UFO observing Curiosity rover...best ever!

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:16 am » by **WillEase666**

Cia212 wrote:
willease666 wrote:
Cia212 wrote:I've read it's dead pixels in the camera.

Some times it is, but the "dead pixel" wouldn't be in the same spot in multiple pictures.

If it's a dead pixel on the sensor, yes it would. Like a dead pixel on a monitor.

Research...
http://www.gdargaud.net/Hack/DeadPixels.html

Either way, speck of dirt or if it will make you happy, dead pixel (which it isn't)...it still isn't a ufo,
much less the best ever.

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:52 am » by **Cia212**

willease666 wrote:Some times it is, but the "dead pixel" wouldn't be in the same spot in multiple pictures
If it's a dead pixel on the sensor, yes it would. Like a dead pixel on a monitor.

Research...
http://www.gdargaud.net/Hack/DeadPixels.html

Either way, speck of dirt or if it will make you happy, dead pixel (which it isn't)...it still isn't a ufo,
much less the best ever.

Tag, you're it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2192008/Are-Martian-overlords---just-dead-pixels-camera-Images-beamed-Curiosity-lead-talk-UFOs-Mars.html

Dantonio said: 'After watching the video, it is actually quite clear that these are one-pixel sized image anomalies.

'I fully concur at this point that these are dead pixels on the imager.

'All CCD [cameras] have them, and in a bland atmosphere like that at Mars, they would be very obvious as opposed to an active atmosphere like Earth, where they could end up hidden for a long time before anyone noticed them.'

Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:25 am » by **WillEase666**

All that proves is he doesn't know a dead pixel from a hole in the ground. The image, if you look at the hi-res version, is not a dead pixel and is in fact several pixels wide...like a piece of dirt stuck on the lens.

Tue Sep 11, 2012 9:32 am » by **Perry LaGuardia**

Cia and will

At least I for one am learning about the difference between pixels and specks
....Thanks guys :flop:

Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:07 am » by **Nihilgeist**

willease666 wrote:Or it could be a speck of dirt on the lens...

I love when you absolutely annihilate stupid shit like this.

Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:14 am » by **WillEase666**

Nihilgeist wrote:

I love when you absolutely annihilate stupid shit like this.

Thank you! :cheers:

Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:15 am » by **Nihilgeist**

willease666 wrote:
Nihilgeist wrote:

I love when you absolutely annihilate stupid shit like this.

Thank you!

You're most welcome. :flop:

Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:32 pm » by **The57ironman**

willease666 wrote:All that proves is he doesn't know a dead pixel from a hole in the ground. The image, if you look at the hi-res version, is not a dead pixel and is in fact several pixels wide...like a piece of dirt stuck on the lens.

.

....they'll be cleaning the lens on their next set maintenance...you can be sure... :mrcool:

.

Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:34 pm » by **WillEase666**

The57ironman wrote:
willease666 wrote:All that proves is he doesn't know a dead pixel from a hole in the ground. The image, if you look at the hi-res version, is not a dead pixel and is in fact several pixels wide...like a piece of dirt stuck on the lens.

.

....they'll be cleaning the lens on their next set maintenance...you can be sure...

Whatever frutty. :censored:

Tue Sep 11, 2012 4:35 pm » by **Troll2rocks**

This thread needs merging. :cheers: