venus 32k/64k

[t00fri]

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

Spiff,

all fine, of course. I believe he's a great space artist, and "despite" his art , devoted to scientific accuracy.

Yet, the point is different.

After the Soviets spent lots of money & effort to get to Venus, they also must have had an interest to publish their solid scientific results on behalf of the Venera mission in accepted international journals!

30 years ago, they have certainly done so already in my field of particle physics!

Therefore, I want to see the original publications containing these potentially very important color images.

It is just a ridiculous thought to imagine that only a few space artists managed to evaluate and publish their GREAT color imaging data!!!

If the lead scientists from Venera believed these images to be reliable, they would have pushed to get their names out on respective papers. You BET!

Where are they??

That colour picture isn't by Don Davis, though.

As his name indicates, he is probably not writing Russian fluently ==> see Russian text on the images. So yes, and as I wrote, they are merely from Don Davis' "archive". On other Web sites, however, Don Davis gets credit for these images, although he surely did not produce them...

Cheers,
Fridger

[t00fri]

...
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

Chris,

please understand. There are different levels on which one may argue.

When I am with my beer at night, I am certainly a vivid admirer of space art and anything else that looks exciting in this domain

But when it comes to the potential evaluation of /important/ scientific claims --and such color images of Venus ARE important-- then I am turning into the professional scientist that I am since decades!

And on that scale, only "bona fide" published results can be considered seriously. Could you imagine that I cite a Website in my next paper?? Come on...

Any one of my senior colleagues worldwide would judge about this matter in the same way.

Bye Fridger

[Cham]

Just my opinion.

Those two pictures (with the Venus horizon clearly visible on the pictures) are just fakes ! If I recall (and I may be wrong), the Venera camera was protected against the high pressure and high temperature of Venus, and it was unable to take a picture of the horizon. It was designed to take snapshots of the feet only (the horizon was very partly visible in the corners of the fisheye pictures) ! The probe worked for only few minutes and it didn't had time to take many pictures. If you examine carefully the second picture (the one with the flat horizon), you can clearly see some details in double ! Some rocks at the left part can also be found on the right part. There's a mirror symmetry clearly visible on the second picture. So those pictures are only a modern manipulation of the original photos, WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFICALLY VALUE. This is just a hoax !

[t00fri]

...
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

Chris,

I browsed a bit in Don Mitchels professional profile, which is "instructive".

From his picture he seems definitely below 40,say. He calls himself a "retired research scientist" with professional experience at Bells lab and Microsoft!

No statements about a PhD in (astro) physics, for example.

Such a career is not of the kind where I blindly believe what I get to read, when it comes to scientific results.

While he may be good at (graphics) coding,
he is CERTAINLY not an experienced and proven (astro)physicist.

++++++++++++++++++
But the latter would be required to avoid the many pitfalls potentially inherent in a complex and halfbroken mission that old and badly documented.
Besides graphical work there are many physics aspects to master, like evaluating the spectral acceptances of the apparatus and many other such things.
++++++++++++++++++

Finally, let me point out that I am NOT dismissing his work which definitely looks neat. But from a scientific point of view it is rather worthless.

Bye Fridger

[Malenfant]

Just my opinion.

Those two pictures (with the Venus horizon clearly visible on the pictures) are just fakes ! If I recall (and I may be wrong), the Venera camera was protected against the high pressure and high temperature of Venus, and it was unable to take a picture of the horizon. It was designed to take snapshots of the feet only (the horizon was very partly visible in the corners of the fisheye pictures) ! The probe worked for only few minutes and it didn't had time to take many pictures. If you examine carefully the second picture (the one with the flat horizon), you can clearly see some details in double ! Some rocks at the left part can also be found on the right part. There's a mirror symmetry clearly visible on the second picture. So those pictures are only a modern manipulation of the original photos, WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFICALLY VALUE. This is just a hoax !

You can see the horizon in the original Venera pictures, it's peeking in at the corners. They also certainly took enough pictures to be able to do a reprojection like this.

I don't see any duplicated features in the second picture. He does say that Photoshop was used to fill in the gaps so maybe that's it, but that doesn't make the whole thing a "hoax".

Honestly, some degree of healthy skepticism is OK but this is just being taken too far. This is valid work - if you're not going to listen to someone who has actually been a planetary scientist and who knows what he's talking about then I just have to despair. I remeber showing this guy's work to other planetary scientists when the site first appeared and they had no complaints... just because Fridger claims it's not valid doesn't mean it isn't.

You just need some perspective, people. There is no controversy over this - this work is fully explained at every stage of the process and there is no reason to claim that it is not valid. Whether it's peer-reviewed or not makes no difference at all*, and Fridger's assertions about its invalidity are simply not justified.

(I dare say you'd be screaming at every LPSC abstract ever written too - these are two-page mini-papers written for the annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, and they are not peer-reviewed. Does that mean they're full of "bad science"? Of course not. Does it mean they should be taken with a pinch of salt? Sure it does. But like I said, there's plenty of work - GOOD work - in things that aren't peer-reviewed, that frankly anyone would be a fool to ignore or dismiss without proper objective consideration)

[Malenfant]

Finally, let me point out that I am NOT dismissing his work which definitely looks neat. But from a scientific point of view it is rather worthless.

I think you're seriously underestimating the quality of the data. It doesn't matter if the mission is old - I was using and processing data from Voyager 18 years after its Jupiter flyby and didn't have problems with it. Your assertions about the mission quality are also baseless. I don't think you need a PhD to understand anything about a mission, you just need the information and the intelligence and ability to procees that information, and there's no evidence (beyond again your own assertion) that he lacks any of this.

After all, Einstein was a patent office worker without a PhD, I dare say you would have just dismissed his ideas about relativity out of hand back then if you'd been around too? There's plenty of smart, educated people capable of doing original research and work who don't have initials after their name, and they should not be ignored because of that.

And frankly, your attitude to this - as a supposedly professional scientist - is a disgrace because it seems that your chief concern is about the person's background. A true scientist would only be concerned with the data and the work being presented - the "messenger" is never an issue - and it should be judged objectively, without character assassination. I'd have thought you'd realise that given your position, Fridger - it seems that maybe you've lost your way somewhat.


Anyway. He's got the photometer and spectrometer data, he's corrected the images based on information direct from the camera designer himself. That makes it better than anything else that came before.

And frankly, this is something I know a lot more about than you Fridger. You're an astrophysicist. I am (or was) a planetary scientist. I've spend many years processing images specifically of planets in our solar system. And I don't see anything wrong or unscientific with the techniques that he's using here (personally I would have left the gaps in the images as black, and not filled them in with photoshop, but the perspective views are clearly done for aesthetics only, not science).

But the colour work seems fine by me - he seems to be taking the available data and processing it as well as anyone skilled in image processing would do. And it's more accurate than what has been done before, because he has access to the documentation and camera designer.

There is not a problem here.

[Cham]

I don't see any duplicated features in the second picture. He does say that Photoshop was used to fill in the gaps so maybe that's it, but that doesn't make the whole thing a "hoax".

It's very clear. Look here :



Many duplicated and reversed details. Not just small bits. The whole terrain was rebuilt, without enough data for that landscape. You can even feel the rest was just "stretched" to fill the landscape. The original pictures only shows the rocks at few meters, and small part of the horizon. Not enough data to fill an entire landscape. This is really obvious.

[Malenfant]

First, http://space.com/scienceastronomy/06091 ... mages.html is an article on this.

Also, take a look at the Sept 11th entry at http://donpmitchell.blogspot.com/ , he actually shows how he stitched together the images. I notice that the regions you point out are in the close to the horizon - it's quite likely that these were regions that did not actually contain image data (note in the 'work in progress' images that the images do have gaps between them) and that was therefore cloned/copied from elsewhere. (in fact I think I can make out the triangular boundaries of the original images breaking up the horizon in the perspective image, the original data seems a little sharper and the "filled in" stuff is blurrier and has the dupicated data)

Like I said, these perspective views are obviously done for aesthetic purposes, not scientific purposes. Given that the rest of the image in the foreground is not duplicated, I think you're leaping to a very incorrect conclusion to claim that the whole thing is 'hoaxed'. It seems quite clear to me that he filled in the gaps (which I would have left alone myself) with cloned/mirrored data, that's all.

And take a good look at the original pictures too. You can see rocks all the way up to the horizon in some of them (and can see the sky in some cases). I wouldn't be surprised if there was a "stretched" appearance to these perspective views given the amount of reprojection that needs to be done on them - some distortion is inevitable.

[Cham]

Like I said, these perspective views are obviously done for aesthetic purposes, not scientific purposes.

'Nuff said !

[t00fri]

..
And frankly, your attitude to this - as a supposedly professional scientist - is a disgrace because it seems that your chief concern is about the person's background.
...

Why don't you simply trust me that I do know what counts in global science. It doesn't help at all that you keep on shouting that peer-review is superfluous and that looking to scientist's professional backgrounds is a disgrace

Pleeeease, dont forget that we get ~200 postdoc applications EVERY fall and have to select ~5 for a two-year position. Every other big center e.g. in the US has the same setting. Whether YOU like that or not.

Can YOU understand that? Live is tough these days. Also in science.

It is also VERY understandable that a young scientist is more interesting for a place if he/she collected experience at a first rate institution. That's why we and everybody else always look to peoples professional background. We and everybody else (notably in the US) also look to peoples ("scientific") age! How long they took to complete their PhD, for example...(just to give you an idea...)

That's why at the end of this, there are quite a few "retired researchers"... Where are you presently working, by the way? You keep on teaching me things as if you were the director of some big center? Right?

At least the offenses you are using against me are respectable...

[t00fri]

...
Like I said, these perspective views are obviously done for aesthetic purposes, not scientific purposes.
...

Now we are getting to the REAL point thanks to Cham's sharp eyes!

That sort of tacit manipulation is a "dead sin" in any kind of scientific analysis! It is deeply unserious and simply demonstrates that my gut feeling was once more right.

It's a typical attitude of an "artist" where beauty counts way more than scientific truth...

[Malenfant]

Thanks for proving my point about you, Fridger.

And also for misrepresenting what I said, as usual. I never claimed that peer-review was "superfluous" at all - I just said that it is not infallible. The fact that something is not peer-reviewed does not make in invalid.

And you are checking someone's background to decide if their work or conclusions are valid, not to decide whether you want to employ them or not. It seems that what's more important to you is who somebody is, not what they're actually saying - and that is what disgusts me. That's obviously why you never listen to criticism here, because you think nobody else is important enough to listen to. Heck, you even say it yourself in your last post - you don't care what I say, you just care that I'm not coming from a 'director' so you ignore it.

To be fair, I've seen several bigwig scientists doing the same thing. I think you just lose their way after a while - you get so involved in all the politics and cliques that you forget that what really matters is the science. You're no different to them. This is largely why I got out of research, because I saw this sort of thing everywhere and it sickened me.

[Malenfant]

...
Like I said, these perspective views are obviously done for aesthetic purposes, not scientific purposes.
...

Now we are getting to the REAL point thanks to Cham's sharp eyes!

No, we're not. Nobody ever claimed that these perspective views were "scientific". If you'd even bothered to look at the guy's website that much would be obvious, he says that he used photoshop to fill in the gaps for crying out loud.

That sort of tacit manipulation is a "dead sin" in any kind of scientific analysis! It is deeply unserious and simply demonstrates that my gut feeling was once more right.

It isn't though. Big deal, he cloned some data. But he SAID he did that. True, he should make the unmodified images available too, but so what? These images are and always were for aesthetic purposes only. Saying "Hah! I told you! They aren't scientific!" is just pointing out what everyone else who was actually paying attention knew already.

And this is all completely beside the point, because it in no way negates or reduces the colour work (which is actually what is the issue here, not the perspective views).

But I don't think you're really interested in that - you just seem hellbent on declaring that this man is a fake - which is ridiculous and completely unfounded - than actually objectively examining his work.

[Malenfant]

Like I said, these perspective views are obviously done for aesthetic purposes, not scientific purposes.

'Nuff said !

Yes. I've never claimed otherwise, and neither has the creator of the pictures. I'm not seeing how this is a major revelation here (though the point is that the published perspective views shouldn't be used for scientific purposes. Doesn't mean that any of this other work should be dismissed too).

[t00fri]

Heck, you even say it yourself in your last post - you don't care what I say, you just care that I'm not a 'director' so you ignore it).

I am usually a peaceful guy. But when someone with your comparatively small experience in science starts off lecturing to me like a director e.g. how I should do my job then I indeed tend to loose my good temper!

This is largely why I got out of research, because I saw this sort of thing everywhere and it sickened me.

Did you have a choice??

[ElChristou]

Guys... please... Let's keep a bit for tomorrow!

[t00fri]

Nobody ever claimed that these perspective views were "scientific".

But then we agree from the start and could have saved our time!! I always said these pictures look nice, notably with a glass of beer, but they have ZERO scientific value.

That's indeed correct, since the guy just fills in empty slots at will to make the images look NICER.

And incidentally, unless explicitly stated, one tends to loose every credibility with such methods. And a guy who tacitly fakes data ONCE, will do that uncontrollably again at other places...Why should I believe that the same guy did not manipulate --equally tacitly-- the color shades in the respective images. Or as I said, perhaps the data were not complete and the missing rest was phantasy. Why should I believe anything now??



@Chris:
See, that's why I was suspicious from the start.

[Malenfant]

I am usually a peaceful guy. But when someone with your comparatively small experience in science starts off lecturing to me like a director e.g. how I should do my job then I indeed tend to loose my good temper!

I don't tell you how to do your job, and never have. But I expect that every good scientist should listen to what others have to say and take it on its own merits, regardless of their standing. Heck, I'd expect people in general to do that, whether it's about science or not. But whether we're graduates, postdocs, researchers, professors or even not scientists at all doesn't come into it, you should be judging the science on its own merits alone, and not be influenced by who the messenger is. If the science - or the criticism, or the comment - is itself flawed, then it can and should be criticised as such. But it should never be dismissed out of hand just because you think someone's "beneath you".

Did you have a choice??

Of course I had a choice. And I chose not to continue.

[Malenfant]

And incidentally, unless explicitly stated, one tends to loose every credibility with such methods. And a guy who tacitly fakes data ONCE, will do that uncontrollably again at other places...

Nonsense. That's leaping to unjustified conclusions right there. By that logic, the fact that NASA fakes a photo of shuttle astronauts by compositing them in front of another picture for PR purposes, or touches up an image of a lunar lander to show up the US Flag, means that everything they do must be fake. That's ridiculous and you know it.

And also, Mr Mitchell did not "tacitly" do anything. He is quite explicit about everything he's done.

Why should I believe that the same guy did not manipulate --equally tacitly-- the color shades in the respective images. Or as I said, perhaps the data were not complete and the missing rest was phantasy. Why should I believe anything now??

That's up to you. But it seems you're very eager to leap to conclusions based solely on your own unproven assumptions about the character of the person in question. That is neither scientific nor objective.

[t00fri]

But I expect that every good scientist should listen to what others have to say, regardless of their standing.

You would be surprised how long the list of people is even in this forum whose opinion I value VERY much. A number of them are no (natural) scientists at all.

It is correct that you are not among them. But this should not be surprising, given our longstanding "love affair".
But you might be surprised, I am spending quite some time reflecting why you are behaving against me as you do . I think I am getting closer these days

Bye Fridger