Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357097

Re: Near True

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Simoen wrote:
> 
> On 7/14/2015 12:48 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> How NASA uses the term:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question20.html
> >>>>
> >>>> Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_color
> >>
> >>> Okay, yours user-edited website reads:
> >>
> >>> A false-color image is an image that depicts an object in colors that
> >>> differ from those a photograph (a "true-color" image) would show.
> >>
> >> That's all you need to know.
> >>
> >> Think of an old-time color photograph negative.  That's a false color
> >> image, but one from which a true color image can be recreated.
> >> A black-and-white photograph is also false color.
> >>
> >> Sometimes false color is the only way to do it.  Like a photo in the
> >> infrared or ultraviolet.  You *must* use false color for that, what would
> >> a true-color infrared photograph look like?
> >>
> >> IR and UV can show details not visible in visible light.  Ever see a photo
> >> of flowers in the ultraviolet, the way a bee would see it?  Can't do it
> >> without false color.  I have a false color aerial photograph of where I
> >> live from 20 years ago.  It's in infrared and visible light.  Infrared is
> >> shown as red.  Healthy vegetation (farm fields, golf courses etc.) show up
> >> as bright red as healthy vegetation reflects IR very well.  Not so healthy
> >> vegetation as dull red or pinkish.  It shows the health in much more
> >> detail than just looking at it, as both look green.
> >>
> >>> I don't see any difference....it's still 'meant to deceive, incorrect,
> >>> not according with truth or fact.'
> >>
> >> How can it be meant to deceive if they explicitly say it's false color?
> >> Esp. when they explicitly give color mapping, like my USGS false color
> >> photograph?  It says that infrared appears as red, red as green and green
> >> as blue, as well as giving the actual wavelengths.
> >
> > I think you got lost somewhere...
> >
> > The Subject heading of this threads reads? "Near True".
> >
> > then I posted NASA article:
> >
> > NASA publishes 1st 'near-true color' images of Pluto
> > http://rt.com/usa/268678-nasa-first-pluto-images/
> >
> >
> > They didn't write false colors...
> 
> if they are not TRUE COLORS, they are FALSE COLORS.  Simple.
> 
> >
> > somebody came into my thread and added "false colors" which was never mentioned in the news...
> 
> "near-true" is "not true", which means it is "false".
> 
> and "someone" had to correct your faulty thinking,
> which may be "near-true", but "not true", so "faulty thinking" it is.
> 
> >
> >
> > "false colors" was not mentioned in the news...
> >
> >
> > What was mentioned was 'near-true color' and simulated true-colour ....but no mentioned of the words "false colors".
> >
> >
> > Tell your News Science People that I said to put in the Headline  "false colors", instead of
> > 'near-true color' and "simulated true-colour", okay?
> 
> absolutly, I will get right on it, but they will ask, How False?
> then what?
> 
> >
> >
> > Because everybody knows what "false" means.
> 
> false is near-true.
> 
> >
> >
> > So the average person can say..."Oh, it's fuckin fake color photos!"
> >
> 
> the color on your computer screen is false too.


it's near true.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-06-21 13:11 -0700
  Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-05 19:01 -0700
    Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-07 20:22 -0700
      Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-08 14:26 -0700
      Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-09 10:52 -0700
        Re: Near True Simoen <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-10 22:41 -0500
      Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-13 23:10 -0700
        Re: Near True benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-14 03:00 -0400
          Re: Near True Simoen <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-14 11:34 -0500
  Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-10 19:41 -0700
    Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-10 19:43 -0700
      Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-12 21:45 -0700
        Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-13 12:11 -0700
        Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-13 15:53 -0700
          Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-13 22:48 -0700
            Re: Near True Simoen <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-14 10:47 -0500
              Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-14 10:34 -0700
              Re: Near True HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 07:14 -0400
          Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-24 13:55 -0700
            Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-26 20:52 -0700
              Re: Near True The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-07-29 11:48 -0700
            Near True2 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-01 23:54 -0700
              Re: Near True2 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-02 00:57 -0700
                Re: Near True2 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-02 12:37 -0700
                Re: Near True2 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-02 14:04 -0700
                Re: Near True2 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-08-02 17:35 -0700
  Re: Near True Simoen <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-07-10 22:37 -0500

csiph-web