Re: Has NASA's MESSENGER gone color blind?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by du, Jan 20, 2008.

  1. du

    du Guest

    "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jan 19, 4:24 pm, BradGuth <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> So, where exactly are those true colors of Mercury?
    >> Perhaps MESSENGER's color imaging potential can be fixed while on the
    >> fly, prior to eventually returning for their full orbital mission of
    >> mapping Mercury gets under way.
    >>
    >> . - Brad Guth

    >

    This was just a flyby. To get as many pictures as you can get, you
    wouldn't want to have to screw with all the filters it would take to get
    color photos. Color will probably start with the orbital part of the
    mission.
     
    du, Jan 20, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. du

    Pat Flannery Guest

    du wrote:
    > This was just a flyby. To get as many pictures as you can get, you
    > wouldn't want to have to screw with all the filters it would take to get
    > color photos. Color will probably start with the orbital part of the
    > mission.


    I'm pretty sure this fly-by used all the filters.
    Exposure time for each photo certainly didn't need to be much given the
    level of illumination provided by the Sun.

    Pat
     
    Pat Flannery, Jan 20, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. du

    Gary Edstrom Guest

    The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
    public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
    through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
    this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury. When Messenger settles
    down into orbit in 2011, they will have more time to gather full color
    pictures. Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
    that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
    aligned perfectly. Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
    on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
    consumption.

    Gary
     
    Gary Edstrom, Jan 21, 2008
    #3
  4. In sci.space.history Gary Edstrom <> wrote:
    > The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
    > public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
    > through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
    > this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury.


    Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:

    http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=125

    "The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
    image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
    end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
    also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
    approach with Mercury."

    > When Messenger settles down into orbit in 2011, they will have more
    > time to gather full color pictures.


    A lot of things can happen in 3 years.

    > Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
    > that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
    > aligned perfectly.


    It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to correct that in
    software (on Earth).

    > Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
    > on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
    > consumption.


    Remember that the taxes that pay for the mission are paid by the general
    public, of which the planetary scientists are a tiny minority.

    There is the saying "No Buck Rogers, no bucks", and there should also
    be the saying "No pretty pictures, no bucks".

    --
    http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

    ..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
    Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
     
    Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro, Jan 21, 2008
    #4
  5. du

    BradGuth Guest

    On Jan 21, 11:25 am, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <>
    wrote:
    > In sci.space.history Gary Edstrom <> wrote:
    >
    > > The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
    > > public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
    > > through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
    > > this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury.

    >
    > Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:
    > http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_i...


    The last thing these infowar and disinformation spewing bastards of
    NASA's science fuckology ever want to hear is that I'm right. So, you
    should expect to get ignored, banished or given a good amount of
    whatever lethal flak they can muster.

    >
    > "The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
    > image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
    > end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
    > also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
    > approach with Mercury."
    >
    > > When Messenger settles down into orbit in 2011, they will have more
    > > time to gather full color pictures.

    >
    > A lot of things can happen in 3 years.
    >
    > > Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
    > > that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not have
    > > aligned perfectly.

    >
    > It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to correct that in
    > software (on Earth).


    Lots of local PhotoShop efforts can manage to correct for most
    anything, as long as those original images are in focus and without
    too much motion distortion to start off with.

    How the freaking hell did they manage to accomplish all of those Earth
    flyby color frames so quickly?

    >
    > > Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
    > > on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
    > > consumption.

    >
    > Remember that the taxes that pay for the mission are paid by the general
    > public, of which the planetary scientists are a tiny minority.
    >
    > There is the saying "No Buck Rogers, no bucks", and there should also
    > be the saying "No pretty pictures, no bucks".
    >
    > --http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/
    >
    > .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
    > Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94


    99.9% of Usenet folks seem perfectly cozy with their pretending as
    being atheists and otherwise as all-knowing at the same time, are
    oddly opposed to sharing the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    They get especially testy whenever such new and improved information
    rocks their NASA/Apollo good ship LOLLIPOP, and of most everything
    since getting put at risk.
    - Brad Guth
     
    BradGuth, Jan 21, 2008
    #5
  6. du

    Pat Flannery Guest

    Gary Edstrom wrote:
    > The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow the
    > public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
    > through each of 3 color filters.


    Look... would everyone please get this straight.
    They took over 1,200 pictures of the planet on this flyby.
    The pictures have all been successfully transmitted to Earth.
    They used the color filters on the Wide Angle Camera (WAC) in all of
    the pictures it took (the narrow angle camera is B&W).
    You can read up on this here:
    http://www.planetary.org/news/2008/0110_MESSENGER_Set_for_First_Spacecraft.html
    They got a color movie of the approach to Mercury using three filters of
    the Wide Angle Camera to generate a "this is how it would look to the
    naked eye" view.
    At one hour and twenty-five minutes before closest approach they they
    took a color still image of the planet through all eleven filters.
    Eleven minutes after closet approach, they took a set of five color
    still images through all eleven filters.
    (since those images were taken in fairly quick order of the same place
    on the surface at different angles, I suspect they are going to be
    turned into a 3D color image of that area.)
    Then, thirty-six minutes after closest approach, another color mosaic
    still view of the whole planet via nine images taken through all eleven
    filters.
    Finally, at one hour and twelve minutes after closet approach, another
    color image of the whole planet in one image taken through all eleven
    filters.
    To give some idea of what Mercury looks like in color, here's a large
    true color shot of it from Mariner 10:
    http://www.planetary.org/image/mariner_mercury_stryk_outboundhires1f1.jpg
    A lot like the Moon, but more light olive drab than gray in color.
    You can see what instrument was doing what on MESSENGER during the flyby
    via the interactive time-line here:
    http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/encounters/index.php?autorefresh=false&time=1200343330
    The images released from the WAC up to the moment have been trough the
    red filter, as it shows detail best.

    Pat
     
    Pat Flannery, Jan 21, 2008
    #6
  7. du

    Jeff Findley Guest

    "Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" <> wrote in message
    news:fn2rk0$tp9$...
    > Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:
    >
    > http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=125
    >
    > "The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
    > image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
    > end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
    > also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
    > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
    > approach with Mercury."


    It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they imaged the
    same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those would be
    *different* images than the image taken using filter 7.

    To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from several
    images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above web page.

    Jeff
    --
    A clever person solves a problem.
    A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein
     
    Jeff Findley, Jan 22, 2008
    #7
  8. du

    Damon Hill Guest

    "Jeff Findley" <> wrote in
    news:33756$47960f30$927a2cda$:

    > It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they
    > imaged the same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those
    > would be *different* images than the image taken using filter 7.
    >
    > To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from
    > several images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above
    > web page.


    I get the impression that color images from this flyby are
    forthcoming, but haven't been processed yet. This probably
    involves matching together several frames that won't be completely
    identical, but is easily composited given some computer time.

    --Damon
     
    Damon Hill, Jan 22, 2008
    #8
  9. du

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:53:57 -0600, Damon Hill
    <> wrote in
    <Xns9A2D790C730F6damon161attbicom@127.0.0.1>:

    >"Jeff Findley" <> wrote in
    >news:33756$47960f30$927a2cda$:
    >
    >> It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they
    >> imaged the same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those
    >> would be *different* images than the image taken using filter 7.
    >>
    >> To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from
    >> several images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above
    >> web page.

    >
    >I get the impression that color images from this flyby are
    >forthcoming, but haven't been processed yet. This probably
    >involves matching together several frames that won't be completely
    >identical, but is easily composited given some computer time.


    And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
    no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
    in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #9
  10. Plonk.


    "BradGuth" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Jan 21, 11:25 am, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <>
    > wrote:
    > > In sci.space.history Gary Edstrom <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > The pictures from Messenger are for scientific purposes, NOT to wow

    the
    > > > public. To get a color picture would require taking separate shots
    > > > through each of 3 color filters. That would require extra time during
    > > > this EXTREMELY short duration pass of Mercury.

    > >
    > > Then I suppose you will be upset to learn that they used 11 filters:
    > > http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_i...

    >
    > The last thing these infowar and disinformation spewing bastards of
    > NASA's science fuckology ever want to hear is that I'm right. So, you
    > should expect to get ignored, banished or given a good amount of
    > whatever lethal flak they can muster.
    >
    > >
    > > "The WAC is equipped with 11 different narrow-band filters, and this
    > > image was taken in filter 7, which is sensitive to light near the red
    > > end of the visible spectrum (750 nm). This view,
    > > also imaged through the remaining 10 WAC filters,
    > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > > is from the first set of images taken following MESSENGER's closest
    > > approach with Mercury."
    > >
    > > > When Messenger settles down into orbit in 2011, they will have more
    > > > time to gather full color pictures.

    > >
    > > A lot of things can happen in 3 years.
    > >
    > > > Besides, during its closest approach, it was moving so fast
    > > > that the 3 separate pictures required for color would probably not

    have
    > > > aligned perfectly.

    > >
    > > It seems to me that it should be relatively easy to correct that in
    > > software (on Earth).

    >
    > Lots of local PhotoShop efforts can manage to correct for most
    > anything, as long as those original images are in focus and without
    > too much motion distortion to start off with.
    >
    > How the freaking hell did they manage to accomplish all of those Earth
    > flyby color frames so quickly?
    >
    > >
    > > > Its time near Mercury was just too valuable to waste
    > > > on all those extra pictures who's primary purpose would be for public
    > > > consumption.

    > >
    > > Remember that the taxes that pay for the mission are paid by the general
    > > public, of which the planetary scientists are a tiny minority.
    > >
    > > There is the saying "No Buck Rogers, no bucks", and there should also
    > > be the saying "No pretty pictures, no bucks".
    > >
    > > --http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/
    > >
    > > .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
    > > Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

    >
    > 99.9% of Usenet folks seem perfectly cozy with their pretending as
    > being atheists and otherwise as all-knowing at the same time, are
    > oddly opposed to sharing the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
    > They get especially testy whenever such new and improved information
    > rocks their NASA/Apollo good ship LOLLIPOP, and of most everything
    > since getting put at risk.
    > - Brad Guth
     
    Vincent D. DeSimone, Jan 22, 2008
    #10
  11. du

    GregS Guest

    In article <>, John Navas <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:53:57 -0600, Damon Hill
    ><> wrote in
    ><Xns9A2D790C730F6damon161attbicom@127.0.0.1>:
    >
    >>"Jeff Findley" <> wrote in
    >>news:33756$47960f30$927a2cda$:
    >>
    >>> It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they
    >>> imaged the same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those
    >>> would be *different* images than the image taken using filter 7.
    >>>
    >>> To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from
    >>> several images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above
    >>> web page.

    >>
    >>I get the impression that color images from this flyby are
    >>forthcoming, but haven't been processed yet. This probably
    >>involves matching together several frames that won't be completely
    >>identical, but is easily composited given some computer time.

    >
    >And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
    >no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
    >in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)
    >



    Ever check out Area 51 on Google maps. Interesting layout.

    greg
     
    GregS, Jan 22, 2008
    #11
  12. du

    BradGuth Guest

    On Jan 22, 12:08 pm, John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:53:57 -0600, Damon Hill
    > <> wrote in
    > <Xns9A2D790C730F6damon161attbi...@127.0.0.1>:
    >
    > >"Jeff Findley" <> wrote in
    > >news:33756$47960f30$927a2cda$:

    >
    > >> It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they
    > >> imaged the same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those
    > >> would be *different* images than the image taken using filter 7.

    >
    > >> To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from
    > >> several images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above
    > >> web page.

    >
    > >I get the impression that color images from this flyby are
    > >forthcoming, but haven't been processed yet. This probably
    > >involves matching together several frames that won't be completely
    > >identical, but is easily composited given some computer time.

    >
    > And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
    > no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
    > in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)


    You're saying that the regular laws of physics along with the best
    available science that's easily peer replicated are "unfounded"?
    - Brad Guth
     
    BradGuth, Jan 22, 2008
    #12
  13. du

    BradGuth Guest

    On Jan 22, 11:53 am, Damon Hill <> wrote:
    > "Jeff Findley" <> wrote innews:33756$47960f30$927a2cda$:
    >
    > > It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they
    > > imaged the same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those
    > > would be *different* images than the image taken using filter 7.

    >
    > > To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from
    > > several images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above
    > > web page.

    >
    > I get the impression that color images from this flyby are
    > forthcoming, but haven't been processed yet. This probably
    > involves matching together several frames that won't be completely
    > identical, but is easily composited given some computer time.
    >
    > --Damon


    With the new and greatly improved 2048 CPU supercomputer at NASA's
    disposal, how many seconds or rather fraction of a second worth of
    processing time for the entire lot are we talking about?
    - Brad Guth
     
    BradGuth, Jan 22, 2008
    #13
  14. du

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:27:46 -0800 (PST), BradGuth <>
    wrote in
    <>:

    >On Jan 22, 12:08 pm, John Navas <> wrote:


    >> And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
    >> no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
    >> in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)

    >
    >You're saying that the regular laws of physics along with the best
    >available science that's easily peer replicated are "unfounded"?


    Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. :)

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #14
  15. du

    Pat Flannery Guest

    Damon Hill wrote:
    > "Jeff Findley" <> wrote in
    > news:33756$47960f30$927a2cda$:
    >
    >
    >> It says "this image was taken in filter 7". They say later they
    >> imaged the same view through the remaining 10 WAC filters, but those
    >> would be *different* images than the image taken using filter 7.
    >>
    >> To get a color image, you have to create a composite image from
    >> several images of the same view, but that's not what is on the above
    >> web page.
    >>

    >
    > I get the impression that color images from this flyby are
    > forthcoming, but haven't been processed yet. This probably
    > involves matching together several frames that won't be completely
    > identical, but is easily composited given some computer time.
    >


    The blurring effect of images taken close in at magnification is
    probably why they didn't put a filter wheel on the close-up camera, but
    only the wide-field one.
    Since the illumination of the planet will be intense, imaging time would
    be limited only by how fast the camera can complete a scan and how fast
    the color filter wheel can rotate. You should be able to take a lot of
    photos in just a few seconds.

    Pat
     
    Pat Flannery, Jan 22, 2008
    #15
  16. du

    Pat Flannery Guest

    Pat Flannery, Jan 22, 2008
    #16
  17. du

    John Navas Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:37:32 -0600, Pat Flannery <>
    wrote in <>:

    >John Navas wrote:
    >> And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
    >> no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
    >> in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)

    >
    >Okay...everybody ready?
    >The first color image:
    >http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=132
    >Like I said... this isn't a very exciting planet to look at in color.


    Clearly a fake. There isn't actually a working camera on board, and the
    satellite never actually made it out of Earth orbit. The aliens are
    just unfamiliar with Photoshop,.

    --
    Best regards,
    John Navas
    Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
     
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
    #17
  18. du

    Chris Savage Guest

    On 2008-01-22, Pat Flannery <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > John Navas wrote:
    >> And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
    >> no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
    >> in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)
    >>

    >
    > Okay...everybody ready?
    > The first color image:
    > http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_id=2&image_id=132
    > Like I said... this isn't a very exciting planet to look at in color.


    I don't know; that blue crater right in the middle of frame looks quite
    interesting.

    --
    Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
    Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
    - Billy Bragg
     
    Chris Savage, Jan 23, 2008
    #18
  19. du

    BradGuth Guest

    On Jan 23, 5:09 am, Chris Savage <>
    wrote:
    > On 2008-01-22, Pat Flannery <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > > John Navas wrote:
    > >> And (more critically) people time. But we love our conspiracy theories,
    > >> no matter how silly or unfounded. I hear Messenger mission control is
    > >> in Area 51, controlled by aliens. :)

    >
    > > Okay...everybody ready?
    > > The first color image:
    > >http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/image.php?gallery_i...
    > > Like I said... this isn't a very exciting planet to look at in color.

    >
    > I don't know; that blue crater right in the middle of frame looks quite
    > interesting.
    > --
    > Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
    > Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
    > - Billy Bragg


    If you have most any kind of photographic enhancement software, you
    can do this extremely pastel image one better.

    This is certainly a whole lot better science worthy look-see at
    Mercury. However, too bad their extremely pastel image of such
    pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast or depth of hue
    limited. Remember the albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb
    nearly as dark as coal.

    http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png

    PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
    * Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

    Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
    EDIT: MASTER
    HUE: 0
    SATURATION: +75
    LIGHTNESS: -5

    Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)
    Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
    RADIUS: 2
    THRESHOLD: 4
    Filter: SHARPEN (once)

    There's a little more PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
    atmospheric related artifacts. Of course the raw image itself would
    have been so much better off if we were ever given the full DR worth
    of pixel data to work with.

    Mercury atmosphere: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X
    http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png

    PhotoShop: Replace Color
    FUZZINESS: 200
    HUE: 0
    SATURATION: +100
    LIGHTNESS: +10 up to +50

    - Brad Guth
     
    BradGuth, Jan 23, 2008
    #19
  20. du

    Jeff Findley Guest

    Jeff Findley, Jan 23, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    685
    Tesco News
    Dec 24, 2005
  2. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,044
    Peace Crusader
    May 15, 2006
  3. anthonyberet
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,082
    anthonyberet
    Oct 8, 2006
  4. Mark Thornton

    Re: Has NASA's MESSENGER gone color blind?

    Mark Thornton, Jan 20, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    281
    John Navas
    Jan 22, 2008
  5. Aardvark

    Help! I think I've gone blind!

    Aardvark, Oct 16, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    414
    Aardvark
    Oct 16, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page