My present for 1000 registerd Celestia User

[t00fri]

Fridger read only the fist line:

"Shaded relief map produced by the USGS Flagstaff AZ. Scanned from published map USGS I-1149, 1979."
http://cps.earth.northwestern.edu/M10/shaded.html

The map on this site is the same as your link.

Bye Jens

Jens,

unfortunately, the map you quote is too big for me to just download by modem for comparison with the 2001 map I used. Have you really compared the two maps in detail??
You should not forget all material that is available comes from the same mission of Mariner 10. There was simply only one visit to Mercury;-).

If your claim is right and the two maps are identical then you probably also have an explanation why your map (TIFF) is 9.6 MB and mine 14 MB!?;-)

Also, you have not answered yet:

what are the sources of your "photo" map?? I bet it is also Mariner 10, what else? I suppose the raw material is the same and the difference is just the kind of processing. So in my 2001 USGS release it says NOWHERE that it is a shaded relief map, but instead based on Mariner 10 imaging (photos). I always thought I was able to distinguish visually whether something is painted or photographed.

The name "shaded relief map" by itself is not in contradiction with the map being a photographic one. It just means additional processing via shading techniques to enhance surface detail. The excellent Earth and Mars maps for example, that most of us are using and that are undoubtedly photographic, are also called "shaded relief" topographic maps.

Why should they paint all these craters by hand once photographs are available for composing?? In 1997 Photoshop did not yet exist, but I can assure you, it was not the stoneage either;-). Certainly, there was software available to align and precision compose e.g. astronomical or other grayscale photographs. Perhaps they used some rather primitive methods for retouching the seams of the images, but still most of the picture should be composed of photographic material, even if it was produced back in 1979. Notably since the raw material undoubtedly are photos (Mariner 10)

It all just does not make sense to me...

Just go ahead and prove your claim to me by written, official statements e.g. from NASA. Of course then I am willing to accept what you say. But certainly not at this vague level of evidence.

Bye Fridger

[t00fri]

Jens,

here is a reminder of the 8k Mercury texture (from the 14MB 2001 USGS release) -- with colors mapped from the Moon-- that I made in spring and that according to your claim is not a computer-processed photo mosaic but rather hand painted!;-) A pretty good painter, indeed. My compliments...

Of course I agree that the computer processing (shading) has destroyed here some amount of "naturality impression" which is clearly better in your mosaic above. Similar criticism applies also to the Clementine texture from the moon.

So I am not saying that your 8k texture is not very beautiful. I am simply insisting that it was not the first "photographic" one...Again this is not so important after all...

Bye Fridger

[granthutchison]

Fridger:
I think you're underestimating the skill of the shaded-relief painters at the USGS, and the detailed work they did. The sheer uniformity of shading on your source map is quite beyond 1979 technology of photoprocessing, since it lacks the artefacts and sharp resolution shifts we see even in modern photomosaics, particularly in the polar regions. The uniform "fade" at the edges of unmapped regions is also quite characteristic of pen-and-ink technology.
I'm afraid the images you post above look exactly like pen-and-ink to me, which fits with the standard rendering method of the time the map was produced.

Grant

[jim]

Hey Fridger,

It's realy hard to convince you of something.

Ok I have uploaded the 11k JPG version of your map and it's really the "Shaded Relief Map".
A little compare of the "three" maps:



I hope the picture is more convicing than my words. Can you see the difference between a photo map and a relief shaded map?

what are the sources of your "photo" map?? I bet it is also Mariner 10, what else? I suppose the raw material is the same and the difference is just the kind of processing.

My source: http://www.solarviews.com/eng/mercmap.htm

The name "shaded relief map" by itself is not in contradiction with the map being a photographic one. It just means additional processing via shading techniques to enhance surface detail. The excellent Earth and Mars maps for example, that most of us are using and that are undoubtedly photographic, are also called "shaded relief" topographic maps.

Ther is a little difference between Earth/Mars and Mercury/Moon/Mimas/Enceladus/Tethys/Dione/... for Earth and Mars exist an bumpmap.

I've said painted in my last post I think more exact is air brushed. I read this weeks ago somewhere in the web but I can't no more find this site.

Just go ahead and prove your claim to me by written, official statements e.g. from NASA. Of course then I am willing to accept what you say. But certainly not at this vague level of evidence.

I searched on the web for informations about the shaded mercury map. I found no direct infos but this very interesting site.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-423/surface.htm

This site should clear something. There are also some hints about the shaded mercury map.
Too bad that I couldn't find this site former . There are all the maps clean and whithout grid.

Bye Jens

[jim]

I am simply insisting that it was not the first "photographic" one...Again this is not so important after all...

Maybe I should say the the first unshaded photo map.

Bye Jens

[t00fri]

I am simply insisting that it was not the first "photographic" one...Again this is not so important after all...

Maybe I should say the the first unshaded photo map.

Bye Jens

Jens, Grant,

thanks a lot for your informations (+ patience;-))! Now I am convinced about the skill of the "airbrush artists etc....amazing.

But Jens, how did you manage to map the photo mosaics given in Mercator projection into cylindrical projection? Are you now becoming a programmer?;-)...

Bye Fridger

[DJ_Night]

first of all I would like to thank Jens for sharing this hard work with us, impressive, and would also thank Fridger and Don E. for all the inspiration and ideas that you?ve been sharing with us over the years, I?ve learned alot, the celestia community is growing day by day,

Jens>> do you have any plans on releasing a single texture version of your 8k Mercury texture?

the reason that I ask is because I would love to add a "Mirror" effect to the uncovered side of planet mercury insted of blank data,

many thanks again for all the hard work, keep it up.

[jim]

how did you manage to map the photo mosaics given in Mercator projection into cylindrical projection? Are you now becoming a programmer?

No, I'm not (yet) a programmer. Photoshop has an filter that converts from polar to cylindrical projection and reverse. With some tricks I could convert the map to cylindrical projection.

I hope to get sometime a development environment where I can learn C++. May last pascal programm is a while ago and the assembler programming is no more true. At the moment I write only some scrips.

Jens>> do you have any plans on releasing a single texture version of your 8k Mercury texture?
the reason that I ask is because I would love to add a "Mirror" effect to the uncovered side of planet mercury insted of blank data

This is in fact a reson to upload a 8k jpg map. But this is not a simple task. There will be some lighting mismatch. Maybe the backsite of Moon is more situable for this project. If you really want do that then I will upload the map.

Bye Jens

[Don. Edwards]

I don't know if any of you noticed this or not but the reliefe shaded maps are 180* degrees out of phase to the photo map. I did a little inverting just to see if what I was seeing was true or not. Have a look at Jen's three shot Mercury comparison with the center panel color inverted.

It really doesn't mean much, it was just an observation.

Don. Edwards

BTW.
Witch on of the last two panels really represents the texture. With all this going back and forth I am losing track. Is the new Mercury texture based on the photomap or is it based on the final shaded map? If its based on the later map (the shaded map)I may have an idea for you Jen's. if your are interested that is.

[Darkmiss]

I love watching the texture guys going to work
Poping up and throwing idea's at eachother

It all leads to better textures, and a better Celestia.

[fsgregs]

Jim:

I just went out tonight and downloaded the Mercury VT texture from your site. It downloaded fine, I put the folder and the ctx file in the Hires Folder, I edited the ssc file to say Texture "mercury.ctx", I commented out the bumpmaps and all I get at Mercury is a gray sphere with some dark shading on it. It seems "something" is trying to load but it is a no go. I have 1.3.1 pre11 and your moon VT texture works fine.

Could you check out the VT texture on your site? Perhaps something went wrong with one of the files. Alternatively, ....???? Please help.

Any ideas would be appreciated.

Frank

[Darkmiss]

Frank I did exactly what you did, without having trouble.

I put the Mercury folder in to the Hires Folder.
and i put the Mercry.ctx file in to the Hires foler too

then i edited the solasys.ssc file
and changed the texture line of Mercury to read

Code: Select all

   Texture "mercury.ctx"

the run Celestia, and it worked fine
So the zip does work, there must be another problem somwhere ?

[jim]

Hi Frank,

I don't know what the problem is, maybe there is something happen while edit the solarsys.

Maybe you can find a bug if you have a look at my solarsys:

Code: Select all

"Mercury" "Sol"
{
   Texture "mercury.ctx"
   # BumpMap "mercurybump.*"
   # BumpHeight 2.5
   Radius 2440

   CustomOrbit "vsop87-mercury"
   EllipticalOrbit {
   Period            0.2408
   SemiMajorAxis     0.3871
   Eccentricity      0.2056
   Inclination       7.0049
   AscendingNode    48.33167
   LongOfPericenter 77.456
        MeanLongitude   252.251
   }

   RotationPeriod 1407.509405
   Obliquity         7.01
   EquatorAscendingNode 48.42
   RotationOffset 291.20

   Albedo            0.06
}


Please check also if the virtual texture was complete copied with all levels and tiles.

-texture
|-hires
| |-mercury.ctx
| |-mercury
| | |-level0
| | |-level1
| | |-level2
| | |-level3
| :
|
|-lores
|-medres

Maybe Celestia is switched to 'limit of knowledge' and miss there a map.

Hope this helps.

Jens

[fsgregs]

Jens, I found the problem. The folder with the textures MUST be named the exact name you gave it. I had shortened the folder's name to "mercury", which is not the name you gave it. That was the problem. Celestia did not know which folder to look in for the virtual textures. Once I changed the name to again match the title of the ctx file, it worked. Everyone please note this. The folder must be the same name as the ctx file.

Sadly, I discovered that the mercury virtual texture is only LOK and is missing the entire back half. I sort of enjoy seeing an entire, whole Mercury so I decided not to use it as my Mercury texture after all.

Do you ever plan to round out the texture to texturize the back half?

Frank

[Guest]

Jens, I found the problem. The folder with the textures MUST be named the exact name you gave it. I had shortened the folder's name to "mercury", which is not the name you gave it. That was the problem. Celestia did not know which folder to look in for the virtual textures. Once I changed the name to again match the title of the ctx file, it worked. Everyone please note this. The folder must be the same name as the ctx file.

No, the folder must be the same name as the directory specified in the .ctx file, which is just a text files which sets a few setting such as the directory name.