Talk:Io (moon)

FA sweeps

There are some issues with the article including over a dozen cn tags, some issues (the ones that I found are marked in the article), and some verifiability issues with page ranges of 20 pages or more. (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: Since this notice was placed in 2022, it seems like the "citation needed" and "better source needed" concerns have been mostly resolved. The verification page number concerns still seem to remain. Should this be removed from WP:FARGIVEN, or should this be given another notice to potentially go to WP:FAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

• I am going to remove this from FARGIVEN: it seems like the citation needed and better source needed tags have been resolved. If the verifiability issues remain, or if there are other issues, this article will need a new notice anyways, so I think it is better to remove it from the list for now. Z1720 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image: true color or full disk?

Approximately true-colorEnhanced color image of Io from the Galileo spacecraft, taken in 1999. The dark spot just left of the center is the erupting volcano Prometheus. The whitish plains on either side of it are coated with volcanically deposited sulfur dioxide frost, whereas the yellower regions contain a higher proportion of sulfur.

True-color image of Io from the Juno spacecraft, taken in 2023. The upper-left dark spot is Io's largest volcanic basin Loki Patera. The whitish plains surrounding the dark volcanic spots are coated with volcanically deposited sulfur dioxide frost, whereas the yellower regions contain a higher proportion of sulfur.

Pinging @CactiStaccingCrane and Nosferattus:

I noticed that you two have different agendas when it comes to choosing which image is appropriate for the infoboxes of Solar System objects. CactiStaccingCrane prefers having true-color images, even when they may not show the whole view like in the case for Venus, whereas Nosferattus prefers having whole-disk images that represent the body as much as possible, with the expense of sacrificing color and data accuracy as in the case of Triton, whose colors are enhanced to appear iridescent and images are projected onto a 3D sphere that is being viewed from an angle that was not achievable by Voyager 2.

I need you two to agree on which Io image to use since this article had a minor conflict regarding that: @IapetusCallistus: changed the infobox image to the true-color Juno photo but Norsferattus reverted the image change, citing that full-disk and featured images are preferred. However, I am not aware of any official guideline that explicitly says that, let alone anybody else who vocally supports this set of criteria.

Personally, I prefer using true-color images since these portray the objects the most realistically (duh). I believe using true-color images as the lead image (and explicitly stating which images are true or enhanced color throughout the article) is necessary to avoid misleading the reader--recall the news about Neptune's true color, which led to CactiStaccingCrane and I replacing the deep blue Neptune image everywhere on Wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, true color images may come with the downside of partial views (crescent or out of frame) since there aren't many of them out there (either due to limited spacecraft imaging, filters, or people who focus on processing true-color). However, if having full-frame and full-disk images is what Nosferattus insists for, then Venus's image would need discussion.

As a proponent for true-color, I suggest that we replace the enhanced-color image of Io with this true-color Juno image. This is true color according to this Planetary Society article by expert image processor Jason Perry. Yes, the previous saturated yellow image of Io by NASA also claims true color, but I assure you this is incorrect considering that: 1) NASA's public communication doesn't have a great track record with being clear about colors. Their deep blue Neptune image that has long misled the public is an example. and 2) The saturated yellow Io image uses near-infrared and violet filters that extends beyond the human visible range. Juno uses red, green, and blue filters that fit more within the human visible range. If that doesn't satisfy you all, then we should try looking for a better true color image that is high resolution and free to use (from Flickr).

Nrco0e (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm I'm fine with either since I am new here so I don't consider myself as a skilled editor. And I am not very interactive because I am busy always and I edit on my free time

But.. but. Remember that Juno will approach Perijove 58 this Feb 3 and will make another pass of Io at the same distance at Perijove 57. Maybe we can get better illuminated photos later.

And Juno will continue passing by Io several times starting at Perijove 59, but more and more distant ones as time progress? Long story short my opinion: let us wait for Juno IapetusCallistus (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I would note that Juno's cameras are already quite degraded due to Jupiter's radiation belts, and are only going to get worse from here; I wouldn't count on future passes to be any better than what we already have, unfortunately. We also do have better-processed images from older missions such as Galileo which are much more accurate in terms of color and appearance. ArkHyena (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion both of these factors need to be balanced. We should keep the current image since Io's Juno pic seems to not actually be in true color. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, Juno's images of Io -- or at the very least, the one which was processed and shown above -- are decently close to Io's true color, especially when compared to the article which attempts to reprocess Galileo images of Io to be closer to true color. ArkHyena (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@ArkHyena hmm.. yeah Juno's camera is significantly damaged already. However, I would like to assume that the citizen scientists who are processing these images like Gill, Perry, Jónsson et. at. are all proactively taking the damages into consideration. By the way, off topic - your username Ark Hyena reminds me of a hyena character from Arknights IapetusCallistus (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane@Nrco0e

Look at this nice reprocessing. Can anyone find the full picture of this?

It's a reprocess attempt by the Planetary Society. It's a mostly fully-illuminated true color image of Io. IapetusCallistus (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane@Nrco0e

Sorry, ignore my message. I didn't see the fact that you already shared the link to the Planetary Society image. I want to delete the message, but it doesn't look like I can delete it here in Wiki. IapetusCallistus (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It may be possible to recruit the help of some people who know much more about image processing to process existing full-disc images from Galileo; if I am not mistaken, Neptune's infobox image was produced that way. However, I personally do not know of anyone who actively contributes to Wikipedia who is also experienced with processing Galileo imagery. ArkHyena (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ardenau4 Hello again Ardenau. Can you help us again by processing these [pictures of Io] into true color? IapetusCallistus (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It appears the link you posted isn't working.

Unfortunately, I'm not that experienced with Galileo imagery. Most Galileo images are in IR-G-UV format, and I'm not that experienced with being able to process Galileo imagery in true color from filters that are far removed from the visual spectrum. Voyager imagery might be better, but I'm not super familiar with the Io imaging sequence for either of the Voyager probes. I've actually never processed Io from any spacecraft before so I'm really not sure how to death with such an object.

Io is also just a difficult object to deal with in general Io's color is dissimilar to other sola system objects and also that it's hard to calibrate the color contrast on the surface of an object which has a lot of varying colors. I'm not sure I would be able to process any images better than the ones that are posted online already. Ardenau4 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry @Ardenau4

I don't know why the link is not working when I used "|". Here is the link if you want to check it out properly:

https://www.planetary.org/articles/2629

Also, it's okay if you can't. Thank you for responding. IapetusCallistus (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

So I guess... "expert image processor" Jason Perry here.... okay. So let's define the issue here. What is true color? Like your digital camera, it comes down to filter choice. Your digital camera makes the choice with the individual pixels being sensitive to RGB in a Bayer pattern. For spacecraft missions, filters come down to several factors including scientific usage and cost. Before we even get to filters, I should briefly mention why it is relevant for Io. Does this discussion happen over on the Europa page? Ganymede? No, because for Io, differences in the wavelengths your red and blue filters are sensitive to can dramatically change the resulting image. There is a deep absorption band caused by sulfurous materials on Io's surface in the ultraviolet and the wing of that band occurs between 400 and 500 nanometers, in the violet to blue range of the visible spectrum. So if you have a filter closer to 400 nm, then that sulfurous material appears very dark, and if it is closer to 500, then that material has a moderate brightness, and albedo is affected by the presence of certain sulfur allotropes like S4 or by SO2. there is a similar absorption and between 500 and 600 nanometers caused by S4. So areas rich in S4, like some plume deposits or the polar regions can appear reddish in color images and how bright red they are depends on where a red filter is WRT to that absorption band.

So how is this relevant here? Galileo didn't have a blue filter but a violet filter. So to generate color images of Io, that violet filter was used in place of blue. The deep absorption band for S meant that areas rich in S8 appear as a deep yellow. Galileo's red filter largely matched that of RGB. JunoCam has some factors that make it more true color, but there are somethings to watch out for and you should all be wary about saying that it is absolutely true color! JunoCam has a blue filter, but that blue filter has a center wavelength of 465 nm, a bit green-ward of the RGB standard of 465 nm (I think that's what it is anyway...). So blue is higher up on that ramp up from the S absorption band and sulfurous materials don't appear as dark. So features appear less yellow than they should. Green is fine. It's seems very hard for someone to mess up a green filter. But what about red? RGB standard (again I think) is around 645. The RED filter on Galileo SSI is a little long-ward at 663 nm (and the mosaic currently in use has the 756 nm filter in place of red, which wasn't taken at the time). But the RED filter on JunoCam is centered at 698 nm and is a much broader band filter, encompassing the wavelength range of SSI's 756 nm filter. Materials rich in S4 appear much more vividly red in images that use SSI 756 or JunoCam RED.

So what does this all mean? JunoCam isn't quite true color either. Is it closer? Honestly, this is an on going discussion among some of us scientists as we try to wrestle with JunoCam calibration, which hey, just like the arguments you all are having here, calibration is kind of important for Io... I definitely think it is closer as long as you understand the caveat the reddish materials are bit more vivid than what you would see IRL. and it has been a while since I've added to a talk page so hopefully this auto adds a signature... Volcanopele (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Volcanopele Hey there, nice to meet you. I saw your entries in the Juno website. Nice to finally finding someone IapetusCallistus (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for whatever image shows more realistic color of the object. However, there are problems with Junocam and most people who process its raw data. Neither of the two images in question are close enough to reality. Galileo's image, and all those lemon yellow images are made with false color, in this case remapping unrelated bands to RGB system which have been sadly advertised by NASA's sensationalistic public relations as true color (true hue might be a better term). Indeed, NASA has a disastrous history of being honest with visual reality of its images which are made with robotic spacecraft. Sadly, that has only fueled nutters' ramblings ever since the great explosion of insanity in 2016. First public example of gross mistake was with Vikings and Martian sky which was presented as blue. Nowdays with MRO, the agency constantly pumps out false colors of Martian surface with blue, dark bluegreen, cyan and light blue features, and never even mentioning what's that all about. Images from rovers are nearly always pushed into wrong white balance to help geologists, but it does not help the laymen. Would it hurt the imagers to release proper images to the public and reserve the others for scientists? It's just this pervasive inability to understand how damaging this is to the trust of society which is increasingly uneducated and paranoid. Keep doing this in a democracy where your funding depends on public popularity and problems will occur.

Juno's latest images, synthesized by "citizen scientists", showed us quite vividly, through examples with Jupiter, how grossly far from reality those can get. But anything for likes on Instagram, am I right? I seriously doubt Io is a brown body without a hint of yellow. After all, it has elemental sulfur deposits on its surface. Some of it is in the typical allotropes which are yellow.

Attempt by the Planetary society is a very good middle ground - more towards dull brownish than lemon yellow. Lajoswinkler (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the one provided by the Planetary Society only covers a partial mosaic of Io's surface. We'll have to get someone to process a full-disc image of Io on our own, it looks like. I do agree that it does seem like the most color-accurate of the three provided, and it should provide a very helpful reference point to work from should anyone here decide to tackle the issue of processing Galileo imagery. ArkHyena (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Any updates on this?

Also, why is it so hard to find a proper, full-disc true color photo of Io? After all, it has been imaged extensively, but for some reason (unlike the other Galilean moons) there only seem to be true color photos of parts of the moon, without a corresponding full-disc composite.

By the way, I apologize if I've been too bold recently with my edits, especially with the Io image. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

No idea, but my guess is that the popular impression that the current infobox image is already in true color (or close enough) means few people give it a shot. And the few people who do haven't released their own processings under licenses we can use. We have a few editors who carry out image processing themselves like @Ardenau4:, but they're on hiatus/seldom work with Galileo imagery. ArkHyena (she/they) 18:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to give my input here since I work/worked with Galileo images in the past (and also gave my input here in the past as well) -

I have tried a processing of this Io mosaic here but there a number of problems with this image which is why I feel like it's not appropriate for use here.

But there is another problem with this current image that is used on Wikipedia: it seems to actually be some weird mapping or projection of the original images, or at least some weird stuff is going on. Because in this official image from NASA, the surface topography is actually cut off (i.e. the disk is actually cut to a circle). I know this because I worked with the original data and I would say this is maybe not a good image because of that.

If we were to find true color images, I would expect it from Voyager and Juno. Both of those spacecrafts have their own problems with imaging filters etc. but I would consider it much better than the crappy Galileo one we have now. Ardenau4 (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, we don't have a dedicate mission to Io coming soon (Sad music: Europa Clipper and ESA's JUICE are skipping over poor Io).

I guess it only means that we don't be getting a good image of Io anytime soon. IapetusCallistus (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

"I have tried a processing of this Io mosaic here but there a number of problems with this image which is why I feel like it's not appropriate for use here."

How does it compare to supposed true color images like these from JPL/NASA: https://d2pn8kiwq2w21t.cloudfront.net/original_images/1-PIA26484_-_Io_north_polar_region.png ?

Because, amateur as I am, there's a particular 'tinge' to Io in JPL's images that lacks in other 'true color' reconstructions.

I don't know what that's about. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not a NASA processing but instead one that was done by Gerald Eichstädt. It's red-tinged probably because the processing incompletely accounted for JunoCam's damaged red-balancing, which has been discussed earlier here.

Ardenau4 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Fixed the image display. IapetusCallistus (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

My attempt to process based on the Planetary Society's rendition. Unfortunately, it looks far from the supposedly true color images captured by Juno. IapetusCallistus (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm generally in favour of true-colour images (defined as what a human would see if they were to look out a window at a planet), but I'm taken aback by how "not yellow" the edited images appear to be. It appears that the S-8 sulfur allotrope common on Earth is present on Io, so it is surprising to me that there is very little trace of the bright yellow S-8 in the linked "true colour" images. This image looks subjectively more like what I would expect, without the bright yellow saturation in the current infobox image. TROPtastic (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed my processing was uploaded to Wikimedia and used as the main image on this article. I reverted it simply just because that processing is old and done using very outdated methods, to the point where I would say that image is not any more accurate than the old enhanced color image. The other one is from an "official" source and I'm not at all confident to say that image of mine is any better in terms of color rendition and quality than the old one, so I've reverted it. Ardenau4 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

why dont you try again? your recent io looks good! - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, what about this image i did?

- anonymsiy.user - (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks closer, but please don't replace the lead image without a consensus that's it's better than the current one. You didn't describe what processing methods you used, and we can't be sure that it's a scientifically valid result that's better than the previous image. The main issue with attempting another processing is that assembling the original mosaic is very time consuming and I'm not sure if I will have time to attempt it.

Ardenau4 (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Short of replacing the Io image with a black-and-white?

Then again, how hard it is actually to approximate what a human eye would see? Same with Triton?

But Ardenau has a point - you (anonymsiy) presented an image before that which you claimed was 'true color' but apparently wasn't... IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I should also mention that you should be very cautious about "adjusting" the colors of existing processings to match others. You said that you tried to adjust it to the new attempt that I did (of the trailing hemisphere, but note that the mosaic depicts the leading hemisphere and some spectral data suggests that the two hemispheres have different colors. If that's true then the one you made would also be too yellow.

In general, until there is a processing, either by me or by some others or whoever, that can be publicated with some well documented methodology, it's not going to be better than the enhanced color but "official" one we have right now. Especially for Wikipedia, perhaps it's not a good idea to be "color adjusting" images based on some subjective idea of what true-color Io should look like.

Ardenau4 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you have an idea of what the best-fit for Io image is? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

that is what i have been asking, he points out the flaws but doesent give out a worthy example - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My point in my posts was to argue that there does not currently exist a good "true-color" full-disk image of Io at the current moment, and that, until one does, we should not switch away from the current enhanced color one. There are many images that have been created that are purportedly close to "true-color" but without a description of their methodology it's not fair to say that they are better than what we have currently. At least with the current image, we can say for certain that it is enhanced color (which is something that we can mention in the infobox) and that it has been processed by an "official" source or agency (NASA). With some of these newer processings, perhaps they are less "enhanced" color than the current one, but we can't say whether those are true color or not.

It's okay that we don't necessarily have a "true color" image of Io right now. The color variations in the enhanced color image are real, just that they appear different than how the human eye would see it. It's better than just having a black and white image and it also displays Io overall color (yellow) even if that shade of yellow might not be the one that humans see.

Ardenau4 (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

ok, i will report how i made the colour accurate in my file description - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

also, what do you think of the current mars header image? comparing it to true colour tools and Tianwen-1 Mars Global Color Orthomosaic shows that it is not the most true colour image (plus it isn't even full disc) - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah, I can't find any good true color images too Homlos (Message me bro) 08:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Why not use one of the true-color Juno images? I know they don't show the full disk, but neither does the lead image on the Venus article. I think the lead image should show Io as accurately to real life as possible even if the view is incomplete. Deet2018 (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should use the true color images Homlos (Message me bro) 00:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As per the above discussion, the issue with the Juno images is that radiation has damaged the camera and made the color calibration of the image Io takes suspect. The published ones and even ones that have been processed seem to have differences with the expected true color of Io. Ardenau4 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

maybe you could have a crack at it? you seem to be pretty experienced at this sorta stuff... - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

will you have a crack at it??? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately in my review and attempts to process more images of Io I came across a significant issue: The existing high-quality mosaic of Io does not have filters matched to the human vision. i.e. The current image of Io cannot be "processed" to true color as the red channel of that image was taken in the near-infrared (889nm) and Galileo didn't take that mosaic in the red filter. This is significant problem as it turns out even channel-mixed NIR-G-V processings display those darkish red deposits as brownish (see the above attempt by Anonymsiy) where they should be quite reddish (like in the Juno images). Voyager images of Io also suffer from this problem as Voyager had no red filter and the closest (orange) seems to display those same regions as a weird brown-green color.

As it turns out, that is the only high-quality, full disk mosaic taken by Galileo. So we're sort of left with a less extreme situation like the on on the Venus infobox image, where, in short, no spacecraft has taken a high-quality (>800px), full-disk, image of Io that could be processed in natural color. At this point we have to make a compromise on what image to show in the infobox that more closely depicts Io.

This view of Io seems to be the best one from Galileo that could be processed in natural colors (I have a version without the text). Unfortunately Io is cut off in the edges but maybe this image is still useable? Alternatively, if someone has a better proposed Juno image, maybe we could use that one, as Juno imagery seems to be the closest of "commonly available" images to natural color. Ardenau4 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this image usable? If not, can someone make it usable? @Anonymsiy? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

probably not, though do concider that my image is pretty accurate - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It's 'accurate enough' for me certainly, but I'm also in a rather poor position to be a deciding factor of any sort in this since I'm still rather clueless all things considered.

Otherwise I wouldn't be asking questions such as 'is this image usable?' or badgering you to upload a true-color photo of some of Uranian moons for that matter, wouldn't I? Point is, I don't trust myself in this (currently at least) and I shouldn't. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

to be honest, i should put it on the page as "close to true colour" yes it isnt EXACT and has some flaws, but its good enough for this use case - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think any mosaics/images involving the red 889nm filter seem to not be great (result is very desaturated and doesn’t look close to what Io’s color is). Unfortunately I think the best option would be to use Juno images at this point, since I’ve searched and not found good Galileo frames. Ardenau4 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

zelario told me to make my result desaturated to match a hemisphere - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

How much do the different hemispheres differ from one another in terms of color? IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Even if not perfectly 'true color' or anything. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

In regards to human vision of course. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

i used true colour tools if you are wondering - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Anonymsiy This is not an accurate true color image of Io. If anything, Juno's images are way closer to what the human eye would see. Newberry Pie (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think replacing the main image with the Juno image is a good idea Homlos (Message me bro) 01:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I may be a tad bit late to the discussion, but can't we decide on an image in c:Category:Photos of Io by JunoCam and call it a day? If Galileo's images are less "true-colored" than Juno's images, why don't we use one of Juno's images? Newberry Pie (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Take a day and make sure to read all the comments on all the relevant pages. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't have asked this question if I didn't. Is there a problem with the images in c:Category:Photos of Io by JunoCam that I don't know of? Newberry Pie (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

may i propose this image by @Ardenau4? ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Io_(Trailing)_in_natural_color.png ) yes the quality sucks but its natural colour - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I honestly suggest you leave the lead image alone for now. Compared to other issues raised about the article, this is a fairly minor one. Newberry Pie (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Tidal heating

Should the orbit and rotation section link to Tidal heating of Io instead of the generic Tidal heating page? Belgaers (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for image processing.

Hello. Can I request someone to please process these filtered images of Io? Big thanks.

IapetusCallistus (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

maybe you could use GIMP and true color tools and do it? - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Have you found someone to process these images? Because someone just changed the Io infobox image, and I honestly can't blame them - I really think we ought to put this issue to bed once and for all: what does Io actually look like to a human eye and what image can we use that approximates it well enough? Because I get the feeling that others here are also generally dissatisfied with the long-standing, all-too-vividly colored Galileo image. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply Ivar. I was busy with life and didn't edit any articles here for a long time. I strongly recommend that we ask the Planetary Society to release the full version of their attempt to process Io in approximate true color. It's the only thing that I can recommend.

IapetusCallistus (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure if the Planetary Society is as obsessed with getting true-to-naked-eye seeming colors as this portion of wikipedia is. IvarTheBoneless123 (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@IvarTheBoneless123: as obsessed with getting true-to-naked-eye seeming colors as this portion of wikipedia is. It's not just Wikipedia. In astronomy-focused places of the Internet, it's really common to see young people obsessed about true colors. I don't know why, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with TrueColorTools, a program developed by a graduate friend of mine a few years ago. That program became popular among these young astronomy enthusiasts for some reason, and I see it mentioned often in those aforementioned online astronomy-focused communities. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 02:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

There’s no “full version” of this image. Those missing regions, Galileo just didn’t take any image there. It’s just a partial image. Ardenau4 (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)