High resolution...through digital interpolation...

[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

 

[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.