True color Mars: JPL/NASA database exposed

(This is the reply in a discussion buried in a narrow nested set of replies below in this thread)
Replying to: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/58432#comment-605010

"- Actually you will find them on three, including this one:
http://esamultimedia.esa.... - which is the same picture as the one you posted earlier in black & white.

If you take a look at one of the two others:
http://esamultimedia.esa....
Adjusted exposure: http://gs83.photobucket.c...
You will find if you look closely, the same exact patterns, and take note, they are in the right position according to the angle of this photos perspective. One cannot dismiss it for coincidence. That somehow a pre-determined pattern of compression and distortion appears equal for all the photos in different angles."
# Exactly, that image shows artifacts too.
Let me go more into that one first and then into how the 3D perspective images are made, I'll try to make it short.

Some details about the colour and grayscale images first.
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress/134-021104-0...
Colour:
1980x1654
3.27 MPixels
942 kB
7716864 bits
24 bits/pixel

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/marsexpress/131-021104-0...
Grayscale:
2680x2152
5.77 MPixels
3.142 kB
25739264 bits
8 bits/pixel

The colour image is 57% the size of the grayscale image in MPixels.
BUT...
The colour image is 30% the size of the grayscale image in bits.
This means the colour image is far more compressed than the grayscale image, as it only uses about half the data for the same thing.

This is not all however.
If that wasn't enough I didn't take into account the difference between grayscale and colour images as it relates to the data needed.

So let's take the effective MPixels of each image for the available data.
Colour: 7716864 bits / (24 bits per pixel) = 0.32 MPixels effective
Grayscale: 25739264 bits / (8 bits per pixel) = 3.22 MPixels effective
In other words, while both are compressed, the colour image uses 10! times less data for the same amount of pixels, which necessarily means a lot of compression as well as lots of artifacts, there is no other way.

Now, this explains the artifacts in the colour image, but why is this important for the 3D perspective images?
Those images are not real camera images made from that point and direction, but rather a software model made by a combination of a normal image of the MOC or Mars Orbiter Camera (the colour image) and data gathered from the MOLA or Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter. This is effectively a radar, that makes a map of the terrain by measuring the bouncing lasers off the surface and measure that distance. What they do is drape the colour image over this software "terrain" and you've got yourself a 3D piece of mars you can move and turn around anyway you want like a videogame.

This is basically what they have, data about a terrain taken from directly above:
http://www.freewebs.com/hboudreaux/terrainPic1.jpg
Then an image of grassy terrain taken from directly above like a flat map
And then the combination:
http://www.freewebs.com/hboudreaux/terrainPic2.jpg

What this all comes down to then is that there are two images, one decent grayscale image, and one pretty bad, but fancier colour image. They could just as easily make those 3D perspective images with nothing but the grayscale image and the terrain data they already got and you would be left with a better, but less pretty model. The current model and it's perspective images are nothing more than a different view of the same old colour image. So that's the explanation for why those things are seen, and seen on several images.

"- I almost forgot. Have you yet spotted the face-mountain at the edge of the mountain? Right in the middle of the disputed area."
# I'm going to ignore that if you don't mind.

"-The map we use is the same. The difference is that you used the newer Beta version, 2.0. I happen to use the older version 1.5. They come from the same provider. In the newer beta version the smudges are less apparent but many are still there. The smudges and black patches in the beta version are addressed in their faq-section, where they answer they do not know because they were not part of the construction of the map. They give a "may be" answer that the photo vessel did not capture any usable images for that location. But apparently the smudges and black patches are improved in the Beta version.
Bottom line is - the 1.5 version is legit and they include smudging."
# I didn't argue that it wasn't legit, my argument was that they didn't manually smudge those images to hide anything, as you can see the unsmudged images somewhere else.

"- Well I guess we come to a point where it is a matter of trust. While you believe there can be many legit reason for "doing such things - if they did" and that it is "obviously" it's not an artificially made face, at the same time, I believe that NASA is a agency complex of lies and deceit. Our discussion would move a bit further to those who run the show and so forth."
# That's a whole different subject though, which would require it's own evidence, the thing is that there is corruption everywhere, but most of the people "on the floor" are usually fine people. It doesn't change the 20000x15000 pixel image of the thing at any rate.

"- From badastronomy: "He protested the way the image was processed, the way it was released, the method used to take it, the methods not used to take it, anything to distract from the fact that no matter what, it just doesn't look like a real face!"
The site is continuously using obnoxious language from the very introduction throughout the page and when finally referring to the solution, "The Real Deal", he relies entirely on Michael Malin, CEO of Malin Space Science Systems, with ties to NASA already from the Viking program 1975, and to this day(http://en.wikipedia.org/w...).
What's wrong with _not_ consulting a neutral part to this controversy? Well for starters, if it is a conspiracy, which is clearly implied by Flandern "the joker", it would be a bit funny if the face of mars editing was complimented any less then "good enough to be reliable"."

# The language is so because of the person who is being responded to, who's life consists of nonsense claim without evidence, then when it is presented he denies it or drops it like nothing happened instead of facing it.
He does no rely on some person, he looks at the data and information about the people who actually made the camera.
I don't see who you would see as a neutral party in this exactly, it's not like you can say much about anything if you don't know the thing you are talking about. But this is not the point at all, even if it was ' less then "good enough to be reliable" ' as what matters is what is actually there, since there cannot be a conspiracy if there isn't anything to conspire about! Which is more than clear from the 3 separate and very reliable images made in 2001, 2006 and 2007 as I can see it.

is as old as space exploration itself.

It often takes up to ten years to plan, design, and execute a single mission to space.

Quite often, the technology of the mission is quickly surpassed by the technology of the average consumer.

Thats just the facts of life.

But, having said that, these true color images of mars are SPECTACULAR!