I have a question on your reply #8 color enlargement. The apparent texture across the erect blue-grey shard shows circular and similar overlapping slightly blurred patterns on the rock surface appearing as shade or material difference. Is the an artifact of the JPEG process contaminating the original, or is that in the original. I haven't been trying to enlarge these full size mcam or Mastcam pictures. Limits on my videocard(laptop today) and the JPEG built in decay syndrome injures all these Curiosity images, and is that the source of the shapes or are we seeing mineral or other real details?
This is a blur induced less pixelated 'spider' assembly of the ccam 'fibers' which I am as yet trying understand. I'll drop this image topic and study your entries as we all have seen these fibers in the thousands of examples from the MER two rover returns. Not a new story here, just a new rover with new cameras and a new location with differing materials. Why persistent fibers or complex unexpected shapes in images of all three rovers? There are no rovers now which can be used as an example of denial. What and why?
.

.
The image is the true size 1 to 1 that is provided on the MSL raw images source page, and the images appears nearly black, with(from memory) only one LED light for a lighting source behind a heat screen. Somewhere I read the reference to a single switched LED which does not influence the spectroscopy results.
Are we facing yet again the limits of the JPEG public access images, with far better resolution and trustworthiness of non-published true raw data?
I used a specialized type of blur to reduce the rather mis-matched pixelation sourced from the original, but I'll be transferring to desktop comp. with a good video card tomorrow. Digital imaging can be very limiting just as the built-in limits of the Curiosity cameras, and the 8 bit transfer depth.
You have good color balance, and general image quality in your #8, but in enlargements all detail is challenged, and JPEG's are not appropriate sources. If they gave us TIF's we could get a near direct quality of 100% without artifacts.
It was claimed these cameras were adjusted for pixel edge matching prior to transmission. My laptop simplicity may be responsible for the lack of quality, added to the host decay syndrome applied.
Anti-aliasing adjustment increase, from 1, to 2 or 3 pass increase, is my hope for the various limits given on the laptop limits.
The new landscape of Mt. Sharp at PIA16105 and PIA16104(100mm Mastcam) gives me increased confidence that we may find some interesting crystals and other unknown objects. Looks sedimentary compared to details from satellite imagery. Also shows 'cap' soft rock/soil cover of a 'hummocky' type impact debris assembly probably, which may indicate multiple historical periods.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16105