Rockets Red Glare

[Proton Fox]

STS-123 punches into the cloud deck early this morning...

And if my photo isn't bad enough for you, check out the giant smeary
artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the offical NASA photo at:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/213835main_08pd0697.jpg

[Alan Erskine[_3_]]

"Proton Fox" > wrote in message
...
> STS-123 punches into the cloud deck early this morning...
>
> And if my photo isn't bad enough for you, check out the giant smeary
> artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the offical NASA photo at:
> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/213835main_08pd0697.jpg
>
>

It was a fantastic launch.

[Bob Harrington]

Proton Fox > wrote in
:

> STS-123 punches into the cloud deck early this morning...

Tres spiff!

> And if my photo isn't bad enough for you, check out the giant smeary
> artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the offical NASA photo at:
> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/213835main_08pd0697.jpg

Admittedly, I'm optically challenged as a bat - but I'm not seeing the giant
smeary artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the NASA image...?

Bob ^,,^

[Square Wheels[_5_]]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:54:37 +0000, Bob Harrington wrote:

> Proton Fox > wrote in
> :
>
>> STS-123 punches into the cloud deck early this morning...
>
> Tres spiff!
>
>> And if my photo isn't bad enough for you, check out the giant smeary
>> artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the offical NASA photo at:
>> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/213835main_08pd0697.jpg
>
> Admittedly, I'm optically challenged as a bat - but I'm not seeing the giant
> smeary artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the NASA image...?
>
> Bob ^,,^

Mayhaps your newsreader and/or pic viewer is resizing it to the screen
resolution?

Data:

Size: 3.1 MB (3267812 bytes)
Image Type: jpeg (The JPEG image format)
Width: 3000 pixels
Height: 1995 pixels

If you view it at that size, it does look a bit --- uh --- thin? But
that's typical of a JPEG that size; lots if data so you can resize it to
whatever suits you, even widescreen. And that's /compressed/ JPEG, a BMP
or TIFF (NASA loves TIFFs) would take an hour to download!

Ciao for miao....


SW

[Laurie]

Bob Harrington wrote:
> Proton Fox > wrote in
> :
>
>> STS-123 punches into the cloud deck early this morning...
>
> Tres spiff!
>
>> And if my photo isn't bad enough for you, check out the giant smeary
>> artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the offical NASA photo at:
>> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/213835main_08pd0697.jpg
>
> Admittedly, I'm optically challenged as a bat - but I'm not seeing the giant
> smeary artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the NASA image...?
>

Follow the cable on the left hand side from the top of the lightning
mast at the top of the launch structure. It disappears as it goes
through the smudge.

Laurie

[Proton Fox]

Bob Harrington > wrote in
:

> Admittedly, I'm optically challenged as a bat - but I'm not seeing the
> giant smeary artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the NASA image...?
>
> Bob ^,,^
>

Hmm...maybe your browser automatically resizes images? It doesn't look so
bad when it's smaller, but at full resolution on my 19-inch LCD it's 8
inches high and 4 inches across. Mostly I thought it was an odd choice to
put up on the main mission page, given how many pictures they must have of
each launch.

[Square Wheels[_5_]]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:47:56 +0000, Proton Fox wrote:

> Bob Harrington > wrote in
> :
>
>> Admittedly, I'm optically challenged as a bat - but I'm not seeing the
>> giant smeary artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the NASA image...?
>>
>> Bob ^,,^
>>
>
> Hmm...maybe your browser automatically resizes images? It doesn't look so
> bad when it's smaller, but at full resolution on my 19-inch LCD it's 8
> inches high and 4 inches across. Mostly I thought it was an odd choice to
> put up on the main mission page, given how many pictures they must have of
> each launch.

I've got a 21.4 inch LCD, and at full res it looks very strange.

I cut that part out and blew it up (I blowed up /real/ good!) 500% and
then 1000%, and it's weird. Not a pixel-by-pixel retouch done by hand.
(i.e., a hand job. sorry, couldn't resist....)

It looks -- at first blush -- like a water-stain on a scanned image. But
with their technology I doubt if NASA would go that route.

Truth is, it looks like a poor touch-up job, but of what? Some sort of
reflection? Internal lens-flare? The affected area is a nearly perfect
oval, so it might be an automatic retouch tool from a graphics program. If
there were something nefarious to hide, they would have done a better job
of it.

Might shoot NASA an email and ask them why they used such a poor photo --
though I doubt I'd get an answer.

"'Tis most passing strange....."

[Bob Harrington]

Square Wheels > wrote
in news:UbOCj.88325$w94.5187@pd7urf2no:

> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 10:47:56 +0000, Proton Fox wrote:
>
>> Bob Harrington > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Admittedly, I'm optically challenged as a bat - but I'm not seeing
>>> the giant smeary artifact/fingersmudge/whatsit on the NASA image...?
>>>
>>> Bob ^,,^
>>>
>>
>> Hmm...maybe your browser automatically resizes images? It doesn't
>> look so bad when it's smaller, but at full resolution on my 19-inch
>> LCD it's 8 inches high and 4 inches across. Mostly I thought it was
>> an odd choice to put up on the main mission page, given how many
>> pictures they must have of each launch.
>
> I've got a 21.4 inch LCD, and at full res it looks very strange.
>
> I cut that part out and blew it up (I blowed up /real/ good!) 500% and
> then 1000%, and it's weird. Not a pixel-by-pixel retouch done by hand.
> (i.e., a hand job. sorry, couldn't resist....)
>
> It looks -- at first blush -- like a water-stain on a scanned image.
> But with their technology I doubt if NASA would go that route.
>
> Truth is, it looks like a poor touch-up job, but of what? Some sort of
> reflection? Internal lens-flare? The affected area is a nearly perfect
> oval, so it might be an automatic retouch tool from a graphics
> program. If there were something nefarious to hide, they would have
> done a better job of it.
>
> Might shoot NASA an email and ask them why they used such a poor photo
> -- though I doubt I'd get an answer.
>
> "'Tis most passing strange....."

Thanks for the out-pointing, I do see it now (Mein Fuhrer! I can see!) It
does look like a bad touch-up job; I'm guessing of an internal lens
reflection of the glaringly bright SLB exhaust.

Or maybe just the Gray Mothership observing the launch...

Speaking of spiffy photos of this launch...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080316.html