[SOLVED] Open discussion (Photo editing): I have a dream

[COLGeek]

An imagination is a terrible thing to waste (on something outside the laws of physics). Just the data size of the "infinite picture" alone take this "dream" well beyond impossible.

 

[USAFRet]

And in the above pic...what is on the table "behind" that beer bottle, from the point of view of the camera?
A bottle opener? A bug? Bird poop? Some or all 3?

The distance pic is approximately what you'd see with your eyeballs.

 

[cryoburner]

The reason this is pretty much impossible in software is that the data is simply not there to process. An image file saved by a digital camera is just a flat grid of colored squares representing the view that could be seen from the perspective of the camera at the point in time when the image was taken, so there's no usable data for anything not directly in view (or reflected).

And you certainly can't zoom in forever without things becoming pixelated, since that pixelation is simply the limits of the available data. The image is stored like a mosaic, and if each tile of that mosaic represents one centimeter squared at a given distance, then everything within that centimeter has been averaged out to a single color. It may be possible for software to look at surrounding tiles and make some guesses about additional detail to keep things sharp when zooming in a little closer, but this will quickly become inaccurate the more you zoom, since again, it's based on guesswork.

#1: In some very distant future, when terapixel cameras are in your pocket, you might probably read what written on your bottle from 200 feet. Again - it's physics, not software.

Of course, you also have to figure lens distortions into that. The actual transparent material that a lens is made from will have imperfections that add some blurring to the image as well, which will limit the effective resolution, even if the sensor could theoretically detect more detail. This is even more of a limitation for the tiny lenses used in cell phone cameras and probably most "$200 cameras", where any small imperfection in the glass will tend to create larger distortions in the resulting image that could make a terapixel sensor useless. And even if the camera utilized some future-material that created a perfect lens where the effect of light passing through it could be determined with complete precision, you may also encounter unpredictable light distortions through the air itself at that distance.

Magic does not exist in this galaxy.

Humankind knows very little about what the universe actually is, so anything outside the limited scope of what science currently views as "facts" about the universe could be thought of as "magic".

Perhaps the past remains frozen in the crystaline expanse of time, and it might be possible to view any prior place and time using a specialized device. And perhaps an ordinary image from a camera could be used to search for that particular point in time, allowing the scene to be viewed in infinite detail from any angle. That's probably a bit more than just a software problem though. : )

 

[hang-the-9]

Perhaps the past remains frozen in the crystaline expanse of time, and it might be possible to view any prior place and time using a specialized device. And perhaps an ordinary image from a camera could be used to search for that particular point in time, allowing the scene to be viewed in infinite detail from any angle. That's probably a bit more than just a software problem though. : )

There is a "simple" way of looking back in time. Use faster than light travel. Wormhole to a location say 100 light years away from Earth. Then train a telescope on Earth. You will see it as it was 100 years ago, from your perspective. Boom, time travel. Kinda.

 

[britechguy]

Humankind knows very little about what the universe actually is, so anything outside the limited scope of what science currently views as "facts" about the universe could be thought of as "magic".

Indeed, as stated by Clarke's Laws:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

All of the above being said, though, there are things we do know, and absolutely, about how the universe actually is. And there is no known sensory apparatus for light that can detect it when it isn't there (which makes sense). So a camera, as in one that takes pictures based on reflected or emanated light, never can or will "see" anything that is blocked from its view by something else. There's nothing there to detect other than the thing that's in front and blocking what's behind it (barring transparency).

 

[ch33r]

When you are done with your experiment, send me that bottle so I can do my own testing on it, in the interests of science. And a bottle opener with it please

I see that, now I want to take that picture, put it into a program, and keep zooming and zooming. I want to be able to zoom in and zoom in until my little heart is content. I want to be able to take a photo of the bottle from 1000 feet away with just my phone, and zoom, and keep zooming in, and keep zooming in with no blur, and be able to see EVERYTHING that's actually there without blur/pixilation. Then I will be content, and my life will be half complete. Now I jst need the other thing... with the moving of objects... lol

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I see that, now I want to take that picture, put it into a program, and keep zooming and zooming. I want to be able to zoom in and zoom in until my little heart is content. I want to be able to take a photo of the bottle from 1000 feet away with just my phone, and zoom, and keep zooming in, and keep zooming in with no blur, and be able to see EVERYTHING that's actually there without blur/pixilation. Then I will be content, and my life will be half complete. Now I jst need the other thing... with the moving of objects... lol

But this is impossible as those parts of the picture are simply too small for any camers to pick up on today.

Maybe you should get an electron microscope?

 

[USAFRet]

I see that, now I want to take that picture, put it into a program, and keep zooming and zooming. I want to be able to zoom in and zoom in until my little heart is content. I want to be able to take a photo of the bottle from 1000 feet away with just my phone, and zoom, and keep zooming in, and keep zooming in with no blur, and be able to see EVERYTHING that's actually there without blur/pixilation. Then I will be content, and my life will be half complete. Now I jst need the other thing... with the moving of objects... lol

There is more chance of a 1972 Ferrari 308GTB spontaneously appearing in my driveway before your phone camera can do that.

Literally, physics gets in the way of your dream.


https://photographylife.com/camera-resolution-explained

 

[ch33r]

There is more chance of a 1972 Ferrari 308GTB spontaneously appearing in my driveway before your phone camera can do that.

Literally, physics gets in the way of your dream.


https://photographylife.com/camera-resolution-explained

Yes, I know my phone can't do that. That's why I want someone to write a program that zooms in that image and shows everything that's actually there without blur or pixelation

 

[Gam3r01]

Again. A program can't alter physics to show what simply isnt there in the photo file to begin with.

 

[USAFRet]

To put a finer point on this (not that it is needed), consider the following 4 images:

Fuji X-T1, 35mm f/1.4

At 120 feet:

At 8" (minimum focal distance for that lens)
Notice the field of view.

At 3", with a MCEX-16 macro tube (again, min focus distance)
Again, field of view.

Cropped in with Adobe Lightroom
Here we can see the grain in the paper:

In the first pic, the data (pixels) for the spokes literally do not exist.
In the other 3, the data for the table upon which it rests literally does not exist.

Can't extrapolate what does not exist.


Now...if I were to buy this lens, we could get a bit better. Probably see the spokes from 120 feet.
But NOT with that wide field of view.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

To put a finer point on this (not that it is needed), consider the following 4 images:

Fuji X-T1, 35mm f/1.4

At 120 feet:

At 8" (minimum focal distance for that lens)
Notice the field of view.

At 3", with a MCEX-16 macro tube (again, min focus distance)
Again, field of view.

Cropped in with Adobe Lightroom
Here we can see the grain in the paper:

In the first pic, the data (pixels) for the spokes literally do not exist.
In the other 3, the data for the table upon which it rests literally does not exist.

Can't extrapolate what does not exist.


Now...if I were to buy this lens, we could get a bit better. Probably see the spokes from 120 feet.
But NOT with that wide field of view.

only 5 grand? Why havent you bought it yet?
jk

 

[USAFRet]

only 5 grand? Why havent you bought it yet?
jk

Because that is most of the price of a new (used) car I'm considering...lol

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Hmm, I could buy a nice car for $5k

1999 Ford Taurus SHO V8 comes to mind. Super old and unreliable, but a Yamaha and Cosworth co-designed V8 in a Ford Taurus...

Nevermind, im taking this off topic.

 

[USAFRet]

Hmm, I could buy a nice car for $5k

A '99 SHO is newer than my current daily driver, sooo....

 

[COLGeek]

This thread is going nowhere, as it can't. The shark has been jumped. The dead horse beaten. And, the OP shall not find his dream software in this reality.

Ready for closure?

 

[USAFRet]

This thread is going nowhere, as it can't. The shark has been jumped. The dead horse beaten. And, the OP shall not find his dream software in this reality.

Ready for closure?

Yes.