Enlarged digital images with more detail than the original
Douglas
few idiots (Ch...@go.com being a main offender) attempted to coerce me into
releasing industrial secrets of my process to people who never even bothered
to identify themselves and probably wouldn't know what machine code looked
like in the first place, even if I had. I can only presume their motives
were to steal my work and profit from it themselves. Why else would they
continue with their defamation and lies about me?
These crackpot drop outs and wannabe photographers who even today, have
refused to accept evidence or proof that everything I have said is true and
not just possible but highly repeatable and available today, from my digital
print service, continue with their taunts and stupid beliefs it can't be
done.
Some Norwegian mathematician seems to think I'm in the charity industry with
his challenges and then admits he is not qualified to judge me when offered
the chance.
Next month Sally Walker-Brown's Exhibition of historic Boggo Road Jail
photographs, shot with a Nikon D70, goes on display. All the pictures have
been enlarged by my company and printed on canvas. All the pictures are
larger than the (300dpi) print size the original images would print at. All
are as sharp as the original image and many, have more detail - as defined
by the crackpots ( and Tacit) - than the originals. Sally has graciously
allowed the use of her copyright image for this demonstration of proof.
Pictorial evidence that it is indeed possible to enlarge a digital image
which has a normal print size of 6.5" x 10" at 300 dpi, to 24" x 36" poster
print with 720 dpi and still maintain the same sharpness and detail - even
adding detail which was never there in the first place.
There is a brief description here: http://www.tecphoto.com.au along with
pictures of the results and clips at the actual print size to prove once and
for all that this process of mine not just works but works better than any
commercially available software running under Windows or Apple operating
systems.
isnot
"Douglas" <re...@the.group> wrote in message
news:NYAAf.223776$V7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> For most of last year I endured insults defamation, jibes and threats as a
> few idiots (Ch...@go.com being a main offender) attempted to coerce me
> into releasing industrial secrets of my process to people who never even
> bothered to identify themselves and probably wouldn't know what machine
> code looked like in the first place, even if I had.
What in heavens name does machine code have to do with anything?
> I can only presume their motives were to steal my work and profit from it
> themselves. Why else would they continue with their defamation and lies
> about me?
Nobody wants your 'work'. And how would defamation help them take anything?
> These crackpot drop outs and wannabe photographers who even today, have
> refused to accept evidence or proof that everything I have said is true
> and not just possible but highly repeatable and available today, from my
> digital print service, continue with their taunts and stupid beliefs it
> can't be done.
We can't see your prints except over the net. They may as well be postage
stamps.
> Some Norwegian mathematician seems to think I'm in the charity industry
> with his challenges and then admits he is not qualified to judge me when
> offered the chance.
> Next month Sally Walker-Brown's Exhibition of historic Boggo Road Jail
> photographs, shot with a Nikon D70, goes on display. All the pictures have
> been enlarged by my company and printed on canvas. All the pictures are
> larger than the (300dpi) print size the original images would print at.
> All are as sharp as the original image and many, have more detail - as
> defined by the crackpots ( and Tacit) - than the originals. Sally has
> graciously allowed the use of her copyright image for this demonstration
> of proof.
Hot air. We can't see the images. And on CANVAS? What's with that? Arty?
Textured?
> Pictorial evidence that it is indeed possible to enlarge a digital image
> which has a normal print size of 6.5" x 10" at 300 dpi, to 24" x 36"
> poster print with 720 dpi and still maintain the same sharpness and
> detail - even adding detail which was never there in the first place.
More air.
> There is a brief description here: http://www.tecphoto.com.au
None of the links on the left work. Convention says they should be links.
Cut in machine code, are they?
Anyway, keystoned, distorted pictures sell there? I'd say that's a pretty
uncritical market. The EXIF data says it was shot with flash. Oh my, erred
data or clumsy photographer?
The "perspective corrected" image is incorrectly corrected. There is just so
much one should even try to do with a poorly made original. The "gates of
hell" section is far to small to show a darned thing. There should be no
noise at that light-level, exposure anyway. The greater detail one is no
surprise... and by the way, it's not properly perspective corrected either.
Sorry. I simply see nothing extraordinary whatsoever. So you have a
nominally decent digital print made with a fairly large picture. Routine.
isnot
1gb boards that were about 24" x 24". :) Fast bus, though.
Mike Russell
news:NYAAf.223776$V7.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Pictorial evidence that it is indeed possible to enlarge a digital image
> which has a normal print size of 6.5" x 10" at 300 dpi, to 24" x 36"
> poster print with 720 dpi and still maintain the same sharpness and
> detail - even adding detail which was never there in the first place.
> There is a brief description here: http://www.tecphoto.com.au along with
> pictures of the results and clips at the actual print size to prove once
> and for all that this process of mine not just works but works better than
> any commercially available software running under Windows or Apple
> operating systems.
I've looked carefully at your web page, and have a specific question about
the letter G as it appears in the last two images in the series:
gates-of-hell.jpg and finished.jpg.
In gates-of-hell the G in the word GAOL is about three pixels wide, and so
little structure is visible that I could not guess what letter it might be.
In finished.jpg, the G is 7 pixels wide, and it is completely obvious that
this is the letter G: the outline of the letter is very clear, and even the
bar in the center of the G is clearly visible.
My question is this: was the G reasonably clearly visible in the original
captured image or not?
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
HornBlower
for an exhibition in JPG. Not impressed with the samples. As isnot said
until we can see them printed and side by side nothing to be impressed with.
R
"isnot" <is...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:11t5omp...@news.supernews.com...
Douglas
"HornBlower" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:43d3238d$0$58069$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Not to mention shot in JPG. What kind of Pro photographer shoots pictures
> for an exhibition in JPG. Not impressed with the samples. As isnot said
> until we can see them printed and side by side nothing to be impressed
> with.
>
> R
>
Just how precise do you think an Internet display actually is?
If you care to tell me how you post a 273 megabyte file - or even a pixel
depth part of it you can identify on a web page, I'll try to accommodate the
wishes of an anonymous critic *NOT*.
If you want some dialogue on the topic, identify yourself and stop making
silly comments.
FWIW, Newspaper Photographers - which Sally Walker-Brown is a very respected
one with at least 6 awards to her credit... Routinely shoot in jpg so their
images are instantly accessible for publication. The notion everyone goes
around shooting in RAW and has the time to developing each individual image
afterwards is quite at odds with the real world of a working Photographer.
Besides this... Uncompressed or lightly compressed JPG images "pre
Processed" in a modern DSLR's onboard computer are pretty much free of
artefacts and quite easy to interpolate.
Any half smart Photographer who understands their gear, can set their camera
to produce the features they want and have the JPGs ready to use, the minute
they are on the flash card. I don't have any problem with JPG images, unlike
the plethora of RAW specification floating around in the wild.
Douglas
> I've looked carefully at your web page, and have a specific question about
> the letter G as it appears in the last two images in the series:
> gates-of-hell.jpg and finished.jpg.
>
> In gates-of-hell the G in the word GAOL is about three pixels wide, and so
> little structure is visible that I could not guess what letter it might
> be. In finished.jpg, the G is 7 pixels wide, and it is completely obvious
> that this is the letter G: the outline of the letter is very clear, and
> even the bar in the center of the G is clearly visible.
>
> My question is this: was the G reasonably clearly visible in the original
> captured image or not?
> --
> Mike Russell
> www.curvemeister.com
>
photographer agreed to let me manipulate it on the understanding I could
publish to results as I have done. I knew I could make major improvements to
it. Even if it were not to be enlarged, just creating a vector mask could
have achieved the same thing.
This area is one randomly chosen by my program during the search for
portions suitable to convert to vector data. It's still early days (after 3
years development!) in this application. Eventually I hope to have a
forensic application law enforcement agencies might use to do what the TV
shows seem able to perform now; Enhance obscure detail to make it readable
and identifiable. For the present I have to eat so I use the application to
make a living enlarging digital images.
Probably what prompted your question, is the conversion of any definable
outlines to a vector mask which makes the outline predictable and therefore
enhancable. - adds detail, in Tacit's words - I have had the most difficulty
with this function. To my knowledge, 3 other developers are working on this
feature for their own enlargement applications and none have managed to
master it.
You might notice a 'bend' in the horizontal of the image, this is
unfortunately a result of a Nikon lens anomaly which is magnified with the
vector mask. It is not an issue for direct prints. Only when I try to plot a
path using flawed image information does it rear it's ugly head.
Today, I can't fix that. Maybe in another few months things will be
different. Maybe new lens manufacturing techniques might surface soon.
Ideally every outline should be a mathematical projection, filled with
interpolated bitmaps. Fantasy at the moment but it's getting closer. This
picture is probably representative of the state of development in this area
today. Certainly it's the state of MY development today.
Mike Russell
If this works as shown you are indeed in possession of something major that
will transform the world of photography and image analysis.
I suggest a further test, consisting of a picture of my bookcase, with some
letters larger and others smaller than those in the jail image. If you run
your software on it, and get something resembling the result shown on your
web page, I will be thoroughly convinced of the your claims.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
ch...@go.com
>Pictorial evidence that it is indeed possible to enlarge a digital image
>which has a normal print size of 6.5" x 10" at 300 dpi, to 24" x 36" poster
>print with 720 dpi and still maintain the same sharpness and detail - even
>adding detail which was never there in the first place.
OK, that's the claim, so let's look at exactly what Douglas is
displaying, shall we?
First, the D70 has an image size of 3008 x 2000 pixels. At 300 dpi,
that does indeed give a very sharp print at 10" x 6.7". Douglas is
correct.
But let's look at the (presumably full-frame) image that he displays
here:
http://www.tecphoto.com.au/interpolation-2.htm
and compare it to the 'detail' crop here:
http://www.tecphoto.com.au/interpolation-4.htm
It can be clearly seen that the crop is actually about *one-third* of
the entire image. OK, so it's not exactly a highly enlarged section -
but then, just how enlarged *is* it?
Well, if the original image is 3008 pixels wide, then that section
*should* be approximately 960 pixels wide if displayed at actual pixel
size. But it has been presented at less than 800 pixels wide (786 to
be exact, but let's not quibble). In other words, it is not quite an
'actual pixels' view, it is slightly reduced. OK, no great problem
there, and the letters *should* be reasonably sharp - they are about
what I would expect. They don't represent particularly fine detail in
such a large image file.
But hang on.... Douglas claimed that crop was supposed to be from an
*enlarged* file (in his words - "a clip at the actual print size") for
a 24"x36" print. That means it should be 2.4x bigger again. So not
only is the detail slightly short of actual size, even if it was.. it
would still be 2.4x short of the enlargement he claimed to be showing.
(And it's already showing a bit of fuzz... (O:)
I would invite anyone else with too much time on their hands on a
Sunday evening (in Oz..) to check my measurements and mathematics, and
I will apologise humbly if wrong..
Please note, you may need to get in quick, as Douglas tends to pull
images if they don't get the reception he wants.
I repeat, this is not meant to indicate that Douglas cannot do fine
enlargements, and I'm sure Sally's exhibition will be wonderful - but
the claim and the demonstration do not match, by a long shot.
By the way, on the 'perspective correction' image:
http://www.tecphoto.com.au/interpolation-2.htm
..it is quite clear that Douglas has taken the pillar to the left of
the entrance, and cut and pasted it (very clumsily) over the right
side.. That is why so many of the brick layers don't align, there is a
repeated bike stand (?), and the window support has eerily vanished
halfway down. He has used it again on the lefthand pillar - note the
bikestand and shadow, *again*.. (This was initially spotted by Graham
Fountain in aus.photo)
I'm guessing he initially used PS's perspective tool, but when he found
that didn't quite work, out came the clone tool...
Either that, or it must be a *very* interesting algorithm... (O: ..
isnot
news:1137928747.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> By the way, on the 'perspective correction' image:
> http://www.tecphoto.com.au/interpolation-2.htm
> ..it is quite clear that Douglas has taken the pillar to the left of
> the entrance, and cut and pasted it (very clumsily) over the right
> side.. That is why so many of the brick layers don't align, there is a
> repeated bike stand (?), and the window support has eerily vanished
> halfway down. He has used it again on the lefthand pillar - note the
> bikestand and shadow, *again*.. (This was initially spotted by Graham
> Fountain in aus.photo)
That kind of manipulation is unacceptable under the auspices of a show done
by a journalist. First, the image was stupidly distorted in the camera, and
it's an image that was clearly not taken under duress - it could have been
done properly in the first place.With all the Digital Magic applied to that
image, and the time taken to do it, the photographer could have shot it
properly in the first place with camera perspective controls on a larger
format. (and how embarrassing that the photographer used flash at a great
distance, for gosh sakes.)
Finally, it would be interesting if this were a photo exhibit of an object
that one could just walk down the street and see in person.
Regarding the creation of vectors from raster images - yes, in special,
simple cases such as rendering type, and much simpler geometry it can be
made to work, but making it work on so-called natural things like trees,
building, people won't happen within the complexity accommodated by any
digital computer. That's where the myth of Genuine Fractals was created
twenty years ago under the misapplied hype of Chaos theory and imaging
(that, for example, natural, organic objects could be represented as sets of
fractals). You see, such cases that work require first that the object BE
vector-susceptible and be defined algorithmically - which is the definition
of compressibility. Big scientific names have screwed up in this case of
problems. It will turn out that with an image of sufficient complexity to
be worthwhile that there will not be enough atoms in the universe to serve
as bits to solve the problem. It's even beyond NP-Complete. To put it
another way - human beings who become satisfied with any outcome that CAN be
accomplished will have to re-define the terms of the problem, be happy with
the outcomes even when the outcomes drastically fail to meet the objectives.
(The same reason so many people are happy with poor quality.)
Harry Limey at
"Mike Russell" <RE-MO...@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote in message
> I suggest a further test, consisting of a picture of my bookcase, with
> some letters larger and others smaller than those in the jail image. If
> you run your software on it, and get something resembling the result shown
> on your web page, I will be thoroughly convinced of the your claims.
> --
>
> Mike Russell
> www.curvemeister.com
>
Sounds fair and a good test for the software and might obviate all the
invective flying about (I notice it even includes the unfortunate
photographer now)
I think Mike is of more than sufficient standing in this little community to
be accepted as a fair and impartial judge of the outcome! although no doubt
we will all be able to see the finished results!
What say you Douglas?
HornBlower
people believe that they were enlarged and had increased detail due to this
new method is bull.
There is no proof in those images what-so-ever.
R
"Douglas" <re...@the.group> wrote in message
news:QUGAf.224129$V7.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
ch...@go.com
Douglas:
>...
>There is a brief description here: http://www.tecphoto.com.au along with...
Oh no there isn't. As predicted, Douglas has pulled all evidence of
this fiasco.
I'm so suprised
yawn
MetaMorph
>>>>
This domain you are seeking is currently mothballed
It is highly unlikely it will ever be populated again.
For sale if you would like to buy it.
Feel free to Email the owner from this link
<<