4 ms·
The "after" pictures are in a different tint or colour scheme which means they are biased (or rather, you are biased by the colours like the missing green). Bad
by aw3c2 16y ago
The "after" pictures are in a different tint or colour scheme which means they are biased (or rather, you are biased by the colours like the missing green). Bad comparison.
- lloeki 16y agoDifférent hue yet you can't not be struck by the sheer expression of powerful devastation of those pictures.
- pyre 16y agoWhy are the images tinted though? They did the same interface for some flooding that happened in Australia, and the 'after' images were also tinted similarly.
- ugh 16y agoThey aren’t tinted. It’s all about white balance and levels. My guess is that satellite images are usually heavily edited to give them a natural appearance (and also to make them consistent with other satellite images) but right after a disaster that editing step is probably skipped due to time constraints. I would imagine that the post-disaster images are much closer to the raw satellite output. I turned on grayscale on my Mac – that helps a bit in that it eliminates the color differences but contrast and levels still do not match. The destruction is still very obvious. Pay, or example, close attention to bridges, buildings and trees.
- gus_massa 16y agoSome photos have a no-destructed area that is useful for comparing the differences in the colors. #8: Kashima in Minamisoma #9: Haranomachi in Minamisoma
- rst 16y agoThe clearer contrast is in the built-up areas in "before" photos that are wiped clean of man-made structures "after". It's hard to imagine how anyone in or near those survived. I wasn't paying nearly as much attention to the colors, myself...
- bane 16y agoI think the presence of buildings in the before, and the absence of buildings in the after is pretty noticeable color or no color.