Who's On Mars??

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have found the use of a magnifying glass to be indispensible when viewing these images as many of the most fascinating details are small and difficult to see. In the majority of the images I have pointed out only a few areas of special interest. Much more can be discovered for those who have the patience to study the images carefully with the aid of a magnifying glass. [xterrester]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You have made this suggestion several times but it is obviously erronious. If the image contains sufficient pixel resolution the feature can be enlarged and cropped (by you) to good effect to the limit of the pixelization. You can then post an enlarged feature, and a magnifying glass is unnecessary. If the pixel resolution is low, a magnifying glass will only show pixels.

The idea of using a magnifying glass only serves to confuse the issue.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The dome/crater (center of image) has features that suggest possible artificiality. The design on top struck me as looking artificial. IMO several specific features look decidedly unnatural,--- four evenly spaced dark dots on the middle left edge of the feature, on the direct opposite edge a rectangle shaped structure, a marking that looks somewhat like a 2 X can be seen in the lower half of the feature. The upper left corner area also has a couple of interesting arrangements. (For best results view image with magnifying glass. The little, black Tozaj with the square lens, available for a few dollars at Walgreens is very useful.) [xterrester]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Anybody who has been paying attention for the past several months knows that those things that look like tennis balls imbedded in the sand are light-inverted craters. And again, a magnifying glass is useless. If the image contains the detail, enlarge it and post the enlarged cropping of the feature you are pointing to. If you can't do that, it is because it isn't in the image.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i> 13 Aug 2006 : 01:05
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have found the use of a magnifying glass to be indispensible when viewing these images as many of the most fascinating details are small and difficult to see. [xterrester]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You have made this suggestion several times but it is obviously erronious. If the image contains sufficient pixel resolution the feature can be enlarged and cropped (by you) to good effect to the limit of the pixelization. You can then post an enlarged feature, and a magnifying glass is unnecessary. If the pixel resolution is low, a magnifying glass will only show pixels.
The idea of using a magnifying glass only serves to confuse the issue. Neil<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Neil, I happen to use a magnifying glass for many of the Mars images. Although I admit enlargement does to same job, the magnifier is much quicker than a Photo Shop enlargement. Although I readily admit to my confusion on many issues I do not attribute that confusion to my use of visual aids. Erroneous or not, I prefer to save time and the use of a magnifier does just that.
thebobgy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Neil, I happen to use a magnifying glass for many of the Mars images. Although I admit enlargement does to same job, the magnifier is much quicker than a Photo Shop enlargement. [thebobgy]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

There is nothing really wrong with you using a magnifier once the image is already posted by someone else (or for a quick study of something in the original MSSS gif). But for the original poster on the message board my point is still valid. For three reasons:

1- Presumably large images have high mb content and high resolution for the MOC (say in the best case, 1.5 m/p). These images usually have to be compressed (reduced in mb content so they aren't too large for the website to handle) before posting, so they no longer have the true high resolution of the original. Therefore chances are good that you can't get much more out of these images once posted, either by saving them and enlarging, or by using a magnifier on-screen.

2- It is incumbant on the original poster to make the most of the original image before posting--that is if he (or she) wants us to see what he sees. Therefore he must take the highest resolution gif, crop and enlarge the feature he wants us to take note of, enhance for contrast and brightness, and post it. If he needs a context for the feature in question, he can post the context image along with the enlarged cropping of the feature, with appropriate arrows or some other highlight or indication. The magnifying glass is beside the point for the original poster.

3- Magnifying compressed, already posted images is very likely to reveal only pixels.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Magnifying compressed, already posted images is very likely to reveal only pixels. [Neil]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To be fair, I did mention once in an earlier post that those with poor eyesight might try using a magnifying glass, but I think I was being facetious at the time. But still, such a tool would have very limited use when trying to demonstrate artificial objects where clarity of expression is the goal.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by xterrester</i>
<br />ART ON MARS?


There is a line of figures running down the approximate middle of this image that have the appearance of created art. Viewed sideways, the large figure approximately five inches up from the bottom of the image suggests a ruler or a king. This figure appears to be seated. Around the lower edge of this seated figure are symbols that look alphabetical. It's hard to see these clearly but there is a line of them that look somewhat like the word JUNEL, JUNUL or JUNRIL

Perhaps the name of a god or king?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">