Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:04 pm
Ah, but then throw in the lighting, which does change a lot during a day. 
As far as I can recall, the face only appeared given particular viewing angles and lighting conditions - it just looked like a mountain for most others. Just look at the newer images that have been taken of it from different angles/times of day:
http://images.google.com.au/images?sour ... a=N&tab=wi
I'm quite certain it's just a mountain that looks good from a certain angle given certain lighting conditions.
And the 3D image they got in that youtube video was bogus - I've actually experimented with stuff like that recently with crazybump to make normal maps out of FS textures, and it is simply not very accurate because there's pretty much nothing useful to go on. Sure they had much more advanced stuff to 'calculate' it, but they're using the same grainy low res image.
In fact, have a read of this, which tells the story of the face on mars: http://www.karmastrology.com/marsface.shtml
I like this face on mars better:

As far as I can recall, the face only appeared given particular viewing angles and lighting conditions - it just looked like a mountain for most others. Just look at the newer images that have been taken of it from different angles/times of day:
http://images.google.com.au/images?sour ... a=N&tab=wi
I'm quite certain it's just a mountain that looks good from a certain angle given certain lighting conditions.

And the 3D image they got in that youtube video was bogus - I've actually experimented with stuff like that recently with crazybump to make normal maps out of FS textures, and it is simply not very accurate because there's pretty much nothing useful to go on. Sure they had much more advanced stuff to 'calculate' it, but they're using the same grainy low res image.
In fact, have a read of this, which tells the story of the face on mars: http://www.karmastrology.com/marsface.shtml
I like this face on mars better:
