Hi Doug -
A few minor gripes while your'e here: No one will see it if they can't find it.
Unfortunately, the excellent Surveyor work got lost in the magnificence of the Venus imagery. Perhaps the thread needs to be distibuted into two threads, one on Surveyor and one on Venera. Perhaps that's true for every thread - organize them by probes. Break out the Pioneer comments from those on the Mars Mariners, and maybe further, Mariner 4 from Mariner 7.
The image techniques are also scattered in the different threads.
"super resolution" as the photoshop hotdogs use it is way different than formal super resolution. The later uses complex inference between images to reconstruct the underlying colored geometry which generated the obvserved images. I got a some grief here because of their confusion, which I learn appears to have started at JPL and Ames. You can be sure that no one at Santa Cruz or Berkeley shares their confusion. How about using "superrez" instead?
Currently, NASA's business is to launch rockets. The probes are an excuse to do this. Since this is the case, for publicity reasons images (scientific results) will only be generated for current missions. Data archiving and "mining" is not pursued, and that's why there is that hole is there that you and your group have fallen into. Professional scientific imagery techniques are way more advanced than the stuff you guys are doing, but since it is not funded at all, the stuff your goup is is great, and I'm enjoying the hell out of it.
Sinec there is no pay, each individual's personal interests set their targets, and they acquire the skills necessary to best satisfy those interests, which brings me to my point. There is no movies-animation section on your site, and there is no complete movie of the impacts of the fragments of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 with Jupiter.
You also need to stick a pay-pal donation sticker on every page, and a general copyright notice that the images are copyright of their creators and may not be used without their consent.
Good luck,
Ed
Space/Science » in reply to re: Venus as we would see it
re: Venus as we would see it
