High resolution...through digital interpolation...

[Guest]

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>And if you took a picture of something that was all vertical and
>>horizontal lines?
>
>
> I'm not interested in test charts.
>
>
>>You could then interpolate to just about any level,
>>and the picture would be an accurate representation of the original, and
>>the same as from a camera with whatever resolution you could find.
>
>
> Really? Try doing that with a picture of a picket fence.>
>
>>This
>>is a rather limited case, of course, but it does illustrate the point.
>>IF the subject matter lends itself to interpolation, then much
>>improvement, indistinguishable from 'real' can be had.
>>So, what does your information theory have to say about that?
>
>
> That there is no net increase in information.
>
You are saying that even though the 'created 'pixel is in the same
place, and the same color and intensity as a real pixel WOULD be on a
higher resolution sensor, there is no gain? If the created information
is indistinguishable from the 'real' information, then what is the
difference?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>This is a very narrow-minded view of the problem.
>
>
> It's a harsh reality.
>
>
>>Your motto: "They said it couldn't be done, so I didn't try".
>
>
> It cannot be done, no matter how much one tries.

Grin. Do you know how many educated and experienced modem experts said
exactly that about getting data through a phone line at more than 450
BPS? I recall a programmer who told his bosses something couldn't be
done, and they asked him why someone seemed to have already DONE it.
They asked ME why I had done it, and I said no one told me it couldn't
be done, so I did it.

>
>
>>If objects can be correctly identified by software, they can be
>>re-rendered at any resolution.
>
>
> Only if the software contains all the detail concerning the objects. In
> other words, only if all the detail is already present (the fact that
> the software contains it instead of the captured image doesn't alter the
> constraints of information theory).
>
> In practice, no software can do this outside of the most trivial test
> cases.
>
>
>>Image recognition can read the text, identify each
>>letter, identify the font used and re-render it at 100 times the
>>original, maintaining the angle, color balance and texture from the
>>original.
>
>
> Some fonts are so slightly different that they cannot be identified in
> this way.
>
>
>>Software
>>development moves fast, and even though we may not have the magic
>>'enlarge' button in Photoshop yet, it *will* be there one day.
>
>
> No, it won't.
>
> What we will have is capture at higher resolutions instead.
>
> This reminds me of a claim I heard from someone long ago who said that
> the future would be shaped by ever-improving compression algorithms. In
> fact, it has been shaped by ever-increasing bandwidth.
>

Perhaps both will improve over time. That's the way it usually happens.
Think how many noted physicists said the smallest particle of matter
was the atom...
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Big Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:47:09 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Your motto: "They said it couldn't be done, so I didn't try".
>>
>>It cannot be done, no matter how much one tries.
>
>
> I seem to recall this was said about powered flight, too.
>
Or 6 mbps data transmission over a telephone line (and WITH a
conversation going on at the same time!).


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Don Stauffer writes:
>
>
>>Also, NASA and HST resolution improvement often hinges on having a good
>>idea of what an object is, and optimizing algorithms that assume the
>>shape of an object.
>
>
> But that's just another way of saying that they have additional image
> data.
>
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?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Martin Brown writes:
>
>
>>Yes. They can. Typically on very high quality signal to noise data it is
>>possible to obtain about a factor of 3x increase in apparent resolution
>>on the brightest points using one of the regularised deconvolution
>>methods like Maximum Entropy.
>
>
> Apparent resolution is not actual detail.
>
>
>>The critical requirement is that you must
>>know or be able to determine the blurring characteristics of the imaging
>>system exactly in order to use them.
>
>
> If you know enough to fully reconstruct missing detail in the image, you
> don't need the image in the first place.
>
>
>>No it isn't. Knowing a priori that image brightness is always positive
>>is a tremendously powerful constraint on deconvolution algorithms.
>
>
> Knowing anything in advance adds image information.
>
> If that advance knowledge doesn't match the reality of the original
> scene, though, the results can be hugely misleading.
>

I would have to agree with that, but in some cases, we can accurately
infer that the cat is, indeed, alive.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Owamanga wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 10:09:33 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Confused wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How much improvement is possible? That is the question.
>>>
>>
>>How much improvement depends mainly on the subject matter. If it is
>>mostly random shapes, such as trees, and grass, not a lot.
>
>
> Disagree. These are excellent subjects for fractal representation.
>
>
>>Regular
>>shapes with sharp lines and edges, quite a bit.
>
>
> The vector approach works well here, yes.
>
> --
> Owamanga!
> http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Perhaps someday someone will implement both in an intelligent way. I
suspect one would have to do it area by area at this point.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

"Steve" <SPAMTRAPglawackus@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:mDK4e.41175$qn2.9785972@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> The Fuji cameras have sensors that are rotated 45 degrees.
>
> I don't see why this should automatically make a difference in the
> real world. I can see that having the pixel array parallel to lines
> in the subject woud make sense, such as a subject with lots of lines
> that are vertical and horizontal. OTOH, a picture of a pyramid
> would seem to be perfectly suited to a sensor that is rotated.

Quite on the contrary. As Dave Martindale formulated much better than
I could, diagonal (45 degree on square pixel) resolution of a
rectangular sampling grid is a factor Sqrt(2) better than
horizontal/vertical (aligned with the grid) resolution.

Bart

 

[Guest]

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

"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.

Bart

 

[Guest]

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lq0851hrfic5jbchrlqag7r46gnv7jn8vf@4ax.com...
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>> And if you took a picture of something that was all vertical and
>> horizontal lines?
>
> I'm not interested in test charts.

Why not? They can produce repeatable and objective test results,
indicative of what can be expected under different circumstances, like
the difference between (horizontal and) vertical resolution on
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page23.asp> (e.g. the
3rd crop with the golden rays, even though only captured at 6MP).

Bart

 

[Guest]

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

Bart van der Wolf writes:

> Why not?

Because I'm not an equipment geek.

> They can produce repeatable and objective test results,
> indicative of what can be expected under different circumstances, like
> the difference between (horizontal and) vertical resolution on
> <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page23.asp> (e.g. the
> 3rd crop with the golden rays, even though only captured at 6MP).

Wow.

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

 

[Guest]

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

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.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Martin Brown writes:

> Some of it is. You can know the positions and relative positions of
> bright point sources much more accurately than to the nearest pixel even
> with relatively crude deconvolution methods.

But you know that they are bright point sources. So you already have
information about the original image that you add to what you've
captured.

If you don't know what type of sources they are, you cannot do this.

> Rubbish. You only need to know the point spread function. And the
> positivity constraint - but there are still a lot of all positive images.

See above.

> 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.

--
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:

> You are saying that even though the 'created 'pixel is in the same
> place, and the same color and intensity as a real pixel WOULD be on a
> higher resolution sensor, there is no gain?

It won't be ... it can't be, except by chance.

> If the created information is indistinguishable from the
> 'real' information, then what is the difference?

You don't know if it's indistinguishable or not without the original
scene, and if you have the original scene, you don't need the
simulation. "Created" details can be entirely false details with no
relationship to the original scene.

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

 

[Jer]

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

Mxsmanic wrote:


> "Created" details can be entirely false details with no
> relationship to the original scene.
>

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



--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

 

[Guest]

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>You are saying that even though the 'created 'pixel is in the same
>>place, and the same color and intensity as a real pixel WOULD be on a
>>higher resolution sensor, there is no gain?
>
>
> It won't be ... it can't be, except by chance.
>
>
>>If the created information is indistinguishable from the
>>'real' information, then what is the difference?
>
>
> You don't know if it's indistinguishable or not without the original
> scene, and if you have the original scene, you don't need the
> simulation. "Created" details can be entirely false details with no
> relationship to the original scene.
>
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.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Ron Hunter writes:

> Or 6 mbps data transmission over a telephone line (and WITH a
> conversation going on at the same time!).

That still isn't possible, and it probably never will be.

If you are thinking of DSL, that involves transmission only over the
local loop to the central office, an uninterrupted, unimpeded pair of
wires of limited length. You can transmit data at very high speed
indeed over such a pair, and this has been known for a very long time.
What you cannot do is transmit at the same speed over a standard
telephone connection, which is much more complex and has very restricted
bandwidth. DSL lines transmit at high speed only to the central office,
which then routes the traffic over special high-speed connections
outside of the standard telephone network.

With ISDN, you can get up to 56 kbps on standard telephone lines (in the
U.S.), but even that is only true in some cases, as some lines cannot
handle the speed because of devices on the line, poor quality, etc. A
speed of 56 kbps is the absolute maximum you'll ever get on a standard
connection (64 kbps in Europe).

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

 

[Guest]

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>Or 6 mbps data transmission over a telephone line (and WITH a
>>conversation going on at the same time!).
>
>
> That still isn't possible, and it probably never will be.
>
> If you are thinking of DSL, that involves transmission only over the
> local loop to the central office, an uninterrupted, unimpeded pair of
> wires of limited length. You can transmit data at very high speed
> indeed over such a pair, and this has been known for a very long time.
> What you cannot do is transmit at the same speed over a standard
> telephone connection, which is much more complex and has very restricted
> bandwidth. DSL lines transmit at high speed only to the central office,
> which then routes the traffic over special high-speed connections
> outside of the standard telephone network.
>
> With ISDN, you can get up to 56 kbps on standard telephone lines (in the
> U.S.), but even that is only true in some cases, as some lines cannot
> handle the speed because of devices on the line, poor quality, etc. A
> speed of 56 kbps is the absolute maximum you'll ever get on a standard
> connection (64 kbps in Europe).
>
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.
As we learn more about physics, more and more things become 'possible'.
Recall that from the days of the Greeks, it was KNOWN that spiders had
only 6 legs, because that is what the Greeks REASONED, and no one seems
to have gotten around to actually COUNTING them until the 16th century
or so. Presumably they didn't bother because everyone KNEW they had 6
legs (spiders being considered insects).

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!


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

Ron Hunter writes:

> Do you know how many educated and experienced modem experts said
> exactly that about getting data through a phone line at more than 450
> BPS?

Very few. It has been known for many decades that higher speeds than
that are possible on a telephone line. Shannon made the true limits
clear.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Hunter writes:
>
>
>>Do you know how many educated and experienced modem experts said
>>exactly that about getting data through a phone line at more than 450
>>BPS?
>
>
> Very few. It has been known for many decades that higher speeds than
> that are possible on a telephone line. Shannon made the true limits
> clear.
>
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.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> schrieb
> 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.
😉
Remember when he was online on RPD *all* the time?
By just looking at how to get the plain rect impulses over the line puts
them to the academic artifacts somehow.

 

[Guest]

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

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.

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

 

[Guest]

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

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.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Larry]

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

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>


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 04:55:44 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

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

Before that happens you'll have garnered an IgNobel prize.

 

[Guest]

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

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.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency