

Danielj, why do you put on the table the same problems that have been widely discussed in this post, started on Oct 12, 2005 and named "High Resolution Texture Of Venus"

http://shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8116&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=de39e9ee26c928e666f44acd5d70f03b

where you have partecipated?
Things are unchanged.
If you want a 16k or 32k Venus map, produce it yourself, and we'll be glad to admire it.
Bye

Andrea

ANDREA wrote:

danielj wrote:Sorry,this server is paid.I can??t download from it.
Anyway,your 16k VT Venus map is still black and white...

Danielj, why do you put on the table the same problems that have been widely discussed in this post, started on Oct 12, 2005 and named "High Resolution Texture Of Venus"

http://shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8116&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=de39e9ee26c928e666f44acd5d70f03b

where you have partecipated?

Possibly because he forgot? Don't assume that everyone can remember what they wrote on a discussion forum over a year ago. And while perhaps more people could search for topics before starting a new one, most people don't.

Malenfant wrote:You're wrong, Fridger - we do have some
colour images of Venus. I'm surprised you forgot about the Venera
landers... there's some very good remastering work done here on
them:

I was of course aware of the Venera landers (never claimed there was
no landing on Venus). But I don't know what scientific value some
color remastering by a guy on a site with the "inspiring" .com name

" www.mentallandscape.com"

has ...As it appears he was unrelated to the missions. As he
/correctly/ writes most of the cameras were broken and the RGB
filters only were "functional" in a few exceptional cases.
Who knows whether the color was perhaps reconstructed from just 2
filter images instead of 3 etc...All this was almost 30 years ago!


None of the color imaging has been officially verified by the mission
members or in publications. At least I am not aware of such material.

The only color image that at least carries some Russian text is from
the archive of a space artist again with a .com address.

http://www.donaldedavis.com/BIGPUB/V14COLR.jpg

I had asked for true-color imaging from the surface. I think
these are VERY far away from that. It's perhaps good enough to color
the radar imaging in some "inspiring" red-orange tone, but not more.

Sorry Fridger, I'll back Malenfant up on this one. Some of those reprocesssed Venera pictures are way more true colour that the Huygens one.

Huygens surface pictures are colourised black and white, the colour was extracted from a spectrogram of the sky taken at the ground. It is thus monochrome.

The Venera probes did deploy colour calibration bars into the camera's field of view - one can see them, and the red/white/green squares on them. That's how the colour was restored despite filter problems. Thus they are not monochrome.

Please don't think this criticism reduces our appreciation of you .

Contain yourself Malenfant!

And Daniel's not excused either .

Spiff.

t00fri wrote:The only color image that at least carries some Russian text is from
the archive of a space artist again with a .com address.

http://www.donaldedavis.com/BIGPUB/V14COLR.jpg

FYI: That's the website of the Emmy award winning space-artist Don Davis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Davis_%28artist%29

Chuft-Captain wrote:

t00fri wrote:The only color image that at least carries some Russian text is from
the archive of a space artist again with a .com address.

http://www.donaldedavis.com/BIGPUB/V14COLR.jpg

FYI: That's the website of the Emmy award winning space-artist Don Davis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Davis_%28artist%29

Good for him, but artistic criteria are often in conflict with scientific constraints/accuracy.

Bye Fridger

Spaceman Spiff wrote:Sorry Fridger, I'll back Malenfant up on this
one. Some of those reprocesssed Venera pictures are way more true
colour that the Huygens one.

Huygens surface pictures are colourised black and white, the colour
was extracted from a spectrogram of the sky taken at the ground. It is
thus monochrome.

The Venera probes did deploy colour calibration bars into the camera's
field of view - one can see them, and the red/white/green squares on
them. That's how the colour was restored despite filter problems.
Thus they are not monochrome.

Please don't think this criticism reduces our appreciation of you .

Contain yourself Malenfant!

And Daniel's not excused either .

Spiff.

Spiff,

all accepted. Yet I am generally not convinced by merely "admiring"
some colored images on some space artist's slick (commercial) Web
page. If these color images are robust in quality, then there should be
some respective (peer-reviewed) publication in a journal where the
procedure is desribed, signed by mission representatives.

The long Cyclops article about the Titan mission in Nature was
sent to me by the Cyclops lead scientist after much communication
about imaging aspects with him and other Cyclops members.
In this main publication all details of the various imaging devices are
described precisely. So I am quite aware of the respective limitations.

Bye Fridger

Why can't you just admit that you're wrong for once, Fridger?

I had a look around on Don Mitchell's site (the one with the Venera images) and this guy is definitely no amateur - he knows what he's doing, he's even using photometers and spectrometer data to back up his colours. According to the article on space.com about this, he's even working directly with the designer of the Venera camera.

That you'd dismiss his work out of hand just because of the website name is simply shallow and short-sighted. You place too much faith in peer review - it isn't the ultimate arbiter of quality, there's plenty of peer-reviewed work out there that is utter garbage. And believe it or not there is a lot of work that is not peer-reviewed that is actually high quality. There's good and bad on both sides, and a discriminating scientist should be able to determine for himself what is good research and what isn't. And this is good work.

And I have no idea why you're going on about Don Davis, because he has nothing to do with this at all. And evidently you missed the blatantly obvious colour images in the middle of the webpage (not the radar ones):

http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Venera14_New1.jpg
http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_Venera14_New2.jpg

Malenfant wrote:...
You place too much faith in peer review - it isn't the ultimate arbiter of quality, there's plenty of peer-reviewed work out there that is utter garbage. And believe it or not there is a lot of work that is not peer-reviewed that is actually high quality. There's good and bad on both sides, and a discriminating scientist should be able to determine for himself what is good research and what isn't. And this is good work.
...

Come on, just take a breath and rethink to whom you are lecturing... .

Hi Danielj,

Did you click on the blue text "Download file" at the first line of the page ?

t00fri wrote:Spiff,

all accepted. Yet I am generally not convinced by merely "admiring"
some colored images on some space artist's slick (commercial) Web
page. If these color images are robust in quality, then there should be
some respective (peer-reviewed) publication in a journal where the
procedure is desribed, signed by mission representatives.

Well, vorsicht! Don Davis is one of those famed space artists well known for striving to make his paintings scientifically 'accurate.'

That colour picture isn't by Don Davis, though. I'm sure it's been published in popular astronomy books, too. By the way, that's the colour calibration chart there in all three of those pictures on his website.

t00fri wrote:The long Cyclops article about the Titan mission in Nature was
sent to me by the Cyclops lead scientist after much communication
about imaging aspects with him and other Cyclops members.
In this main publication all details of the various imaging devices are
described precisely. So I am quite aware of the respective limitations.

Great! I bet Daniel's jealous of your fortunes... .

Anyway Daniel J: of course the problems are really:
a) the venus texture is based on SAR/radar reflectivity and roughness, not optical albedo, so can only be black and white;
b) Optical colour photos at spot ground locations still don't give any clue about colour variation across the whole globe.

Also, I always thought Venus' basalt surface is typically dark grey, and the orange comes from the overcast sky.

What of jdou's advice?

Malenfant: Give up! Save yourself! .

Spiff.

t00fri wrote:all accepted. Yet I am generally not convinced by merely "admiring"
some colored images on some space artist's slick (commercial) Web
page. If these color images are robust in quality, then there should be
some respective (peer-reviewed) publication in a journal where the
procedure is desribed, signed by mission representatives.

It may not be a peer reviewed paper, but Don Mitchell does describe in some detail how he has reprocessed the Venera images starting from the original transmission. Perhaps eventually a paper will be published--Don has quite a number of published graphics papers--but I think you're being too dismissive of the work in its current state.

--Chris