![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/2...n_08pd0697.jpg |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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/2...n_08pd0697.jpg It was a fantastic launch. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/2...n_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 ^,,^ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/2...n_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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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/2...n_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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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....." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rockets Red Glare, pt 3 - 006index.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 15th 06 02:44 PM |
Rockets Red Glare, pt 3 - 005index.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 15th 06 02:44 PM |
Rockets Red Glare, pt 2 - lance_001.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 14th 06 03:22 AM |
Rockets Red Glare, pt 2 - hq-2_7.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 14th 06 03:22 AM |
Rockets Red Glare - BQM.jpg (1/1) | Mitchell Holman | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 13th 06 04:05 AM |