Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens
Focus
Of course the picture was taken with a normal lens. With PS, without
filters, you can create this effect quite easily.
Here's one tutorial:
http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/photoshop/tutorials/TiltShiftTutorial.html
If you Google Fake shift tilt, you can find some very funny, interesting
pictures. Specially those taken from above look like it's some miniature
street or scene.
--
Focus
Paul Furman
Try faking something like this with overlap:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3233821082/sizes/o/
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
John A.
Neat. I did something similar to this image:
http://www.redbubble.com/people/johna/art/897926-3-veteran-vespa
In this case the gradient mask was on the whole street surface, and
the scooter was meticulously traced so it would be sharp. And this was
before finding any such tutorial - heck, I didn't know what a
"tilt-shift" lens was then, though I've since learned and would like
to get one some day. I was only trying to amplify the DOF to emphasize
the scooter without the effect being too obvious.
I encountered one problem: With such sharp masking the blur would pull
color from the bike into the background, making a halo. I had to make
a cloned layer to blur, cloning the adjacent background colors into
the bike a bit to get a more realistic blur. Then I masked the
unaltered bike back in.
Focus
"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:r7meo4dkfv9p1bp9r...@4ax.com...
Very nicely done. But you lost me somehow with the technical part.
With the Ferrari I had now problem with the colors bleeding in the
background.
BTW: I see these scooters every day here in Portugal. Same condition too,
mostly with older man riding them.
--
Focus
John A.
If you're doing it according to the tutorial it looks like it includes
a bit of feathering around the masking that probably serves to
deemphasize that effect. I wanted the scooter good and sharp. Likewise
with this later example:
http://www.redbubble.com/people/johna/art/938197-3-a-woodsman-rests
For that one the foreground object was simpler, but extending the
hidden portions of all those branches and grave markers was a bit of a
job. :)
>BTW: I see these scooters every day here in Portugal. Same condition too,
>mostly with older man riding them.
Mine I spotted parked across the street while we were out for a walk.
I ran over for the shot. Fortunately, for me and the shot, traffic was
light. :)
The MAN
> Focus wrote:
> >http://atlantic-diesel.com/Miniferrari.jpg
>
> > Of course the picture was taken with a normal lens. With PS, without
> > filters, you can create this effect quite easily.
> > Here's one tutorial:
>
>
> > If you Google Fake shift tilt, you can find some very funny, interesting
> > pictures. Specially those taken from above look like it's some miniature
> > street or scene.
>
> Try faking something like this with overlap:http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3233821082/sizes/o/
>
> --
> Paul Furmanwww.edgehill.netwww.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Why would anyone want to? You over do it on the blur
effect.....
C J Campbell
This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a
tilt/shift lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do
that in Photoshop with a single image.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Sir John Howard
A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
controls depth of field.
--
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"God save the Queen because nothing will save the governor general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee John Kerr.
Corey G.
This is when you are better off using a plugin. I use "Depth Of Field
Generator PRO". I used to muck about with all that silly edge editing to
prevent the color/tone-bleed. This program does it for you, better than you
can do by hand.
Mr.T
"Sir John Howard" <sirjoh...@gmail.con> wrote in message
news:0197cb11$0$20669$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> > This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
> > lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
> > Photoshop with a single image.
>
> A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
> controls depth of field.
Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute for a
full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allow the
depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.
MrT.
Ray Fischer
>"Sir John Howard" <sirjoh...@gmail.con> wrote in message
>> > This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
>> > lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
>> > Photoshop with a single image.
>>
>> A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
>> controls depth of field.
>
>Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute for a
>full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allow the
>depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
>And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.
I've taken photos that had subjects from six inches to infinity, and
even at f22 it's hard to get everything to be sharp. Of course, TS
lenses tend to be too expensive for the occasional need.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
kangarooistan
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > On 2009-02-02 11:59:33 -0800, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> said:
Presented by
Phillip Adams
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2480326.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/
=================================================================
Malaika Mukantare
Death of pregnant mother Malaika Mukantare declared major crime
Article from: The Advertiser
February 02, 2009 06:26pm
POLICE investigating the murder of a pregnant mother in a New Year's
Day fire are hunting an intruder seen near her flat shortly before
she died.
Police today declared the death of Malaika Mukantare in her Camden
Park unit on January 1 about 3am a major crime.
Police are calling on anyone who may have seen or heard an intruder
near the Anzac Hwy units, or who may have had a similar experience.
Ms Mukantare, 21, was pregnant when she died. Her partner Luka
Kageregere and their son Joseph escaped the fire.
Anyone with information should phone BankSA Crime Stoppers 1800 333
000..
===============================================================
Coppers sure are slow
blind freddy could see this slimy little racist creep posting as
"little Johnny Howard" and his socks , and mates are as guilty as
shit
Sooner or later even the coppers will be forced to arrest him
kanga
======
Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!
news.astraweb.com!border2.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:01:01 +1100
From: Sir John Howard <sirjohnhow...@gmail.con>
Reply-To: onlyidiotsvotelab...@alp.kooks
Organization: The Liberals are our last great hope
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: aus.politics,soc.culture.afghanistan,alt.religion.islam
Subject: '
References:
<fcc6eefb-638f-48a4...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To:
<fcc6eefb-638f-48a4...@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <0197e1ac$0$20628$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 02a8b35e.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=Vl20bTJ4ZiAWe7Bc]TQV_NL?0kYOcDh@J;>GTR`=ZX:Bo0=8]
>8dTXG52NCT?:SO5C43iJflH3]]@
k
"Sir John Howard" <sirjoh...@gmail.con> wrote in message
| C J Campbell wrote:
| > On 2009-02-02 11:59:33 -0800, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> said:
| >
| >> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Miniferrari.jpg
| >>
| >> Of course the picture was taken with a normal lens. With PS, without
| >> filters, you can create this effect quite easily.
| >> Here's one tutorial:
| >>
| >>
http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/photoshop/tutorials/TiltShiftTutorial.htm
l
| >>
| >>
| >> If you Google Fake shift tilt, you can find some very funny,
interesting
| >> pictures. Specially those taken from above look like it's some
miniature
| >> street or scene.
| >
| > This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
| > lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
| > Photoshop with a single image.
|
| A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
| controls depth of field.
i think he meant plane of focus
ASAAR
>> This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
>> lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
>> Photoshop with a single image.
>
> A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
> controls depth of field.
That's not entirely correct. Perspective can be manipulated with
shifts, but depth of field is controlled both by aperture and tilt.
[Page 20 of the 24mm PC-E Nikkor manual]
> This is a retrofocus-type perspective control (PC) lens that lets you
> emphasize or correct near and far perspective, or control depth of
> field. It also lets you correct distortion caused by the camera angle.
> Moreover, you can use the lens’ tilt and shift mechanism to achieve
> focus of the entire subject plane when it is not parallel to the camera.
MIXA
> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Miniferrari.jpg
>
> Of course the picture was taken with a normal lens. With PS, without
> filters, you can create this effect quite easily.
> Here's one tutorial:
>
>
> If you Google Fake shift tilt, you can find some very funny, interesting
> pictures. Specially those taken from above look like it's some miniature
> street or scene.
>
> --
> Focus
I think that this is a great effect, and I sometimes use it. but I
wish I had a camera with the type of lens that would do it
automatically.
Chris Malcolm
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-02-02 11:59:33 -0800, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> said:
>>
>>> http://atlantic-diesel.com/Miniferrari.jpg
>>>
>>> Of course the picture was taken with a normal lens. With PS, without
>>> filters, you can create this effect quite easily.
>>> Here's one tutorial:
>>>
>>> http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/photoshop/tutorials/TiltShiftTutorial.html
>>>
>>>
>>> If you Google Fake shift tilt, you can find some very funny, interesting
>>> pictures. Specially those taken from above look like it's some miniature
>>> street or scene.
>>
>> This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
>> lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
>> Photoshop with a single image.
> A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
> controls depth of field.
Lens shift changes perspective. Lens tilt tilts the plane of
focus. This is a quite a different effect from aperture related depth
of field.
--
Chris Malcolm
Pat
There is software to handle the extended depth of field. You take a
series of pictures and merge them. Say you start by focusing 6 inches
out. Then if your DOF ends at 12", you take another picture and focus
8 inches out. If your DOF then ends at 16", your next picture is at
12" or so. You then merge the photos together and get one picture
with extended DOF. I've never used the software but I've read
articles about it and it's pretty slick (and easy).
It is the same concept of bracketing exposures and blending the images
to give a larger dynamic range.
C J Campbell
Sure, but it is not always possible to take multiple exposures so that
you can merge them together.
After all, you can take two exposures and effectively double the pixels
in your camera, too. So why bother getting a 24 megapixel camera when
you can get nearly the same resolution with two 12 megapixel exposures?
Maybe the bride won't sit still?
Pat
wrote:
Actually, if you took 10 images where you did nothing except changed
the focus and you merge them together, you'd still have your original
resolution. You wouldn't be gaining any information, you'd just be
making sure that all of it was in focus.
C J Campbell
I said nothing about changing focus.
As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)
Mr.T
"C J Campbell" <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009020508360875249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
> a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)
I'll bet camera vibration will probably do that for you already :-)
MrT.
Pat
I don't think you understood my 1st post re multiple exposures. You
take multiple exposures but don't move the camera -- just move the
focal point. That, obviously, changes what's in focus. My merging
the photos in much same way you would merge photos for a high-dynamic-
range photo; you can get a photo with a huge depth of field (which is
what the thread was about). It was not about merging to make a
panoramic or something.
Ray Fischer
>On Feb 3, 3:35 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>> >"Sir John Howard" <sirjohnhow...@gmail.con> wrote in message
>> >> > This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/shift
>> >> > lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that in
>> >> > Photoshop with a single image.
>>
>> >> A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens aperture
>> >> controls depth of field.
>>
>> >Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute for a
>> >full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allow the
>> >depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
>> >And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.
>>
>> I've taken photos that had subjects from six inches to infinity, and
>> even at f22 it's hard to get everything to be sharp. Of course, TS
>> lenses tend to be too expensive for the occasional need.
>
>series of pictures and merge them.
Ick.
> Say you start by focusing 6 inches
>out. Then if your DOF ends at 12", you take another picture and focus
>8 inches out. If your DOF then ends at 16", your next picture is at
>12" or so.
Which is okay if you have a tripod and a subject that isn't changing.
That is rarely the case for me.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Pat
No, it isn't rarely the case that someone who would be doing this to
have a tripod.
Also, if you subject is moving, you use the image of them when they
are in focus. NBD.
This type of stuff is done ALL the time. Maybe people in the ng just
haven't come across it. It isn't rocket science.
Pat
I did a quick Google on it and found a quick article that gives the
basics on extending depth of field. It combines 48 images into one
image.
http://www.janrik.net/insects/ExtendedDOF/LepSocNewsFinal/EDOF_NewsLepSoc_2005summer.htm
The example in the article is for macro photography where this is
pretty much routine. It is also used quite a bit for landscapes and
still lifes.
I don't every use 48 images because I don't do macro work and don't
have the software so when I use 2, 3, 4, or 5 images I put them
together by hand. It isn't too hard. For many pictures there's
really no other way to get a decent end-product. It seems like people
haven't heard of this method, so how else do you do things like this?
C J Campbell <christophercampbell
No, Pat. We all know about this technique. I use it most often in macro shots.
Mr.T
"John A." <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> >As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
> >a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)
>
> be firmware-hacked to do that. :)
No way could they move only half a pixel, including vibration, unless by
accident :-)
MrT.
Chris Malcolm
I don't know whether any of the current in-body stabilisers can
actually do it, but very similar technology has been employed for
decades now to adjust the position of slides in automated microscopy,
and that technology is certainly capable of well under half a pixel
adjustments.
--
Chris Malcolm
Mulperi
http://www.rugift.com/index.html
which are not so expensive.
--
Juha Heinonen
FINLAND
Mobile: +358 405492347
E-mail: juha.h...@pp2REMOVE.inet.fi
URL: http://personal.inet.fi/koti/juha.heinonen
Mulperi
Alan Browne
You have no idea what translation resolution is.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
k
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6v57pcF...@mid.individual.net...
and moving half a pixel gives you..?
moving 2 might give something useful ;)
Mr.T
"k" <fell...@PING.com> wrote in message
news:498fc602$0$23909$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> and moving half a pixel gives you..?
Theoretically some of the information you lost in between pixels.
> moving 2 might give something useful ;)
What, a few hundred extra pixels in image size? Far better to move a full
screens worth in that case!
MrT.
ASAAR
>> and moving half a pixel gives you..?
>>
>>
>> moving 2 might give something useful ;)
>
> Moving a half pixel horizontally, then vertically, then back
> horizontally for a total of four exposures would give full coverage
> for each color in a Bayer pattern. (Double coverage for green,
> actually.)
Moving 1/2 pixel isn't enough. Starting from a point centrally
located between 4 pixels, one way for a movable filter array to have
each filter color reach of the 4 pixels would be :
0. Move down 1/2 pixel and right 1/2 pixel
1. Click! Move up 1 full pixel
2. Click! Move left 1 full pixel
3. Click! Move down 1 full pixel
4. Click! Move right 1 full pixel
5. Go to #1 for each successive photo
The same four positions could also be reached by either shifting
or rotating the filter array along a circular path, where the
diameter of the circle would be equal to the distance between 2
non-adjacent pixels, presumably the distance between an Red/Blue
pair or a Green/Green pair.
John A.
On a Bayer-filtered sensor 1/2 pixel = 1 photosite. In your sequence
remove step "0" (which is pretty much meaningless) and replace "pixel"
with "photosite" and you've pretty much got what I've described.
nospam
<jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On a Bayer-filtered sensor 1/2 pixel = 1 photosite.
that's incorrect.
ASAAR
> On a Bayer-filtered sensor 1/2 pixel = 1 photosite. In your sequence
> remove step "0" (which is pretty much meaningless) and replace "pixel"
> with "photosite" and you've pretty much got what I've described.
You still don't get it. First of all, the "0" step was only used
to identify the surrounding 4 pixels (sensels). Traversing from any
pixel to the next requires stepping the distance from one pixel to
another, which is *not* 1/2 the distance/size of a pixel. If it'll
help, place four hamburgers on a plate. How far is it from the
center of one hamburger to either of its adjacent neighbors (not the
diagonally opposite burger). If you say it's 1/2 of a hamburger's
diameter, you've bitten off more than you can chew. :)
John A.
I get it. You don't. :)
If a sensor is going to be moving like this its initial position will
already be where your step "0" is intended to put it, so that step is
not necessary. We can safely assume the sensor will be designed to
start out exactly where it needs to be for its first exposure. It's
just good engineering. Otherwise it's just added motion that only
serves to wear the mechanism. Seriously, why would it have a "home"
position somewhere other than where it needs to be for one of the four
exposures?
And a pixel IS made of 2x2 photosensors on a Bayer-filtered sensor
array. The sensors are arranged something like this:
G R
B G
Together, those four photosensors make up one pixel.
Ahhh... But I think I see what you're talking about. That's in a
single-exposure Bayer system. In the theoretical four-exposure system
we are discussing we would get four three-color synthesized pixels
from each 2x2 Bayer array. (Minus a row and a column for the image, I
believe, assuming we'd only keep the overlapping portions of the four
exposures.) That was what you meant, right?
So maybe we both get it, and don't get it. =D
John A.
wrote:
You're right. That should have been 1/4 pixel instead of 1/2. I was
thinking one-dimensionally. See my other post, though, for further
clarification and correction of my thinking. :)
ASAAR
> And a pixel IS made of 2x2 photosensors on a Bayer-filtered sensor
> array. The sensors are arranged something like this:
>
> G R
> B G
>
> Together, those four photosensors make up one pixel.
>
> Ahhh... But I think I see what you're talking about. That's in a
> single-exposure Bayer system. In the theoretical four-exposure system
> we are discussing we would get four three-color synthesized pixels
> from each 2x2 Bayer array. (Minus a row and a column for the image, I
> believe, assuming we'd only keep the overlapping portions of the four
> exposures.) That was what you meant, right?
>
> So maybe we both get it, and don't get it. =D
Gotcha! But no, the
> G R
> B G
photo sensors don't make up one pixel. If they did, then a 12mp
sensor would have 48 million little silicon RGBG thingies. Some
advanced amateurs have been known to physically remove the bayer
filter, using powerful solvents to dissolve it. A de-Bayered 12mp
sensor then becomes a monochrome 12mp sensor, not a 48mp sensor.
In a way, the Bayer filter cheats a bit. The intensity of each
colored pixel is calculated by interpolating (demosaicing) the value
of the light that it registers as well as that of the differently
colored pixels that surround it. The result isn't 100% accurate,
but it's more than good enough. Seeing is believing! :)
John A.
Dissolving the filter doesn't change the circuitry and firmware. The
camera still interprets the 2x2 sensor array as one pixel.
nospam
<jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> On a Bayer-filtered sensor 1/2 pixel = 1 photosite.
> >
> >that's incorrect.
>
> You're right. That should have been 1/4 pixel instead of 1/2. I was
> thinking one-dimensionally. See my other post, though, for further
> clarification and correction of my thinking. :)
i figured that's what you meant and it's still wrong.
nospam
<jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> > Gotcha! But no, the
> >> G R
> >> B G
> > photo sensors don't make up one pixel. If they did, then a 12mp
> >sensor would have 48 million little silicon RGBG thingies. Some
> >advanced amateurs have been known to physically remove the bayer
> >filter, using powerful solvents to dissolve it. A de-Bayered 12mp
> >sensor then becomes a monochrome 12mp sensor, not a 48mp sensor.
> >
> > In a way, the Bayer filter cheats a bit. The intensity of each
> >colored pixel is calculated by interpolating (demosaicing) the value
> >of the light that it registers as well as that of the differently
> >colored pixels that surround it. The result isn't 100% accurate,
> >but it's more than good enough. Seeing is believing! :)
>
> Dissolving the filter doesn't change the circuitry and firmware.
true.
> The
> camera still interprets the 2x2 sensor array as one pixel.
where did you get that idea? have you been reading sigma/foveon
propaganda a bit too much?
they are definitely not taken in clumps of four. not only would that
would look like shit, but it would resolve a whole lot less than they
do now.
ASAAR
> Dissolving the filter doesn't change the circuitry and firmware. The
> camera still interprets the 2x2 sensor array as one pixel.
Cutting to the chase, you're rapidly starting to appear dense as a
post. Do you not understand that each of the sensels in that 2x2
array is used multiple times in several other 2x2 arrays? Put
another way, if you have a sensor containing 4mp photosites, where
the Bayer CFA covers 1 meg with red filters, 1 meg with blue
filters and the remaining 2 meg sensels with green filters, would
you say that it's a 1mp sensor or a 4mp sensor? If you choose to
become offended and not reply, thank heaven for small favors. You
can read this thread from current and previous rpd forum members
discussing this, but I doubt that you'll learn much from it.
http://www.burnyourbonus.info/rec.photo.digital/thread2936.html
Paul Furman
The raw file has the separate bayer parts unmerged.
I'm not sure how a half pixel shift would work for increasing
resolution... perhaps you'd need to go 1-1/2 or 2-1/2 pixels.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
nospam
<jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> It makes more sense when you consider microlenses over multiple
> sensors, actually.
that makes even less sense.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>> Dissolving the filter doesn't change the circuitry and firmware. The
>> camera still interprets the 2x2 sensor array as one pixel.
That's incorrect. The algorithms used to determine pixel values
actually look at MORE than a 2x2 array! They try to determine, for example,
if an edge runs through a pixel. If it does, they use other
parts of the two sides ... outside a 2x2 array ... to try to determine
all three RGB values of the pixel. The algortithms are nonlinear ..
they do not merely interpolate. They actually GUESS.
>
> The raw file has the separate bayer parts unmerged.
>
> I'm not sure how a half pixel shift would work for increasing
> resolution... perhaps you'd need to go 1-1/2 or 2-1/2 pixels.
>
1/2 pixel increments would work.
Doug McDonald
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> G R
> B G
> Together, those four photosensors make up one pixel.
Sorry, your claim is as invalid as your email address.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure how a half pixel shift would work for increasing
> resolution... perhaps you'd need to go 1-1/2 or 2-1/2 pixels.
You may be interested in
http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/gallery-auto/
http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/download/ale-0.7.x-tech/
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~irani/PAPERS/SR_CVGIP91.pdf
-Wolfgang
John A.
Yeah, I figured that out. :P Read on.
k
<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:gms8rd$6jh$1...@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
and the nyquist limit?
Mr.T
"k" <fell...@PING.com> wrote in message
> and the nyquist limit?
Increases directly with increased bandwidth.
MrT.
k
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:499cb7bd$0$12942$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
|
| "k" <fell...@PING.com> wrote in message
| news:499cb5a5$0$638$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
again
1/2 pixel increments would work.
| > and the nyquist limit?