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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ch33r

Distinguished
BANNED
Jun 13, 2010
316
4
18,685
I apologize in advance if this is in the wrong 🐈egory. This is an open discussion about two dreams I have in relation to software.

I dream of the day we can take a photo of something, and regardless of the resolution of the original camera that took the photo, you can zoom in, and keep zooming in, and keep zooming in with no blur/pixelating. That is: I want to be able to take a picture of a pop bottle with your standard everyday $200 camera from 200 feet away, and zoom in close enough to read the ingredients on the bottle. In fact, no..... I want to be able to keep zooming in on that picture to the point where I can see the atoms that make up the bottle. I want someone to write a program that will allow you to always zoom in as far as you want regardless of original cameras resolution with no pixelation and no blur. *looks at Topaz Gigapixel AI* Well, at least someone's trying

#2) I want to be able to remove individual objects from a photo taken with your average everyday camera, and see what was behind the object, instead of just a white square. For example, remember that pop bottle in the first one? Now that I'm done looking at the atoms, I want to remove the pop bottle, (ONLY the pop bottle), and see the bottle cap that was sitting on the surface behind it. Another example: I want to go outside, take a picture of my car sitting on the driveway, put the image onto my PC, then remove/edit out the car (ONLY the car) and see the whole driveway, including the chalk drawings that were done on it the night before, and the hockey puck that I left on the driveway that was consequently under the car. I want someone to make a program that allows this to be possible

When someone makes these two programs, my life will be complete, and I will be ready for the afterlife..... if there is one

Thoughts, comments, and discussions below. All input welcome. Keep is clean and appropriate please :)
 
Last edited:
Solution
Well, #1 isnt a software issue, thats a hardware problem. Its not like some CSI movie where they can "enhance" as you move in. Yeah sure you can try, and it can extrapolate what information it thinks is there, but its never going to be correct.
Additionally, higher MP cameras really arent necessary outside of very specific uses (like big billboard/banner prints). Thats why my Canon rebel T6 that costs 400 bucks is near the same MP count as a Sony A7III. In fact, once you hit a certain MP count you would simply not be able to take decent pictures, the pixels would be too small to take in enough light. When you compare a Sony A7III to the A7rIV (Just MP count here) the A7III takes better low light images.

#2 You can do that now...
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. : )
 
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

Commendable
Jul 2, 2019
1,479
243
1,340
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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: NightHawkRMX

ch33r

Distinguished
BANNED
Jun 13, 2010
316
4
18,685
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
 
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

Titan
Moderator
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

Distinguished
BANNED
Jun 13, 2010
316
4
18,685
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
 

USAFRet

Titan
Moderator
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:
drmJj6y.jpg


At 8" (minimum focal distance for that lens)
Notice the field of view.
gE7X67Z.jpg


At 3", with a MCEX-16 macro tube (again, min focus distance)
Again, field of view.
v5yVv7a.jpg


Cropped in with Adobe Lightroom
Here we can see the grain in the paper:
pByo7YE.jpg



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.
9YTp5eQ.png
 
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:
drmJj6y.jpg


At 8" (minimum focal distance for that lens)
Notice the field of view.
gE7X67Z.jpg


At 3", with a MCEX-16 macro tube (again, min focus distance)
Again, field of view.
v5yVv7a.jpg


Cropped in with Adobe Lightroom
Here we can see the grain in the paper:
pByo7YE.jpg



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.
9YTp5eQ.png
only 5 grand? Why havent you bought it yet?
jk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.