Starship Asterisk*

VictorBorun wrote: ↑Tue Aug 23, 2022 10:33 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:31 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:07 pm

I see no 3D option when posting a picture with the Facebook website on my PC. Perhaps it's only available on the Facebook app? Oh well, I detest Facebook anyway.

We would not want APOD images displayed like this. The image is analyzed, and based on what the AI thinks is going on, a depth map is created, and then different views are simulated, with missing background estimated from the surrounding image. An animation is then created. Sometimes it works pretty well. Sometimes the AI fails miserably and you get truly bizarre artifacts.

Starting with true 3D data (e.g. an image pair) you could create a similar animation. I think I've seen software that would do that. But it's up to an image author to decide if they want to do that, and up to the editors if they think it would make a good APOD. In scientific publications, however, the standard way of presenting stereo data is with a pair of images, viewed either directly or using a pair of lenses (like a stereoscope). Occasionally anaglyphs like this APOD are used, but not commonly, since it requires special glasses and you lose color information.

A correction: to create a 3D photo on Facebook, you supply a pair of images, one a 2d colour image, another a depth map monochrome image.
It's only after you upload the pair that the AI starts to think what is going on and simulate different views to show for a Facebook user when he is wiggling a gadget or using their mouse to caress the pic.

As expected, the AI fails epically to simulate a non-trivial background part eclipsed in the original 2d colour image or to simulate a complex 3d map with many small objects of different depth, lake hazy globe of a galactic core.
It's only good and possibly wow-good when the depth map is simple and the eclipsed parts are trivial.
Here is my examle.
I uploaded this pair:Jupiter Judy Schmidt 3d.jpgJupiter Judy Schmidt 3d_depth.jpg

The original was
Webb NIRCam composite image of Jupiter from three filters – F360M (red), F212N (yellow-green), and F150W2 (cyan) – and alignment due to the planet’s rotation. Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, Jupiter ERS Team; image processing by Judy Schmidt.

I generated a depth map of a sphere, fitted it to the Jup pic and made it 20% transparent to turn bright details into hills for an unscientific wow

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:31 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:07 pm

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:28 pm One 3-D technology (aside from Facebook) that used to be quite effective in creating a real 3-d effect without was by polarising the light from the subject using two lenses that polarised at different angles so that each eye saw a slightly different image in each eye. Melded together by the brain, the depth perception was remarkable. I remember using those polarising glasses in movie theaters back in the 1950s and 1960s. As for Facebook:
How do I create a 3D photo on Facebook?
Tap "What's on your mind?" at the top of your Feed or tap "Write something"... in a group.
Tap Photo/Video.
Select your photo and tap Done.
Tap Effects.
On the Choose Effect panel, select 3D.
Add any text you'd like, then tap Post.
However, I'm not sure about the actual process that converts a 2-D image into a 3-D image.

I see no 3D option when posting a picture with the Facebook website on my PC. Perhaps it's only available on the Facebook app? Oh well, I detest Facebook anyway.

We would not want APOD images displayed like this. The image is analyzed, and based on what the AI thinks is going on, a depth map is created, and then different views are simulated, with missing background estimated from the surrounding image. An animation is then created. Sometimes it works pretty well. Sometimes the AI fails miserably and you get truly bizarre artifacts.

Starting with true 3D data (e.g. an image pair) you could create a similar animation. I think I've seen software that would do that. But it's up to an image author to decide if they want to do that, and up to the editors if they think it would make a good APOD. In scientific publications, however, the standard way of presenting stereo data is with a pair of images, viewed either directly or using a pair of lenses (like a stereoscope). Occasionally anaglyphs like this APOD are used, but not commonly, since it requires special glasses and you lose color information.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:31 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:27 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:31 pm

We would not want APOD images displayed like this. The image is analyzed, and based on what the AI thinks is going on, a depth map is created, and then different views are simulated, with missing background estimated from the surrounding image. An animation is then created. Sometimes it works pretty well. Sometimes the AI fails miserably and you get truly bizarre artifacts.

Starting with true 3D data (e.g. an image pair) you could create a similar animation. I think I've seen software that would do that. But it's up to an image author to decide if they want to do that, and up to the editors if they think it would make a good APOD. In scientific publications, however, the standard way of presenting stereo data is with a pair of images, viewed either directly or using a pair of lenses (like a stereoscope). Occasionally anaglyphs like this APOD are used, but not commonly, since it requires special glasses and you lose color information.

I realize such a simulated 3D effect would likely serve no scientific purpose. I was just curious what the result would look like.

Here's an example. Might have to click on it to get the full animation.
_
e6y0st1vngjjubdrsa8x.gif

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:27 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:31 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:07 pm

I see no 3D option when posting a picture with the Facebook website on my PC. Perhaps it's only available on the Facebook app? Oh well, I detest Facebook anyway.

We would not want APOD images displayed like this. The image is analyzed, and based on what the AI thinks is going on, a depth map is created, and then different views are simulated, with missing background estimated from the surrounding image. An animation is then created. Sometimes it works pretty well. Sometimes the AI fails miserably and you get truly bizarre artifacts.

Starting with true 3D data (e.g. an image pair) you could create a similar animation. I think I've seen software that would do that. But it's up to an image author to decide if they want to do that, and up to the editors if they think it would make a good APOD. In scientific publications, however, the standard way of presenting stereo data is with a pair of images, viewed either directly or using a pair of lenses (like a stereoscope). Occasionally anaglyphs like this APOD are used, but not commonly, since it requires special glasses and you lose color information.

I realize such a simulated 3D effect would likely serve no scientific purpose. I was just curious what the result would look like.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:31 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:07 pm

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:28 pm One 3-D technology (aside from Facebook) that used to be quite effective in creating a real 3-d effect without was by polarising the light from the subject using two lenses that polarised at different angles so that each eye saw a slightly different image in each eye. Melded together by the brain, the depth perception was remarkable. I remember using those polarising glasses in movie theaters back in the 1950s and 1960s. As for Facebook:
How do I create a 3D photo on Facebook?
Tap "What's on your mind?" at the top of your Feed or tap "Write something"... in a group.
Tap Photo/Video.
Select your photo and tap Done.
Tap Effects.
On the Choose Effect panel, select 3D.
Add any text you'd like, then tap Post.
However, I'm not sure about the actual process that converts a 2-D image into a 3-D image.

I see no 3D option when posting a picture with the Facebook website on my PC. Perhaps it's only available on the Facebook app? Oh well, I detest Facebook anyway.

We would not want APOD images displayed like this. The image is analyzed, and based on what the AI thinks is going on, a depth map is created, and then different views are simulated, with missing background estimated from the surrounding image. An animation is then created. Sometimes it works pretty well. Sometimes the AI fails miserably and you get truly bizarre artifacts.

Starting with true 3D data (e.g. an image pair) you could create a similar animation. I think I've seen software that would do that. But it's up to an image author to decide if they want to do that, and up to the editors if they think it would make a good APOD. In scientific publications, however, the standard way of presenting stereo data is with a pair of images, viewed either directly or using a pair of lenses (like a stereoscope). Occasionally anaglyphs like this APOD are used, but not commonly, since it requires special glasses and you lose color information.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 1:07 pm

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:28 pm One 3-D technology (aside from Facebook) that used to be quite effective in creating a real 3-d effect without was by polarising the light from the subject using two lenses that polarised at different angles so that each eye saw a slightly different image in each eye. Melded together by the brain, the depth perception was remarkable. I remember using those polarising glasses in movie theaters back in the 1950s and 1960s. As for Facebook:
How do I create a 3D photo on Facebook?
Tap "What's on your mind?" at the top of your Feed or tap "Write something"... in a group.
Tap Photo/Video.
Select your photo and tap Done.
Tap Effects.
On the Choose Effect panel, select 3D.
Add any text you'd like, then tap Post.
However, I'm not sure about the actual process that converts a 2-D image into a 3-D image.

I see no 3D option when posting a picture with the Facebook website on my PC. Perhaps it's only available on the Facebook app? Oh well, I detest Facebook anyway.

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Tue Aug 09, 2022 10:28 pm One 3-D technology (aside from Facebook) that used to be quite effective in creating a real 3-d effect without was by polarising the light from the subject using two lenses that polarised at different angles so that each eye saw a slightly different image in each eye. Melded together by the brain, the depth perception was remarkable. I remember using those polarising glasses in movie theaters back in the 1950s and 1960s. As for Facebook:
How do I create a 3D photo on Facebook?
Tap "What's on your mind?" at the top of your Feed or tap "Write something"... in a group.
Tap Photo/Video.
Select your photo and tap Done.
Tap Effects.
On the Choose Effect panel, select 3D.
Add any text you'd like, then tap Post.
However, I'm not sure about the actual process that converts a 2-D image into a 3-D image.

MarkBour wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:16 pm

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm I wonder why Nasa doesn;t use the same technology as Facebook to produce stereo or 3-D pictures. How many people have an old set of red and blue paper spectacles lying around?

Phobos again!

I really like the 3D model at the APOD caption's link: asteroid-like moon's.
(Scroll down to the second image, which is wonderfully interactive).

The leading theory of the origin for Phobos and Deimos is that they are captured asteroids. According to Wikipedia, this theory is not without problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
But both have circular orbits, near the equator, which is unusual for captured objects and the required capture dynamics are complex.

It'll all make a lot more sense when we locate the door in one of the darker craters.

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm I wonder why Nasa doesn;t use the same technology as Facebook to produce stereo or 3-D pictures. How many people have an old set of red and blue paper spectacles lying around?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 10:49 pm

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm I wonder why Nasa doesn;t use the same technology as Facebook to produce stereo or 3-D pictures. How many people have an old set of red and blue paper spectacles lying around?

I don't know what FB does, but here's a de-anaglyphed version suitable for cross-eyed viewing.
_
de-anaglyph-Phobos_stereoME_800.jpg

MarkBour wrote: ↑Sun Aug 07, 2022 12:29 am

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 10:41 pm

MarkBour wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:16 pm

I'm not persuaded by the study that produced the theory that some of the tracks were made by boulders bouncing along. One wonders what would have finally become of the alleged boulders. I wonder if Phobos passed through Saturn's rings, or a very high-population region of the asteroid belt, or a comet's tail or two on its way to Mars.

Saturn's rings are made up mostly of ice particles smaller than boulders. But had Phobos passed through the rings, we'd have craters, not streaks. A comet's tail is just dust and gas. Anything big enough to mar the surface would be very, very rare and would also produce a crater. Bodies in the asteroid belt are not densely spaced. You could sail around in the asteroid belt for thousands of years and never see one.

Good points, as always. So, do you find one of the popular theories believable, or none of them very much?

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 10:41 pm

MarkBour wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:16 pm

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm I wonder why Nasa doesn;t use the same technology as Facebook to produce stereo or 3-D pictures. How many people have an old set of red and blue paper spectacles lying around?

I'm not persuaded by the study that produced the theory that some of the tracks were made by boulders bouncing along. One wonders what would have finally become of the alleged boulders. I wonder if Phobos passed through Saturn's rings, or a very high-population region of the asteroid belt, or a comet's tail or two on its way to Mars.

Saturn's rings are made up mostly of ice particles smaller than boulders. But had Phobos passed through the rings, we'd have craters, not streaks. A comet's tail is just dust and gas. Anything big enough to mar the surface would be very, very rare and would also produce a crater. Bodies in the asteroid belt are not densely spaced. You could sail around in the asteroid belt for thousands of years and never see one.

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm I wonder why Nasa doesn;t use the same technology as Facebook to produce stereo or 3-D pictures. How many people have an old set of red and blue paper spectacles lying around?

MarkBour wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:16 pm

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm I wonder why Nasa doesn;t use the same technology as Facebook to produce stereo or 3-D pictures. How many people have an old set of red and blue paper spectacles lying around?

I'm not persuaded by the study that produced the theory that some of the tracks were made by boulders bouncing along. One wonders what would have finally become of the alleged boulders. I wonder if Phobos passed through Saturn's rings, or a very high-population region of the asteroid belt, or a comet's tail or two on its way to Mars.

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm I wonder why Nasa doesn;t use the same technology as Facebook to produce stereo or 3-D pictures. How many people have an old set of red and blue paper spectacles lying around?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars
But both have circular orbits, near the equator, which is unusual for captured objects and the required capture dynamics are complex.

silvio.olivier@videotron.ca wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 9:05 pm Is Phobos formed by sedmentary rock ? The parallel paterne is stricking. Thank you!

SeedsofEarfth wrote: ↑Sat Aug 06, 2022 6:34 pm I wonder why Nasa doesn;t use the same technology as Facebook to produce stereo or 3-D pictures. How many people have an old set of red and blue paper spectacles lying around?