ugordan wrote:OK, let's play your game. Which of the three different NASA colorations would that be and give me your scientific reasoning behind it?t00fri wrote:What I have been arguing is that in view of various uncertainties and Ugordan's undisclosed calibration code, it seems to be the safer bet to go for the official NASA coloration.
Well unfortunately, NASA did also not disclose the details of their calculations and physical assumptions. That's bad and does not serve further understanding. But any guesswork left aside, we can at least cite that NASA prefers image 22 (bottom right) . I put forward some qualitative reasonings for why this is so, but I accept if you dont buy it. We simply have not been given the details. Despite this deplorable ignorance there is the "monster" organization of NASA versus the individual Ugordan (where we are also left in the dark).
There is not more I can say about this unfortunate situation. You surely could not expect us to make a choice from simply comparing colors with an "emotional" weighting factor? "belly work" so to speak?
Yes, I did understand the gamma factor argument and the additions you made somewhat later. I am still quite convinced that the essence of my argument about image 22 is correct, since it corresponds to a standard scientific procedure of estimating uncertainties in such cases. I admit, however, that I had to involve some guesswork, too, since details were not given.In fact, I have so far explained in much greater detail some of the intricacies of my processing and the resulting nuances between different composites than you about your choice of image 22 as referent.
I read and understood your comments. Thank you. But what is really needed is a judgement of what you did in your quantitative calculations. The issue about license is quite a serious one. Celestia is published under the GPL2 Open Source license, which implies quite a lot of things for secondary work that is used. Please note that Celestia is NOT simply Freeware!Of all the comments I wrote above, explaining my reasoning and underlying assumptions, this is all you have to say? Completely ignore them and instead inquire about my source code?t00fri wrote:Another related issue that comes up: is Ugordan's calibration code Open Source or not? What's the license? If not, then it can't be relevant for Celestia. If it is Open Source, then I should be able to look at it...
I have written the reason several times already. I (as well as others) cannot fullheartedly support your calibration method if I (they) cannot read what you did. That should be obvious. If you release your code under GPL, for example, there are no problems in that regard. That's why I asked. It was a fair question, I think. Any results in basic science MUST be made generally available, for example.May I question the line of reasoning where my code should be public domain in order for my work to be "eligible" for anything?
The main rule of sensible scientific-level citation schemes is that enough information must be made public such that it is possible to reconstruct the results in question, if desired.If someone were to produce a map from my global images, would he have to provide his mapping software source code also? Where does that begin and where does it end?
We also pursue this philosophy in Celestia. You still did not specify under what license your calibration code is released?
Does the same requirement hold for NASA and if not, why? Does the fact my code isn't Open Source somehow invalidate all work I've done, both with Cassini and MESSENGER data?
While everyone knows NASA not everyone knows Ugordan. While in principle both you and NASA should run under the same rules, NASA invariably will have a "slight" advantage here...
. My personal opinion here is clearly that by making your work publicly availble you could only win as compared to those big organizations.Rest assured, all of my work is meant for everyone to see, is in public domain the same way as NASA imagery is.
Meaning that you will not disclose your calibration code, but only your final images. In case of doubt or dispute, it then will become imposible to come forward with an independent judgement. At Celestia we disclose everything for example...
No problems with a credit line. But what publication to cite for the underlying calibration!?anything else (other than making profit for himself), all I ask for is a credit line. The fact my code isn't publicly available doesn't change that fact.
I'll be looking forward to seeing the actual realistic Mercury map when it's done.
The Mercury map that I revamped from Steve Albers' map, will be the one we use for Celestia 1.6.x. It's color is computer mapped from the NASA color of image 22.
Fridger
