High resolution...through digital interpolation...

[Guest]

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

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:02:16 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Ron Hunter writes:
>>
>>
>>>Just plain NOT TRUE. There are some excellent programs that will
>>>minimize motion blur by analyzing the direction of the blur, and working
>>>to correct it. The process requires a lot of processing and the results
>>>are much less than perfect, but the process IS possible.
>>
>>
>> None of these programs can add detail that wasn't originally there.
>>
>Quibbling. If an interpolated pixel is the same color, and in the same
>position as a 'real' pixel would be in a camera with a finer resolution,
>what is the difference? If 50% of the pixels are in the same place as
>the real pixels would be, then the picture would look a LOT better, so
>does it matter HOW they got to your screen?
>
>Once the pixel is in the file, and displayed on your screen, can you
>pick out all the interpolated ones?

I think you an Maniac are arguing different things.
He's saying you can't add detail that isn't there, and you're saying
that *fake* or *guessed* detail can be added, but they are not the
same thing.
Added or guessed detail is not an accurate depiction of the subject.
It may come close, but close isn't accurate.
I think that's where you two will never meet on this.

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

 

[Guest]

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

Scott W writes:

> So you are not adding detail that was not there, you are making detail
> visible that was not before because it was to low in amplitude due to
> the blurring.

If any kind of digitization has taken place, there will be an upper,
absolute limit to the frequencies available, and there will be no detail
beyond that, period.

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

 

[Mike]

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

In article <425480b6$0$152$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
bvdwolf@no.spam says...
>
> "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.
>
....which would be of great use if the majority of images
taken on cameras consisted of vertical and/or horizontal
stripes. But unless you take lots of photos of brick
buildings I can't see it being of much benefit.

 

[Guest]

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

"Mike" <m.fee@irl.cri.nz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cc4a3a4984e0b6e9896ac@news.fx.net.nz...
> In article <425480b6$0$152$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> bvdwolf@no.spam says...
SNIP
>> 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.
>>
> ...which would be of great use if the majority of images
> taken on cameras consisted of vertical and/or horizontal
> stripes. But unless you take lots of photos of brick
> buildings I can't see it being of much benefit.

Well, if you analyze image content (e.g. Fourier analysis) you can't
help to conclude that a large part of all image structures has a
predominantly horizontal/vertical orientation. This is usually a
result of gravity.
Vertical structures are caused by, or attempt to resist gravity, e.g.
tree trunks, stems of flowers, legs of living creatures (or even
chairs), the list goes on. Horizontal structures often failed to
resist gravity ;-) or are parallel to the horizon.

Bart

 

[Confused]

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

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:36:24 +0200
In message <unjd51lrd469d2p64fulpm7l0cud62i7ff@4ax.com>
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > All of this happened 10-15 years *after* fiber.
>
> And flat-panel displays predate this by 20 years. Microwave ovens
> predate it by 40 years at least, as does digital voice transmission.

When I saw the first flat panel orange plasma monitor:
"THIS is the future", I remember thinking.

(I don't remember the year... mid to late 70's ??)

Jeff

 

[Confused]

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

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:36:50 GMT
In message <g9db51p5uf973obdrgr4699dj63hl8lgn0@4ax.com>
JPS@no.komm wrote:

> 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.

Ah, for the good old days with a terminal and a 300 BAUD modem at
home, when every single byte was worth it's weight in time... ;^)

Jeff

 

[Guest]

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

Confused wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 20:36:24 +0200
> In message <unjd51lrd469d2p64fulpm7l0cud62i7ff@4ax.com>
> Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>All of this happened 10-15 years *after* fiber.
>>
>>And flat-panel displays predate this by 20 years. Microwave ovens
>>predate it by 40 years at least, as does digital voice transmission.
>
>
> When I saw the first flat panel orange plasma monitor:
> "THIS is the future", I remember thinking.
>
> (I don't remember the year... mid to late 70's ??)
>
> Jeff

They were quite nice, in some ways, but worked out to be VERY hard on
the eyes and didn't last long in the market.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:46:50 GMT, Confused
<somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:36:50 GMT
>In message <g9db51p5uf973obdrgr4699dj63hl8lgn0@4ax.com>
>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Ah, for the good old days with a terminal and a 300 BAUD modem at
>home, when every single byte was worth it's weight in time... ;^)
>
>Jeff

You misspelt "wait".

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

 

[Guest]

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

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> Well, if you analyze image content (e.g. Fourier analysis) you can't
> help to conclude that a large part of all image structures has a
> predominantly horizontal/vertical orientation.

If you can actually cite that experiment, I'd like to see it.

> This is usually a result
> of gravity.
> Vertical structures are caused by, or attempt to resist gravity, e.g.
> tree trunks, stems of flowers, legs of living creatures (or even
> chairs), the list goes on. Horizontal structures often failed to resist
> gravity ;-) or are parallel to the horizon.

On the other hand, lines that are horizontal in the world often
are not parallel to the horizon in photographs, due to
perspective.

http/images.google.com/images?q=perspective


--
--Bryan

 

[Guest]

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

Confused writes:

> When I saw the first flat panel orange plasma monitor:
> "THIS is the future", I remember thinking.

You were right ... but it sure took a long time to get there!

> (I don't remember the year... mid to late 70's ??)

CDC began marketing PLATO commercially in the 1970s, but I believe the
project dates from about ten years earlier. And military flat panels
predate that.

Computer technology has always lagged far behind ideas. In most cases,
software lags behind hardware, too, but in some cases (PLATO, Multics,
etc.) hardware lagged behind software.

Virtually none of today's computer software "wonders" is really new. It
was all thought of decades ago; there just wasn't any hardware on which
to run it.

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

 

[Guest]

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

In message <30om51ltuepek6f3q475qftfgfetbpsdvi@4ax.com>,
Confused <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote:

>Ah, for the good old days with a terminal and a 300 BAUD modem at
>home, when every single byte was worth it's weight in time... ;^)

I remember the first time I saw a modem in action; I went to a
co-worker's home on out lunch break, and he showed me his computer. He
had a compuserve account, and connected to get his email. The text
appeared on the screen one character at a time, as if someone were
typing it, very fast.
--

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

 

[Confused]

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

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote:

> >Ah, for the good old days with a terminal and a 300 BAUD modem at
> >home, when every single byte was worth it's weight in time... ;^)
>
> You misspelt "wait".

Interesting concept... did you ever notice how things
seem heavier when time seems to grind to a halt? :-()

Jeff

 

[Guest]

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

Bryan Olson <fakeaddress@nowhere.org> writes:
>Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> > Well, if you analyze image content (e.g. Fourier analysis) you can't
> > help to conclude that a large part of all image structures has a
> > predominantly horizontal/vertical orientation.

>If you can actually cite that experiment, I'd like to see it.

It's pretty simple to do yourself. Take a digital image. (Optional:
convert to monochrome so you only have one channgel to process).
Perform Fourier transform on it using a variant that puts the "DC term"
in the centre. Draw 4 lines at +-22.5 degrees and +-67.5 degrees
through the centre, dividing the output into 8 octants. Note that 4 of
these octants are all the points closer to a horizontal/vertical line,
while the other 4 are all the points closer to a 45 degree diagonal
line.

Then draw a circle that just touches the sides of the image across its
narrower dimension. Discard all points outside the circle. This makes
each octant have the same number of points, representing the same range
of spatial frequencies.

Now calculate the average coefficient value (use the magnitude of the
complex number) in the 4 horizontal/vertical octants, and separately
calculate the average coefficient value in the 4 near-diagonal octants.
Ignore the very centre; it doesn't belong to any octant (and is probably
far larger than all the other coefficients).

Are the two averages about the same? Or is the average for the
horizontal/vertical octants larger than the average for the diagonal
octants?

This tells you the answer for one image. Repeat for many "typical"
images to get some sort of average.

>On the other hand, lines that are horizontal in the world often
>are not parallel to the horizon in photographs, due to
>perspective.

True, but if they are within +- 22.5 degrees of horizontal or vertical,
then (in theory at least) the rotated Fuji sensor has higher resolution
than a row/column grid sensor of the same size and pixel count.

Dave

 

[Guest]

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

Confused wrote:
>>And flat-panel displays predate this by 20 years. Microwave ovens
>>predate it by 40 years at least, as does digital voice transmission.
>
>
> When I saw the first flat panel orange plasma monitor:
> "THIS is the future", I remember thinking.
>
> (I don't remember the year... mid to late 70's ??)
>
> Jeff

And I remember talking to TI about their digital mini light mirror array
in the 1980s