High resolution...through digital interpolation...

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jer writes:

> Sorta like a series of trumped up charges for taking snapshots of kids
> building sand castles on a public beach.

Yes. It's not interpolation, it's imagination.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter writes:

> Yes, they CAN be but they can also be exactly the same as a 'real' pixel
> would be, but then you won't admit that, even when it is obviously possible.

You cannot know if the details are exactly the same or not. The more
you interpolate, the less likely they are to be accurate, and overall
the chances are always that they are _not_ accurate.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:55:44 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Big Bill writes:
>
>> I seem to recall this was said about powered flight, too.
>
>You can always prove me wrong, and claim your Nobel prize.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong.
I'm trying to get you to see that saying something wil lnever be done
is a dangerous thing to say.

"It cannot be done, no matter how much one tries."
That's what you wrote. It shows a lack of understanding of history,
and a lack of thinking that what is now impossible may not be
tomorrow.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter writes:

> You make my point FOR me. In the early 1980's it was explained in great
> detail, and with many engineers backing it, that nothing over 450 bps
> was possible.

By whom? Even ordinary voice communication is around 2400 bps with the
simplest methods of modulation.

> As we learn more about physics, more and more things become 'possible'.

We have known for almost a hundred years what the bandwidth limits of
ordinary telephone lines are. They have never changed.

It is true that some types of modulation are limited to very low speeds.
Higher speeds in modems came as newer types of modulation entered the
scene. But there is an upper limit of 56 kbps in most cases, if for no
other reason than the fact that so much traffic is digitized at 56 kbps
today.

> Before 1945 nuclear fission was just science fiction, and everyone knew
> that was just something Jules Verne, and John W. Campbell, and his ilk
> prattled on about, and was just about as likely as man ever being able
> to go to the moon. Pure fantasy. Right!

Actually, nuclear fission wasn't known at all prior to that. It was
theorized, and immediately people saw the implications, but at first it
wasn't clear whether explosive devices could be created using the
principle. Until someone actually assembled a critical mass and let it
run away, nobody was quite sure.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter writes:

> I will even give you a name to check out. There should be ample record
> of his writings in the area back about 20 years ago. John Navas.
> He, and many others explained in great detail why it was physically
> impossible to EVER send more than 450 bps over a telephone line.

He and _how many_ others? One person isn't a consensus.

> OF course those who didn't believe in limitations just went right
> ahead and DID it.

No, they did it a different way. The modulation used by the very first
modems imposed severe constraints on maximum speeds. Amazingly, they
were so slow that you could recognize characters by _listening_ to the
traffic.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:40:21 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Ron Hunter writes:
>
>> I will even give you a name to check out. There should be ample record
>> of his writings in the area back about 20 years ago. John Navas.
>> He, and many others explained in great detail why it was physically
>> impossible to EVER send more than 450 bps over a telephone line.
>
>He and _how many_ others? One person isn't a consensus.

I see you put little, if any, time into looking him up.
>
>> OF course those who didn't believe in limitations just went right
>> ahead and DID it.
>
>No, they did it a different way. The modulation used by the very first
>modems imposed severe constraints on maximum speeds. Amazingly, they
>were so slow that you could recognize characters by _listening_ to the
>traffic.

You do this a lot.
You claim a statement made by another is wrong, thern explain why it's
right.
"OF course those who didn't believe in limitations just went right
ahead and DID it."
"No, they did it a different way."
LOL!
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>I will even give you a name to check out. There should be ample record
>>of his writings in the area back about 20 years ago. John Navas.
>>He, and many others explained in great detail why it was physically
>>impossible to EVER send more than 450 bps over a telephone line.
>
>
> He and _how many_ others? One person isn't a consensus.
>
>
>>OF course those who didn't believe in limitations just went right
>>ahead and DID it.
>
>
> No, they did it a different way. The modulation used by the very first
> modems imposed severe constraints on maximum speeds. Amazingly, they
> were so slow that you could recognize characters by _listening_ to the
> traffic.
>
He, and many others. It was another of those accepted by the experts
things.
And don't remind me of those days, please!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <En45e.7483$ew7.6077@fe03.lga>,
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>You make my point FOR me. In the early 1980's it was explained in great
>>detail, and with many engineers backing it, that nothing over 450 bps
>>was possible.
>
>
> Are you sure they were talking about the local loop? 2 Mbps baseband modems
> are quite old. And the reason they work is that dedicated circuits don't have
> the 4 kHz limits that are present in switched phone connections.
> (Of course, 450 bps is not even close to the shannon limit of a phone line.
> A simple AM encoding should at least double the bandwidth).
>
> By early 1980's, 64 kbps connections had been in use for some time.
>
>
Make that mid 1980's, and they were way beyond the price range of home
users at that time.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>You make my point FOR me. In the early 1980's it was explained in great
>>detail, and with many engineers backing it, that nothing over 450 bps
>>was possible.
>
>
> By whom? Even ordinary voice communication is around 2400 bps with the
> simplest methods of modulation.
>
>
>>As we learn more about physics, more and more things become 'possible'.
>
>
> We have known for almost a hundred years what the bandwidth limits of
> ordinary telephone lines are. They have never changed.
>
> It is true that some types of modulation are limited to very low speeds.
> Higher speeds in modems came as newer types of modulation entered the
> scene. But there is an upper limit of 56 kbps in most cases, if for no
> other reason than the fact that so much traffic is digitized at 56 kbps
> today.
>
>
>>Before 1945 nuclear fission was just science fiction, and everyone knew
>>that was just something Jules Verne, and John W. Campbell, and his ilk
>>prattled on about, and was just about as likely as man ever being able
>>to go to the moon. Pure fantasy. Right!
>
>
> Actually, nuclear fission wasn't known at all prior to that. It was
> theorized, and immediately people saw the implications, but at first it
> wasn't clear whether explosive devices could be created using the
> principle. Until someone actually assembled a critical mass and let it
> run away, nobody was quite sure.
>
No, but some well-known SF writers were asked by the government in the
early 1940's to NOT write any SF stories dealing with the subject.
I am sure that the US government didn't want anything giving any ideas
to the other side. Some of those writers had very good technical knowledge.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> In article <Up45e.7484$ew7.1416@fe03.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>>Ron Hunter writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, one way of improving resolution is to add information. Does it
>>>>matter if the information comes from another photo, or from a program
>>>>using predictive assumptions, IF the assumptions are consistent with
>>>>reality?
>>>
>>>
>>>That's a big IF. The only way to make the assumptions perfectly
>>>consistent with reality is to have a copy of the detail in the original
>>>scene to consult; but if you have that, you don't need the assumptions.
>>>So the assumptions are always imperfect. The total real detail in the
>>>final image is the sum of the captured detail plus the detail
>>>regenerated thanks to the assumptions, minus any inaccuracies in the
>>>assumptions.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, but the assumptions can be very good, especially under certain
>>limited circumstances.
>>The bottom line is that an image processed with these predictive
>>algorithms can, and usually DO look better. And they are often much
>>more accurate than an unprocessed image.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> After reading your posts, I now wonder why the interpolated images that I get
> from my Fuji dont look better more often!<G>
>
>
Maybe Fuji doesn't have a good general purpose algorithm. Much depends
on the subject matter.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:36:41 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Ron Hunter writes:
>
>> You make my point FOR me. In the early 1980's it was explained in great
>> detail, and with many engineers backing it, that nothing over 450 bps
>> was possible.
>
>By whom? Even ordinary voice communication is around 2400 bps with the
>simplest methods of modulation.
>
>> As we learn more about physics, more and more things become 'possible'.
>
>We have known for almost a hundred years what the bandwidth limits of
>ordinary telephone lines are. They have never changed.
>
>It is true that some types of modulation are limited to very low speeds.
>Higher speeds in modems came as newer types of modulation entered the
>scene. But there is an upper limit of 56 kbps in most cases, if for no
>other reason than the fact that so much traffic is digitized at 56 kbps
>today.
>
>> Before 1945 nuclear fission was just science fiction, and everyone knew
>> that was just something Jules Verne, and John W. Campbell, and his ilk
>> prattled on about, and was just about as likely as man ever being able
>> to go to the moon. Pure fantasy. Right!
>
>Actually, nuclear fission wasn't known at all prior to that. It was
>theorized, and immediately people saw the implications, but at first it
>wasn't clear whether explosive devices could be created using the
>principle. Until someone actually assembled a critical mass and let it
>run away, nobody was quite sure.

Actually nuclear fission know well before 1945 and Leo Szilard filed a
patten for a bomb in 1932.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html

Hahn observed in 1938 the first fission reactions in 1938.


*******************************************************

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission."

The Atlanta Declaration
-- L. Neil Smith
http://www.lneilsmith.com/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 06:09:18 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Ron Hunter writes:
>
>> Yes, one way of improving resolution is to add information. Does it
>> matter if the information comes from another photo, or from a program
>> using predictive assumptions, IF the assumptions are consistent with
>> reality?
>
>That's a big IF. The only way to make the assumptions perfectly
>consistent with reality is to have a copy of the detail in the original
>scene to consult; but if you have that, you don't need the assumptions.
>So the assumptions are always imperfect. The total real detail in the
>final image is the sum of the captured detail plus the detail
>regenerated thanks to the assumptions, minus any inaccuracies in the
>assumptions.

But the original image is imperfect too. Nature, the human face,
things we make, all have imperfections. This really isn't a problem.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 02:56:13 +0200, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>
>"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7ns751pfim0oqu686ar2krpq4g3l5che8b@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 06:57:40 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>SNIP
>>>All cameras are constrained by the limits of information theory,
>>>and it's mathematically impossible to create additional useful
>>>information in an image where none was originally captured.
>>
>> This is a very narrow-minded view of the problem.
>
>What's worse, it's wrong. At least with regards to "additional useful
>information". The data may be not exactly correct but only very
>plausible (like interpolation of a straight edge), but that may indeed
>still add "useful" information. The issue is more about the
>possibility to extract "useful" information from the captured data,
>which will not be successful *all* the time, but (prior knowledge
>about image content and) Poisson statistics may increase the rate of
>success.

Indeed, I've heard the argument "your made up pixel may only be
correct by *chance*" several times in the thread already.

Who cares, chance is a great improvement over 'nothing'. We don't die
every time we take a breath because of chance, one day we will, but
until then, chance is on our side. There are a lot of different
methods that can be used together to asses the 'most likely' candidate
for the new pixel, and the 'chances' are, it'll be correct.

An interesting approach is how meteorologists take a sum of all
weather forecasts to make a call on what's going to happen. Even
within a single forecast, banks of computers will run several
simulations by first randomly adjusting the input data (from sensors
around the globe, radar etc) and seeing if the results of each
forecast calculation match up. If they do, it can issue a high
confidence, if they don't, it warns of a low confidence level in the
forecast.

Weather forecasts are far from perfect, but at the same time, *far,
far* better than not having one.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:59:05 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Martin Brown writes:
>
>> No it adds additional information beyond the actual raw image.
>
>Information based on assumptions, not on the original capture. If the
>assumptions are incorrect, the results will be incorrect.

...and that may be a problem for medical or astronomical imagery, but
not to a scene of the Grande Canyon that you can now print at 5ft x
3ft with no *discernable* degradation.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 06:24:03 -0400, Larry
<lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:


>After reading your posts, I now wonder why the interpolated images that I get
>from my Fuji dont look better more often!<G>

Today, we stand on the shoulders of giants, but tomorrow we will be
squished by the boots of future innovators.

A firmware solution is always going to be a severely limited
representation of what is possible in the more fluid world of general
computing.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Larry]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <vjd5e.7523$eF4.3761@fe03.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
> Maybe Fuji doesn't have a good general purpose algorithm. Much depends
> on the subject matter.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>

Actually, I just now used the Fuji to shoot some Crocus that just blossomed,
and I noticed that in all the shots where I used max apeture to limit depth
of field, the interpolated images ALL looked slightly better (viens in the
petals were more "defined"), but the ones with broad depth of field didn't
show NEAR as much improvement. GO FIGURE!

You dont suppose its because almost all of those viens run at diagonal angles
to the vertical and horizontal, do you??


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> writes:

>Again, you seem to have a blinkered view on problem solving. Yes,
>there are physical laws which restrict data transmission on a POTS
>line but engineers sidestep these by bending the rules. They
>succeeded.

They didn't bend the rules, they just replaced the entire telephone
system infrastructure with the exception of the last few miles to your
house. The limits applied to the old hardware, not the new. Sometimes
that's both possible and economically feasible, so it happens.

On the other hand, it's foolhardy to just assume that *all* limits will
eventually get bypassed in this way. Some will, some won't.
Faster-than-light space travel would be very useful, but it may never
happen. Maybe not even faster-than-light communications.

>Technology and innovation *constantly* finds routes around 'laws' of
>physics and mathematics without having to break them. This is, and
>will continue to happen in image processing too.

But only some of the limits. And you may have to replace your camera in
order to use the newly-invented techniques. Blind faith that all limits
will eventually fall is no more sensible than believing that all current
limitations will remain true.

Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:08:44 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

>Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>>Again, you seem to have a blinkered view on problem solving. Yes,
>>there are physical laws which restrict data transmission on a POTS
>>line but engineers sidestep these by bending the rules. They
>>succeeded.
>
>They didn't bend the rules, they just replaced the entire telephone
>system infrastructure with the exception of the last few miles to your
>house.

No they didn't. They improved some things, but I've been inside some
of the largest exchanges in the US, and a lot of the head-end
equipment dates back to the cold-war... some of it is still made of
bakelite.

The fiber is the same fiber. We've laid new stuff, but the old stuff
hasn't been retired.

>The limits applied to the old hardware, not the new. Sometimes
>that's both possible and economically feasible, so it happens.
>
>On the other hand, it's foolhardy to just assume that *all* limits will
>eventually get bypassed in this way. Some will, some won't.
>Faster-than-light space travel would be very useful, but it may never
>happen. Maybe not even faster-than-light communications.

Okay, but what I'm talking about is a blend of existing software
technologies, not faster than light space travel. There seems to be
some confusion here.

>>Technology and innovation *constantly* finds routes around 'laws' of
>>physics and mathematics without having to break them. This is, and
>>will continue to happen in image processing too.
>
>But only some of the limits. And you may have to replace your camera in
>order to use the newly-invented techniques.

That may be true, but your problem with replacing a camera is what?

>Blind faith that all limits will eventually fall is no more sensible
>than believing that all current limitations will remain true.

I don't see any blind faith. Just existing stuff made better.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Larry wrote:
> In article <vjd5e.7523$eF4.3761@fe03.lga>, rphunter@charter.net says...
>
>>Maybe Fuji doesn't have a good general purpose algorithm. Much depends
>>on the subject matter.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>>
>>
>
>
> Actually, I just now used the Fuji to shoot some Crocus that just blossomed,
> and I noticed that in all the shots where I used max apeture to limit depth
> of field, the interpolated images ALL looked slightly better (viens in the
> petals were more "defined"), but the ones with broad depth of field didn't
> show NEAR as much improvement. GO FIGURE!
>
> You dont suppose its because almost all of those viens run at diagonal angles
> to the vertical and horizontal, do you??
>
>
It all depends on the algorithm in the firmware and what assumptions the
programmers made.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 10:36:41 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Hunter writes:
>>
>>
>>>You make my point FOR me. In the early 1980's it was explained in great
>>>detail, and with many engineers backing it, that nothing over 450 bps
>>>was possible.
>>
>>By whom? Even ordinary voice communication is around 2400 bps with the
>>simplest methods of modulation.
>>
>>
>>>As we learn more about physics, more and more things become 'possible'.
>>
>>We have known for almost a hundred years what the bandwidth limits of
>>ordinary telephone lines are. They have never changed.
>>
>>It is true that some types of modulation are limited to very low speeds.
>>Higher speeds in modems came as newer types of modulation entered the
>>scene. But there is an upper limit of 56 kbps in most cases, if for no
>>other reason than the fact that so much traffic is digitized at 56 kbps
>>today.
>>
>>
>>>Before 1945 nuclear fission was just science fiction, and everyone knew
>>>that was just something Jules Verne, and John W. Campbell, and his ilk
>>>prattled on about, and was just about as likely as man ever being able
>>>to go to the moon. Pure fantasy. Right!
>>
>>Actually, nuclear fission wasn't known at all prior to that. It was
>>theorized, and immediately people saw the implications, but at first it
>>wasn't clear whether explosive devices could be created using the
>>principle. Until someone actually assembled a critical mass and let it
>>run away, nobody was quite sure.
>
>
> Actually nuclear fission know well before 1945 and Leo Szilard filed a
> patten for a bomb in 1932.
>
> http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html
>
> Hahn observed in 1938 the first fission reactions in 1938.
>
>

Non-selfsustaining reactions were known, but making a bomb from that was
quite a step.
One could file a pattern for a faster than light spacecraft, but
actually making one WORK is another matter. Little problem of power,
for instance.

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 16:08:44 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
> Martindale) wrote:
>
>
>>Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Again, you seem to have a blinkered view on problem solving. Yes,
>>>there are physical laws which restrict data transmission on a POTS
>>>line but engineers sidestep these by bending the rules. They
>>>succeeded.
>>
>>They didn't bend the rules, they just replaced the entire telephone
>>system infrastructure with the exception of the last few miles to your
>>house.
>
>
> No they didn't. They improved some things, but I've been inside some
> of the largest exchanges in the US, and a lot of the head-end
> equipment dates back to the cold-war... some of it is still made of
> bakelite.
>
> The fiber is the same fiber. We've laid new stuff, but the old stuff
> hasn't been retired.
>
>
>>The limits applied to the old hardware, not the new. Sometimes
>>that's both possible and economically feasible, so it happens.
>>
>>On the other hand, it's foolhardy to just assume that *all* limits will
>>eventually get bypassed in this way. Some will, some won't.
>>Faster-than-light space travel would be very useful, but it may never
>>happen. Maybe not even faster-than-light communications.
>
>
> Okay, but what I'm talking about is a blend of existing software
> technologies, not faster than light space travel. There seems to be
> some confusion here.
>
>
>>>Technology and innovation *constantly* finds routes around 'laws' of
>>>physics and mathematics without having to break them. This is, and
>>>will continue to happen in image processing too.
>>
>>But only some of the limits. And you may have to replace your camera in
>>order to use the newly-invented techniques.
>
>
> That may be true, but your problem with replacing a camera is what?
>
>
>>Blind faith that all limits will eventually fall is no more sensible
>>than believing that all current limitations will remain true.
>
>
> I don't see any blind faith. Just existing stuff made better.
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
I should be so lucky as to have fiber! The telephone lines here are
single strand copper wrapped in PAPER wrapping, and inside a LEAD tube.
I KNOW they haven't been replaced in 37 years, because I have lived
here that long. I suspect they may go back to the early 1950's, (when
the houses were built), or maybe even before that.
The BEST speeds I ever got on a modem were 24.6kbps, on a GOOD day.
I couldn't WAIT until they got cable internet available, and was the
first in my area to have it installed.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> writes:

> But the original image is imperfect too. Nature, the human face,
> things we make, all have imperfections. This really isn't a problem.

It's not a question of imperfections, it's a question of information.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:50:03 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> But the original image is imperfect too. Nature, the human face,
>> things we make, all have imperfections. This really isn't a problem.
>
>It's not a question of imperfections, it's a question of information.

Disagree. Excepting military, scientific and medical uses, it's a
question of what looks good.

Photography - what looks good. That's the scope of the problem. It
doesn't have to be perfect as long as it looks good.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Ph45e.624$YS1.208@fe02.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>I will even give you a name to check out. There should be ample record
>of his writings in the area back about 20 years ago. John Navas.
>He, and many others explained in great detail why it was physically
>impossible to EVER send more than 450 bps over a telephone line. OF
>course those who didn't believe in limitations just went right ahead and
>DID it. Now John runs a website that tells you how to maximize the
>speed. And life goes on.

He was a usenet regular in some of the Windows-related newsgroups a few
years back when I used to participate in them.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <MPG.1cbf4fe1d628e500989987@news.comcast.giganews.com>,
Larry <lastingimagery@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>Actually, I just now used the Fuji to shoot some Crocus that just blossomed,
>and I noticed that in all the shots where I used max apeture to limit depth
>of field, the interpolated images

All pixels in a regular bitmap are interpolated from that camera.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><