Having said that, a couple of postings were dealing with the fact ( < fact ) that the resolutions of the publicly avaliable photos are of a somewhat low(er) resolution & quality then the ones that are internally avaliable.

I do not find it odd, because I think I know some of the scientific/commercial based reasons to do that, but the US tax payer should be treated with a little more respect then an 'Highrez' Atari ST 640×400 B/W monitor resolution.

Other then then that, just once again; tnx A LOT !

Regards,
Aryan – an EU taxpayer.

Purchase Hexstatic – MasterView and enjoy the benefis of getting Red-Blue glasses (still work on these images just fine) and a great CD+DVD of music by Hexstatic!

Here are three sources:
1. Buy a 3D movie, such as Spy Kids. The glasses (4 pair) come in the DVD box.
2. Go to the grocery store and get red and green cellophane. They sell it in on the same aisle as the plastic bags. Stretch it over some cheap sunglass frames.
3. Go here: http://www.3dglassesonline.com/how-do-3d-glasses-work/ All they cost is postage.

Now quityerbitchin.

I'm sure if you go to NASA's website on this project you can download the separate right/left images.

As for the other post about red/green vs. red/cyan? The "difference" is that the first image is in color. The others are B&W, so the cyan truly looks cyan. Since they color image has additional yellow components to it, the cyan looks green (look at a color wheel). All the images look fine with my cardboard glasses.

Also, only conspiracy theorists think that NASA is covering up evidence of the "little green men." The images are sent back in discontinuous (often discontiguous) chunks, then they have to be stitched together, which might not be seamlessly possible.

Geez people! Would you at least give these things a *little* technical thinking, beyond the surface level, before you rant & rave and criticize the people who present this stuff… people who are smarter than you?

And a question for Ralph. Maybe you can invent a way other than red/blue variants to bring 3D to a standard LCD monitor. Give up? Because it doesn't exist, that's why you have anaglyph images.

The only alternatives to anaglyph glasses are 3-D shutter glasses, which work best on CRT monitors with high refresh rates (120Hz or greater). Forget about using it on a standard LCD monitor. Not to mention, you have to pay over $100 for the glasses, the software, and the image needs to saved in a special format for 3-D shutter glasses. Sounds mainstream to you?

Another alternative is to buy special 3D LCD monitors like IZ3D. These are basically 2 LCD screens in one monitor, one for each eye. Glasses are still required, they work similarly to 3D shutter glasses. These monitors cost $600 to $3000. Sounds mainstream to you?

Perhaps NASA was thinking the best way to bring 3D images to the masses, was simply the easiest to implement–anaglyph. Works on any monitor, and all you need is the glasses, which you can make yourself or get with a $5 children's 3-D book.

Another way is to release the images as a cross-eyed pair, but I really doubt they wanted to give people like Ralph a headache.

But you know why that won't ever happen Ralph? It's because you have no idea what you're talking about and no evidence to back it up. Your defensive posture and lack of any evidence just shows you for the bafoon you are, and I'm totally with Dave on this. I dare you to prove me wrong, WITH SOME REAL GODDAMN EVIDENCE.

it's not that hard to view and you don't have to hunt for red/green specs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6kj_2bTy_k

My question is why do they do this?

I have no theory. I really do not know the reason. I cannot accept that highly trained professional do that as his everyday job.

You are putting words in my mouth. Be sensible instead of defensive, in fact, I guess you have nothing to do with this or ever will.

I am getting sick and god damned tired of listening of these sorts of conspiracy hypotheses. I might just have to go back to ask the moderators on this forum to limit critical arguments against the Phoenix mission to the rational. It is not reasonable to ask people like me to have to put up with sitting here, clicking on a link like this, and having to read posts after endless posts from those who have an axe to grind with no discernible reason for doing so.

Listening to folks like you is starting to be like having to put up with 9-11 "truthers" spamming those forums every time a video of a building demolition is posted on CNN.com or elsewhere.

These poor quality junky pictures the public gets are distorted, manipulated, and low, very low resolution of objects that are interesting and could heat up debate and speculation, not about their intentions, but about what is on the Martian surface. The questions are simply put, not emotional, but intellectual:
Why NASA do not give the general public clear, neat high resolution of strange objects on the surface?
Why NASA distort cut and poorly paste photo to hide objects?
Why NASA did reverse to negative the first important picture of the face before given to the public?
Why does NASA use obsolete 3D systems for the public?
Why does NASA change the colors of the Martian surface in almost every picture?
Why doesn't NASA come up with an explanation about the circles, wheels, boxes and other unusual shapes that cannot be regular rocks?
And there are many others.
I appreciate what their team is doing, I don't hate what they are doing. I am puzzled by some stupid, apparently, things they do as the ones listed before. And I wonder why it is so obvious that they are doing these sloppy jobs.
C'mon please, the world is full with supercomputers and excellent enhancing programs.
Red-blue 3D… pleeeeez!!

Sheesh, people!

Otherwise, again, these red-blue images are useless junk.

Have they seen JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH in digital 3D?

Anything is better than the old, old red and blue system they use.

Has anybody ever told them that there are other better systems for clearer pictures, including polarized glasses?

These blue red pictures are junk.