Enlarging Digital images

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Douglas

unread,
May 1, 2005, 8:27:30 AM5/1/05
to
Some of you with long memories will remember a thread some time ago where
the high ranking poster Alan Browne and myself got into a rather involved
discussion about my algorithm for enlarging digital images. The short of it
was that he said I couldn't do what I do so I sent a couple of enlargements
to Alan and a Photographer of his choice who was Gordon Moat of San Diego.
Gordon was to act as arbitrator in the event Alan decided to post comments I
considered wrong. Except for the odd shot from Alan, he's been surprisingly
quiet on the matter.

Recently Gordon published an article based on his finding from those
enlargements. I'd thought Alan might have posted a reference to it but I
guess this would require him to accept that I was right and in all the time
I've been reading his posts, I don't believe I've ever seen him do such a
thing even though he's been wrong in many situations.

Anyway, since I sent those 24" x 36" enlargements to Alan and Gordon, I have
refined the process further so that I can now enlarge an image from a 10D to
over three feet wide with the same quality as I was getting then at two feet
wide. 20D images will go well in excess of four feet wide and deliver
stunning quality with fine detail. Of course the very problem with showing
the detail in these enlargements on the Internet was what made me send the
prints in the first place. Plenty of geeks got in on the act and told me I
could not do what I can do. One of them went out of his way to demonstrate
he could not do it so I must not be able to either... Yeah, he declined my
offer of some evidence so I guess his ego must have been pretty large too.
They tell me you get that in Norway.

One of the enlarged photographs I sent is shown and described here:
http://users.tpg.com.au/hpc/examples2.htm Even this... So some said, was not
a representative example they could examine in minute detail and pretty much
accused me of fraud. I decided then that the only way for someone to judge
was to see an actual enlargement. The printer I used to make the
enlargements I sent to Alan and Gordon did not do true justice to the prints
but none the less, Gordon was sufficiently impressed to show them around and
the article he wrote is based on those findings. If you'd like to read it,
go here: http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html

I've now bought a new printer capable of four feet wide printing and the
really good part is it can print on CANVAS as well as all the other
substrates around. I'm still experimenting with the emulsion to coat the
canvas with but so far I've been able to print in fine detail and also with
the look of watercolour painting but maintaining fine detail in many parts
of the image. I can see a large market for photographs printed on canvas and
also for the monster enlargements I can make. Feel free to comment.

Douglas

Musty

unread,
May 1, 2005, 10:17:32 AM5/1/05
to

"Douglas" <decipl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SW3de.35983$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

Awesome mate! Maybe I can send you some of my shots and you send me 4'
prints back to prove your technology :-)

UrbanVoyeur

unread,
May 1, 2005, 10:37:47 AM5/1/05
to

Is this algorithm in a filter or PS automation that we can download or
purchase?

--

J

www.urbanvoyeur.com

Alan Browne

unread,
May 1, 2005, 11:48:57 AM5/1/05
to
Douglas wrote:

> Some of you with long memories will remember a thread some time ago where
> the high ranking poster Alan Browne and myself got into a rather involved
> discussion about my algorithm for enlarging digital images. The short of it
> was that he said I couldn't do what I do so I sent a couple of enlargements
> to Alan and a Photographer of his choice who was Gordon Moat of San Diego.
> Gordon was to act as arbitrator in the event Alan decided to post comments I
> considered wrong. Except for the odd shot from Alan, he's been surprisingly
> quiet on the matter.

No. I posted my comments regarding your enlargements. And I stated
quite clearly:

* that they show no more resolution than an 8 MPix camera can provide.

* that they were especially 'clean' and low noise (v. a film based
print). At that there was noise in some areas (shaddows, esp.)

I haven't read Gordon's article yet, but I do look forward to it.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- 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.

Alan Browne

unread,
May 1, 2005, 12:59:46 PM5/1/05
to
Douglas wrote:

> Some of you with long memories will remember a thread some time ago where
> the high ranking poster Alan Browne and myself got into a rather involved
> discussion about my algorithm for enlarging digital images. The short of it
> was that he said I couldn't do what I do so I sent a couple of enlargements
> to Alan and a Photographer of his choice who was Gordon Moat of San Diego.
> Gordon was to act as arbitrator in the event Alan decided to post comments I
> considered wrong. Except for the odd shot from Alan, he's been surprisingly
> quiet on the matter.
>
> Recently Gordon published an article based on his finding from those
> enlargements. I'd thought Alan might have posted a reference to it but I
> guess this would require him to accept that I was right and in all the time
> I've been reading his posts, I don't believe I've ever seen him do such a
> thing even though he's been wrong in many situations.

In the article Gordon states: "... his samples show the potential of
digital prints, though only in controlled post processing and printing
conditions. His results are not easy for just anyone to repeat. Skill,
experience, and very good equipment allow higher limits."

IOW: You managed the 'potential'. Nothing beyond what could physically
be done. But at least you're in the "not easy for just anyone to
repeat" catagory.

In the e-mail he sent, Gordon said that various people who have seen
them say they're "okay". Hardly a blazing endorsement.

Again, on seeing your images and reporting here, I did state that:

* that they show no more resolution than an 8 MPix camera can provide.

* that they were especially 'clean' and low noise (v. a film based
print). At that there was noise in some areas (shaddows, esp.)

> Alan decided to post comments I considered wrong. Except for the odd


> shot from Alan, he's been surprisingly quiet on the matter.

If I've been mute in the meantime it is simply because there is nothing
else to add.

paul

unread,
May 1, 2005, 2:44:00 PM5/1/05
to
Douglas wrote:
>
> One of the enlarged photographs I sent is shown and described here:
> http://users.tpg.com.au/hpc/examples2.htm Even this... So some said, was not
> a representative example they could examine in minute detail and pretty much
> accused me of fraud.

I pointed out that the crop shown is a larger area (about twice) than
the rectangle indicating the area of enlargement.


> I decided then that the only way for someone to judge
> was to see an actual enlargement. The printer I used to make the
> enlargements I sent to Alan and Gordon did not do true justice to the prints
> but none the less, Gordon was sufficiently impressed to show them around and
> the article he wrote is based on those findings. If you'd like to read it,
> go here: http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html


A quick read seems to be saying that when printing at 300dpi, some
detail is lost so it's useful to print larger than that to get every
last bit out of the digital image. I recently made a 60dpi tiled print
and I still can't hardly see individual pixels. It looks great from a
few feet away, stuff you would really strain to see at 300dpi with a
loupe just leaps out at you at this size.

I'm not sure it's necessary to do anything really special when upsizing
though. We have no clue what your method might be, some use
deconvolution & such to increase contrast between pixels for a tad more
sharpening, some resampling methods are slightly better than other &
I've heard of programs that find edges and when upsampling, use those
edges to fill in pixels though I imagine that would create some odd
effects in certain types of textures similar to noise reduction software.

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
May 1, 2005, 3:55:08 PM5/1/05
to
Douglas <decipl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I can see a large market for photographs printed on canvas and also for
> the monster enlargements I can make. Feel free to comment.

I have no particular interest in the argument, except the one obvious
question: where is your web site where we can upload our files and give
you our credit card number and have you make prints for us? I mean, if
your stuff really is that good, isn't that where the market is?

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Douglas

unread,
May 1, 2005, 5:54:32 PM5/1/05
to

"Jeremy Nixon" <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:117ad0s...@corp.supernews.com...

Interesting comment Jeremy.
I developed this technology along with some other stuff for Techno Aussie
digital print centres in Australia. I had never considered anyone like
yourself would volunteer their credit cards over the Internet without
actually being able to stand in front of my enlargements and choose which
size suits.

There are unfortunately some very real technical problems associated with
accepting files willy nilly and expecting they will all enlarge to my idea
of quality control. People with 6 Mp P&S cameras think they can expect the
same results as from a 1D MkII but as you and I both know, there is no way
of compensating for the magnified errors enlarging any picture taken with a
junk lens will produce... on a production basis.

For now, the only way you can have an enlargement over about A3 or A2 in
size is if I OK the image for enlargement. I really can't see wide spread
examination of uploaded images and then request for payment, working in a
busy environment. So for the foreseeable future, only walking into one of my
print centres will get you a print.

In any event, I am about to sell the patents and only retain Australian
rights to use the process. The rest of the world will indeed get the
technology but in a way many purest photographers might find offensive! I
guess when digital arrived many purest Photographers got offended too. Such
is progress. I still have 2 or 3 samples I can post out. Email me your
address if you want one, Jeremy.

Douglas


Douglas

unread,
May 1, 2005, 5:59:33 PM5/1/05
to

"Alan Browne" <alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

>
> In the article Gordon states: "... his samples show the potential of
> digital prints, though only in controlled post processing and printing
> conditions. His results are not easy for just anyone to repeat. Skill,
> experience, and very good equipment allow higher limits."
>
> IOW: You managed the 'potential'. Nothing beyond what could physically be
> done. But at least you're in the "not easy for just anyone to repeat"
> catagory.
>
> In the e-mail he sent, Gordon said that various people who have seen them
> say they're "okay". Hardly a blazing endorsement.
>
> Again, on seeing your images and reporting here, I did state that:
>
> * that they show no more resolution than an 8 MPix camera can provide.
>

SO run off a 24" wide print from your Minolta for me Alan.
I'll send you the postage cost via paypal and add some for the print cost
and see if you can make such a print yourself. Yse the postal tube I sent
you the pics in.You know where to send it.

You're as bad a Gisle with your ego Alan.

Douglas


Jeremy Nixon

unread,
May 1, 2005, 6:05:38 PM5/1/05
to
Douglas <decipl...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I developed this technology along with some other stuff for Techno Aussie
> digital print centres in Australia. I had never considered anyone like
> yourself would volunteer their credit cards over the Internet without
> actually being able to stand in front of my enlargements and choose which
> size suits.

I buy everything on the Internet. Well, except groceries and gasoline. :)

When you talk about the quality of your results, it all sounds very nice,
and in that case, I might be willing to "risk" paying for one to see if
they are better than my usual place. I mean, depending on the price, of
course. I've tried several labs by just giving them a few pictures to
print.

> There are unfortunately some very real technical problems associated with
> accepting files willy nilly and expecting they will all enlarge to my idea
> of quality control.

Yeah, that does make sense.

> For now, the only way you can have an enlargement over about A3 or A2 in
> size is if I OK the image for enlargement. I really can't see wide spread
> examination of uploaded images and then request for payment, working in a
> busy environment. So for the foreseeable future, only walking into one of my
> print centres will get you a print.

Understood. Unfortunately, Australia is a bit of a long drive from New
Jersey. :)

> I still have 2 or 3 samples I can post out. Email me your address if you
> want one, Jeremy.

Well, the thing is, a sample doesn't tell me how *my* stuff would work out,
for the same reasons you mention above. And since I have no interest in
proving anything about your process, you should save your samples for those
who do. :) Thanks.

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Musty

unread,
May 1, 2005, 6:15:39 PM5/1/05
to

"Douglas" <decipl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9jcde.36160$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

I think he might be French Canadian ;-P


McLeod

unread,
May 1, 2005, 7:06:56 PM5/1/05
to
On Sun, 01 May 2005 21:59:33 GMT, "Douglas" <decipl...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>SO run off a 24" wide print from your Minolta for me Alan.
>I'll send you the postage cost via paypal and add some for the print cost
>and see if you can make such a print yourself. Yse the postal tube I sent
>you the pics in.You know where to send it.
>
>You're as bad a Gisle with your ego Alan.


You know, I have no problem with the idea that you have developed a
printing process to make large prints from digital files. You're not
the first and certainly not the last. I think what sticks in my craw
and probably provides a bit of discomfort for you is the size of the
chip on your shoulder. What's your major malfunction, man? It's time
to update the killfilter again...looks like you've changed your handle
one more time.

Chrlz

unread,
May 1, 2005, 9:39:24 PM5/1/05
to
My comment is simple.

Huh???


It's an 8Mp camera. Full stop. Even assuming perfect lens, perfect
resolution of detail (and ignoring Nyquisty stuff) - at 36" wide, that
equates to a little under 100 dpi. Any argument?

100 dpi is perfectly fine for the *normal viewing distances* of such a
print. If it is, say, a portrait, or that flower example on the
webpage you posted, it will look very sharp indeed *for it will have
very little detail beyond that 100 dpi*. The example shows nowhere
near enough enlargement to prove the point, and yet it already shows
sharpening halos, jpeg artefacts and pixellation..

ON IMAGES THAT NEED MORE THAN 100 dpi to resolve fine detail, eg a
cityscape where you want to get up close and say 'is that *my* house?',
or read the printing on a sign that is kilometres away, *no enlarging
algorithm can provide extra real detail*.

Many folk won't easily spot the difference between 100 and 300 dpi,
even on a small print, *subject to the image content*. If I got to
choose the images carefully, I bet *no-one* could spot it... But so
what?

I want to see this done on a pin-sharp cityscape, taken from a lookout
on a clear day. Then examine the print at the same viewing distance as
for a 6x4. Game over. And if you claim otherwise, or object to the
close inspection bit, then your claim means nothing.

Yes, clean 8Mp digital files can be blown up to 24x36 and larger, and
many of them will look absolutely stunning. No arguments from me.
I've done it myself using quite normal methodologies. The portraits
and other low-detail images look stunning. But NOT all 8Mp images
will stand it, and highly-detailed images look soft because the
resolution simply isn't there, and nothing can make it appear from thin
air. So if you are into things other than macros, flowers and
portraits... Bzzzt.

So what exactly *are* you claiming? Do you have an algorithm that
invents detail? Or is just another method of enlarging that minimises
pixellation? What else could it be?

I'm with Alan on this one.

Chrlz

unread,
May 1, 2005, 10:04:08 PM5/1/05
to
By the way, I'll be interested to hear Gordon's take on this. You
said:

"Gordon was sufficiently impressed to show them around and
the article he wrote is based on those findings".

The only article I could find is partially quoted below. Perhaps the
reader should make their own judgement, but it sounds to me like he
looked at your images, and that it backs up his opinion, which is mine
too, that:

" if you think that an image holds enough interest in the viewer, then
print it any way, and any size, that you think is appropriate"


Gordon's article reads (and I hope he forgives me for posting this!):
========================= quote
The reality is that if the image is compelling enough, then the
technical details are reduced to a level of almost no importance. In
other words, if you think that an image holds enough interest in the
viewer, then print it any way, and any size, that you think is
appropriate. If you want to know how I came to that conclusion, and
what I investigated, then please continue reading. Also, realize that
no individual is the last word in technology, and all individuals are
likely to maintain some preconceived notions of limits. If all I do is
make you investigate more, or attempt to push past what you thought
were limits, then this article will have been a success.

The initial test prints, and information, came from a company called
Techno Aussie. Two example prints were sent to me from Australia by
Douglas MacDonald. Included was a short explanation of camera gear
used, and the printer used. Techno Aussie use a proprietary upsizing
algorithm to take small image files, and match them closer to larger
printed output sizes. The printer used for the images is an AGFA
Sherpa, which is quite a good system, though not the latest in
technology. The cameras used to originate the files for the test images
were the Canon 10D and Canon 20D. The algorithm he developed and used
pushed the files from 8 MP to around 50 MP (approx. printed output),
and due to commercial reasons the specific aspects of the algorithm are
not available.

One thing that needs to be considered is that upsizing any image will
never add information to the original file. What first happened in the
camera becomes the limit of detail, regardless of post processing, or
algorithms. As we will see, these parameters are not as great a limit
as one might think. The dot gain of commercial inkjet systems is still
high enough that extremely fine detail is difficult to print, unlike
some commercial press systems. We need to understand these limits in
order to relate them to the original images......
========================= endquote

That is from:
http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html

There is no further reference to the prints that I could find. Correct
me if I'm wrong..!

Ken Ellis

unread,
May 2, 2005, 12:08:02 AM5/2/05
to
On Sun, 01 May 2005 12:27:30 GMT, "Douglas" <decipl...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Rings a bell...
I have long been intigued with the notion of doing "custom" artwork
for home renovators; particularly colored to match the decor vice
getting a motif because it matches. It's a good idea in my book. As
I recall..was it you who was looking for ways to print on canvas.
Coating seemed the ticket and it would be interesting to learn
what your deliberations yeild you. Keep us posted.

A question regarding your enlargement techniques...math as you say.
(there was a forgotten "s" named master from india who developed
fractal math...) How does this stack up to the results of "Genuine
Fractal" ".stn" file enlargement? They tout being able to effect some
pretty impressive results. Have you used that product and compared?
Just curious. I find the 4' printer (machine) part the daunting thing.


good luck, rgds
Ken


Chrlz

unread,
May 2, 2005, 12:45:23 AM5/2/05
to
(yes, me again!)

... Aha! I knew the name rang a bell!! It's that Ryadia person.

Douglas, isn't it time *you* answered the challenge on this page? (It
is worth a visit if anyone is interested in this enlargement algorithm
stuff.)

http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/interpolation.html

That would put an end to it. Your algorithm against the other major
contenders (some of which are free, I might add). If you have a
problem with that (personally, I think the examples on that page are an
ideal test), please tell us what the problem actually is.

I notice that in the past, you have claimed enlargement of 1000% is
possible with `no loss of disernable (sic) detail`. That's a 10x
enlargement, folks... I'm afraid this all puts your credibility, and
eyesight, in a different light..

Douglas

unread,
May 2, 2005, 1:43:32 AM5/2/05
to

"McLeod" <cer...@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:n2oa71lh471u7eua3...@4ax.com...

>
> You know, I have no problem with the idea that you have developed a
> printing process to make large prints from digital files. You're not
> the first and certainly not the last. I think what sticks in my craw
> and probably provides a bit of discomfort for you is the size of the
> chip on your shoulder. What's your major malfunction, man? It's time
> to update the killfilter again...looks like you've changed your handle
> one more time.

Ah yes...
McLeod... How did my killfile escape you?
The chip you refer to is added to on a regular basis by people like you.
So let's kill each other in a pact to rid each other of each other. No one
forced you to read my messages. I don't believe I've ever replied to one of
yours so you'll miss nothing by ignoring me... According to you.

Douglas


Douglas

unread,
May 2, 2005, 1:43:31 AM5/2/05
to

"UrbanVoyeur" <nos...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:%Q5de.3433$db7.2455@trnddc01...

>
> Is this algorithm in a filter or PS automation that we can download or
> purchase?

> J
>
> www.urbanvoyeur.com

Sorry J. It's not for sale as a package you can buy. It comes as a
franchise.

Douglas


Douglas

unread,
May 2, 2005, 1:58:01 AM5/2/05
to

"Ken Ellis" <kene...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4v8b7194o1sfvc9bs...@4ax.com...
Genuine Fractals is indeed a very good program. The method they use is very
similar to mine except I convert much of the picture to vector before
enlarging so the bitmap information which is relatively to predict near
duplicates from, has no great influence on sharpness. The sort of pictures I
have the most difficulty with are where there are large amounts of similar
colours like in leaves or a shot of detailed grass.

Chrlz's suggestion about cityscapes cracks me up. They lend themselves to
extreme enlargement due to the density of straight lines in buildings.

I have never sought information on the groups for canvas printing
technology. I recently hired a Chemist to develop a coating for me. The
results are impressive. Obviously he had a clue in the first place because
all his formulations are entirely predictable in how they behave. He is
presently attempting to refine his formula so it will have very close colour
to known paper types.

The canvas sheets I presently have being coated and intend to sell in A3
size are very close to Epson Heavy weight Matte in their colour
reproduction. I have a few details to iron out before marketing the stuff
but it's close.

Douglas


Douglas

unread,
May 2, 2005, 2:31:14 AM5/2/05
to

"Chrlz" <ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1115009123....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

So tell me Chrlz...
Are you always so willing to shoot from the hip?
The real danger in doing that is that you'll shoot yourself in the foot.

FYI, I offered Gisle the opportunity to have a set of demonstration prints
(at my expense) and pass public judgment on them and he refused. Claimed he
wasn't qualified to pass judgment on them. Fair enough. He is after all an
amature. All your prodding will do is make you look stupid in the end but
then it wouldn't be the first time you changed your name, would it?.

Neither you or anyone else is likely to find anytime soon that I will
provide trade secrets my print centres profit from just so you (or he) can
play around on a hobby blog with them. He had the first hand chance to see
my claim is indeed correct and declined. Not much more to say on the matter
from this end. Feel free to keep using the "free" and "major" contenders all
you like. My process is not now nor has it ever been for sale as software.
Where ever you or he got the idea it was, is beyond me. The process is part
of a franchised digital print centre.
Douglas


Douglas

unread,
May 2, 2005, 2:31:14 AM5/2/05
to

"Chrlz" <ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1115009123....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

So tell me Chrlz...

Philip Homburg

unread,
May 2, 2005, 9:02:57 AM5/2/05
to
In article <SW3de.35983$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,

Douglas <decipl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Some of you with long memories will remember a thread some time ago where
>the high ranking poster Alan Browne and myself got into a rather involved
>discussion about my algorithm for enlarging digital images. The short of it
>was that he said I couldn't do what I do so I sent a couple of enlargements
>to Alan and a Photographer of his choice who was Gordon Moat of San Diego.
>Gordon was to act as arbitrator in the event Alan decided to post comments I
>considered wrong. Except for the odd shot from Alan, he's been surprisingly
>quiet on the matter.
>
>Recently Gordon published an article based on his finding from those
>enlargements. I'd thought Alan might have posted a reference to it but I
>guess this would require him to accept that I was right and in all the time
>I've been reading his posts, I don't believe I've ever seen him do such a
>thing even though he's been wrong in many situations.

Can you repeat the exact challenge?

Printing an 8 Mpixel image on 24"x36" at 300 ppi requires a linear
enlargement of 3.1 times. This is certainly within the limits of normal
interpolation algorithms. At 24"x36" you have about 96 original camera pixels
per printed inch. This is within the limits where things look reasonably
sharp.

If the claim is that the prints 'look good' then I doubt that you need magic
interpolation algorithms. Sharp originals and careful sharpening are
much more important.

Of the other hand, if you would claim that the result would look as good as
a carefully printed large format frame, then I would find the claim much
harder to believe.


--
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

Alan Browne

unread,
May 2, 2005, 10:12:30 AM5/2/05
to
Douglas wrote:

> SO run off a 24" wide print from your Minolta for me Alan.

And by the way, while I know you like to senselessly beat up on Minolta,
your "patented" print prep technique should be viable for any digital
camera system, n'est pas?

Cheers,
Alan.

Alan Browne

unread,
May 2, 2005, 10:10:36 AM5/2/05
to
Douglas wrote:

>
> SO run off a 24" wide print from your Minolta for me Alan.
> I'll send you the postage cost via paypal and add some for the print cost
> and see if you can make such a print yourself. Yse the postal tube I sent
> you the pics in.You know where to send it.

No need to. I don't intend to print at that size. ( Actually I printed
a 24 x 36 last week ... but a mosaic of many images, each well within
the res of the camera ).

I will probably be doing some prints at up to 24x16, from the camera
with interpolation, but that's as far as I would take it. And no, I
won't be mailing any to you. Maybe a clip of a high detail area printed
on my little epson.

> You're as bad a Gisle with your ego Alan.

Take a hard read at everything you've been posting, Dougie. Your ego
isn't exactly attenuated.

Cheers,
Alan.

Alan Browne

unread,
May 2, 2005, 10:25:32 AM5/2/05
to
Chrlz wrote:

> So what exactly *are* you claiming? Do you have an algorithm that
> invents detail? Or is just another method of enlarging that minimises
> pixellation? What else could it be?
>
> I'm with Alan on this one.

Thank you. However a note in Dougie's defence is appropriate:

What is 'good' about his technique is that is renders smooth detail
without any detail 'jaggies' or undue blur. Everything looks smooth and
clean. Stand back to a 'normal' viewing distance and the prints are
quite nice looking.

Further, the noise level is very low, although there is some blocking up
in the shaddow areas, but this is not very noticeable at normal distances.

There is no "invented" detail. Just a very good interpolation (or
whatever it is) that does not create unpleasing artifacts.

As has been said ad nauseum in this and other subjects, we tend to want
to match the capture resolution up to the print-able resolution. When
we're talking about 8 mpix sensors, the limit is relatively small. When
we're talking about prints viewed for the image itself it is less important.

Having said all that, images from a 6x7 chrome printed (Cibachrome) to
similar sizes have much more clean detail than Doug's prints. What I'm
still trying to determine is if a scanned 6x7 chrome can print as well
as Doug's prints but I'm not getting sync'd to the only guy I know who
does this around here.

Steven M. Scharf

unread,
May 2, 2005, 10:38:01 AM5/2/05
to
"Douglas" <decipl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SW3de.35983$5F3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> ... I guess this would require him to accept that I was right and in all


the time
> I've been reading his posts, I don't believe I've ever seen him do such a
> thing even though he's been wrong in many situations.

Wow, you're kidding right?! When has he ever been wrong?!


Alan Browne

unread,
May 2, 2005, 10:43:13 AM5/2/05
to
Douglas wrote:

> I have never sought information on the groups for canvas printing
> technology. I recently hired a Chemist to develop a coating for me. The
> results are impressive. Obviously he had a clue in the first place because
> all his formulations are entirely predictable in how they behave. He is
> presently attempting to refine his formula so it will have very close colour
> to known paper types.

The other day at an art supply store there was regular canvas as well as
a coated canvas. The coating felt to me to be latex, but I'm not sure
at all what it was. It was 'white' as close as I could tell in the
attrocious ligthing of the store. This may be cheaper for you than
developing your own coatings.

Alan Browne

unread,
May 2, 2005, 10:47:35 AM5/2/05
to
Douglas wrote:


> Where ever you or he got the idea it was, is beyond me. The process is part
> of a franchised digital print centre.

Is the franchise the whole business (a turnkey business) or is the
franchise related to the pring technique itself?

Cheers,
Alan

Philip Homburg

unread,
May 2, 2005, 11:09:16 AM5/2/05
to
In article <d55d8p$5f$1...@inews.gazeta.pl>,

Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>What I'm
>still trying to determine is if a scanned 6x7 chrome can print as well
>as Doug's prints but I'm not getting sync'd to the only guy I know who
>does this around here.

A 3:2 crop of 6x7 printed at 24"x36" corresponds to a 35mm frame printed
at 12"x18". A 4000 ppi scan provides enough pixels for a 300 ppi
12"x18" print.

Chrlz

unread,
May 2, 2005, 7:52:57 PM5/2/05
to
>Chrlz's suggestion about cityscapes cracks me up.

Maybe if you took stuff seriously and thought about it.. As you would
noticed if you actually read the posting properly, I was referring to
the sort of cityscape taken from a lookout or similar, which contains
much tiny detail and invites the viewer to look closely. A cityscape
does not necessarily mean a close up of a building...

Chrlz

unread,
May 2, 2005, 8:38:36 PM5/2/05
to
Douglas posted:

>So tell me Chrlz...
>Are you always so willing to shoot from the hip?
Yes.

>The real danger in doing that is that you'll shoot yourself in the
foot.

So with which bit did I do that?

>FYI, I offered Gisle the opportunity to have a set of demonstration
prints
>(at my expense) and pass public judgment on them and he refused.

You didn't answer the question - why is Gisle's request flawed - it's
up there for all to see? Does your technique give better results? Why
don't you just grab that image, enlarge wit with your algorithm, and
post the result so we can compare it? These are very simple questions
you are avoiding. And even if you don't do that, why is it that you
cannot post your stuff on the web, as scanned samples, showing exactly
how much you have enlarged, and then comparing it back to the original
image. This isn't rocket science, but you are clearly avoiding any
type of test that will show that all you have is a good enlarging
algorithm. That's very nice if you do, but you imply that this is some
sort of breakthrough. I don't think it is.


>He is after all an amature (sic).
At least I can spell it. Anyone on the web is an amateur, until proven
otherwise.

>All your prodding will do is make you look stupid in the end but
>then it wouldn't be the first time you changed your name, would it?.

I knew the ad hominems would appear. I suggest you are doing the
foot-shooting with that attitude. For your info, I suggest you
investigate a little further - I have never engaged in any conversation
with you in the past, nor have i changed my name or used any other
name, ever, on usenet. I simply searched through the archives and
discovered lots of similar claims from you and 'technoaussie/ryadia" -
aren't these people *you*? Claims like the 1000% enlargability claim.
They were so silly I ignored them in the past.

>Neither you or anyone else is likely to find anytime soon that I will
>provide trade secrets my print centres profit from just so you (or he)
can
>play around on a hobby blog with them.

In other words `trust me, my technioque is better, but I won't prove
it.` I repeat, I am not denying you don't have a really nice enlarging
algorithm - it seems you do. But so do many others. And if you won't
put yours up for scrutiny *in a testable way*, and on images that are
not those *you* choose, and then simply demand that folk look at
selected prints... Well, that tells me something.

>He had the first hand chance to see my claim is indeed correct and
declined.

As *I* would, because you have only one method by which you allow
scrutiny.

>Not much more to say on the matter from this end.

Nor here.

>Feel free to keep using the "free" and "major" contenders all
>you like.

I shall. And I would suggest the silent majority may do the same,
because you won't allow proper tests to be made. If you are happy to
miss out on that business, so be it.

>My process is not now nor has it ever been for sale as software.
>Where ever you or he got the idea it was, is beyond me.

So the point of this was..........? It's a little hard to think you
aren't selling your services.. What was that about a franchise? (O; But
whatever.

I'm sure they are lovely prints, and lots of folk will be very happy
with them.

You asked for comments. I gave them. Remove the chip from your
shoulder, stop getting so upset over *non-existent* insults, and just
answer some questions. Or expect this sort of post. It's called ...
scrutiny.

Frank ess

unread,
May 2, 2005, 8:53:16 PM5/2/05
to
Chrlz wrote:
> Douglas posted:
>> So tell me Chrlz...
>> Are you always so willing to shoot from the hip?
> Yes.
>
>> The real danger in doing that is that you'll shoot yourself in the
> foot.
> So with which bit did I do that?
>

<snip>

I simply searched through the
> archives and discovered lots of similar claims from you and
> 'technoaussie/ryadia" - aren't these people *you*?

Did you see the one (or maybe more) purported to be his "last post to
this forum"? Maybe I imagined it. Just as I am imagining (with the aid
of other poster's replies) that he is still posting here.

<snip>


--
Frank ess

Sheldon

unread,
May 2, 2005, 9:16:49 PM5/2/05
to

"Douglas" <decipl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:76jde.67$31...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

So, I'm impressed. Now, how do we get our hands on this technology? The
way I understand it, we will be able to manipulate our 6mp and 8mp images so
that we can enlarge them much more than we normally could. Is this correct?

What I don't understand is the franchise part of it. You are selling the
technology so that I can start my own printing business?


Paul Furman

unread,
May 2, 2005, 10:19:47 PM5/2/05
to
Sheldon wrote:
>
> So, I'm impressed. Now, how do we get our hands on this technology? The
> way I understand it, we will be able to manipulate our 6mp and 8mp images so
> that we can enlarge them much more than we normally could. Is this correct?
>
> What I don't understand is the franchise part of it. You are selling the
> technology so that I can start my own printing business?

Yup.

He needs a catchy name for it like 'Enlarge-o-matic' & each print shop
will get a locked computer processor with the secret code inside so
nobody can see the super-secret code that does the magic. Processed
files will only go direct to the printer since releasing a digital file
would allow reverse engineering & spoil the get-rich-quick scheme.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Chrlz

unread,
May 2, 2005, 11:01:54 PM5/2/05
to
Yep, that would have been the thread "Finally did it!" in this group..

Ryadia's first post on that thread started with the misspelt
invocation:

<rubish snipped>

(O; ..and he then relates the story of a photographer who shoots at a
lower resolution than his camera offers (for reasons unknown, maybe he
can't afford the memory cards?), and that:

>He knows we could enlarge his images just as long as
>they were focused correctly. Image sensor density has
>very little to do with image quality. Just like it always has
>been, the camera only hold the lens.

I *partly* agree - pure pixel count is only a part of the story. But
it is an important part, *especially when you hold other factors
constant*!

Later in that same thread:
>This is my last post here. FWIW I have come to the conclusion all
>but a very few of the posters here making statements about
>photography know what they are talking about.
>The group is attracting geeks who are here because it has
>'digital' in the name of the group are not photographers,
>just geeks looking for intellectual stimulus.

Yep, guess I'm just another geek. But in my geekish way, I would
really like to see Doug's claims tested in a method *other* than the
only one he allows... I used to manage a research centre, and we often
had to deal with folks with some wonderful theories, but there was
often this same reticence to allow thorough testing. And, strangely,
in 9.9 cases out of 10, they were RIGHT to be worried... (O;

Next time I'm in Qld (in the next couple of months maybe), I'll have to
drop by and take a look. Don't worry Doug, I'm a gentle soul at heart,
and quite unassuming and logical when you get to know me. I'll bring
in some of my big prints (heheh), and maybe you can show me how much
better you can do..

Graham Hunt

unread,
May 2, 2005, 11:09:44 PM5/2/05
to
In Australia, The franchise is "Techno Aussie digital print centres" The
cost of one is around $53k... If you can get one. Word is the Asians
have put in an offer for the whole thing, patents and all. The cost is
about in line with a Xerox copy shop except you get to print photos and
posters too. The technology is changing so fast, you'd need to have a
pretty decent customer base to draw on or buy one already set up and
making a profit.

The printers are the cost. $20,000 plus for the big one.

GH

Chrlz

unread,
May 2, 2005, 11:43:30 PM5/2/05
to
WOAH!!!! HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!!!!

(a person claiming to be) `Graham Hunt` posted:
>..The franchise is "T...s" The cost of one is around $53k...


>If you can get one. Word is the Asians have put in an offer

>for the whole thing, patents and all....

Umm, correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Graham Hunt`, AKA `Million
Pics`, also Ryadia, also Douglas MacDonald, also.....

Don't believe me, just go a hunting for other posts by this same
poster, eg on the `did it-What?` thread in rec.photo.equipment.35mm.
It will all become pretty clear, methinks. If I'm right, then your
credibility just went to Hell, and you really are a rather dishonest
person, aren't you? Do you think we were all born yesterday? You
going to use this post to try to sell franchises?

Do explain this all to us, Graham/Douglas. We are all ears.

I'll happily withdraw my remarks and apologise if I'm wrong, but it's
looking *very* suspicious to me right now. Any header experts out
there who can check on who's who??

Chrlz

unread,
May 3, 2005, 12:07:36 AM5/3/05
to
(Hmm, replying to myself again..)

Yep, you are busted, Douglas. Graham Hunt is indeed Douglas MacDonald,
aka Ryadia, aka Joe Bailey, aka One Million Pictures. And he accused
*me* of hiding under other identities, in a piece of interesting
hypocrisy.

Proof? - in the thread `Chromat Aberration Correction??' in
rec.photo.digital, he actually forgets who is pretending to be, and
signs off on a `Graham Hunt` post as *Douglas*. You just aren't very
good at this sort of thing, are you, Doug? (O;

That lame attempt at trying to pass off your franchises as `highly
desirable` and in demand by 'the Asians' really is one of the lowest
examples I've seen, and you are a dishonest, snivelling prick. And,
yes, now, I'm doing the ad-hominems, but you bloody well deserve it,
you miserable low-life. I think I might find out who got suckered into
any of these franchises and let them know what sort of guy they are
dealing with..

I'd much rather be a `geek` than a deceptive, lying crook.

Frank ess

unread,
May 3, 2005, 12:13:34 AM5/3/05
to

Next word series includes "sue", "lawyer", "libel", "slander" ...

Chrlz

unread,
May 3, 2005, 12:19:55 AM5/3/05
to
Frank said:
>Next word series includes "sue", "lawyer", "libel", "slander" ...

Yep, and I would LOVE to see him try! That would do his business no
end of good. Slander is not a big problem hereabouts, as long as the
`slander` is in fact true. Down here in Oz, the authorities take a
*very* dim view of folk who use fraudulent methods to inflate the value
of shares, investments, franchise offers and the like. I used to work
for the very organisation that does the prosecutions!

Ryadia

unread,
May 3, 2005, 3:15:06 AM5/3/05
to
One of the problems with having shops at several locations is that
absolute dick heads like you can't grasp the notion that I might post
from someone else's PC at different times of the day.

Check the IP idiot! different ISPs too!
Or is that process beyone the self admiring "geek"'s capabilities?

Ryadia

unread,
May 3, 2005, 3:25:41 AM5/3/05
to
"Hereabouts" your ISP prohibits using their network to transmit personal
threats or abuse. To call me a crook without evidence (and you are
unlikely to get any)is getting close to that. pull you head in or I'll
make a complaint.

If you actually had a clue in the first place, you'd have looked up
ASIC's database and maybe even paid the $50 to get the lowdown on me but
of course you'd rather shoot off your mouth before knowing what it's all
about and the interested spectator making the bullets for you to fire
(listening Frank?) is only using you for his own amusement... How easy
are you to manipulate?

Why would I bother to waste my time and money to sue a loser like you?
The whole concept of a lawsuit is that the person you sue has something
you can sue for. With your attitude, you wouldn't hold a job down long
enough to get anything to sue for.

Chrlz

unread,
May 3, 2005, 7:27:17 PM5/3/05
to
Nice try, Douglas/Graham. SEE BELOW, and feel free to explain.

Chrlz

unread,
May 3, 2005, 7:31:06 PM5/3/05
to
Please explain, Ryadia.

Direct quote from rec.photo.digital:
==================quote:
Graham Hunt Mar 30, 9:18 pm hide options
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
From: Graham Hunt <million_p...@yahoo.com> - Find messages by this
author
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:18:54 +1000
Local: Wed,Mar 30 2005 9:18 pm
Subject: Re: Chromat Aberration Correction???
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

Chuck Forsberg wrote:
> I downloaded a trial version of JSC Paint Shop Pro 9.
......
.....you can still get CA if you don't know how it occurs and how
to avoid it.

Douglas.

=====================endquote

NOTE - It is signed DOUGLAS. There are many other examples. Shall I
post them, here and back on AUS.PHOTO? You are busted, dickhead.

You are a CROOK and a LIAR. Go ahead, take the action and make my day.

Ryadia

unread,
May 3, 2005, 9:35:11 PM5/3/05
to
Excellent quote son, glad to see you discovered how to Google while
looking for a job.

Now if you can just discover how to identify a posting host, a fake
message and the source of a message, you might make it to kindergarten
as a sleuth. In the mean time keep taking shots with Frank Ess's bullets
and you'll win the village idiot's award for this group by posting
through Google in a (totally false) attempt to conceal who you are
instead of doing what you get unemployment benefits for and look for a
job. Benefits incidently, which I help fund with my taxes.

The source of your message very clearly identifies you. So instead of
sitting in front of a console at the employment office looking for a job
while real job searchers are standing in the queue, you are using their
computers for posting defamation and slander on the Internet. What a
total and utter fool you are boy. You must be shocking worry to your
poor mother. And sending me 90 e-mail viruses is not doing you much good
either.

Posting host:143.92.1.40
South Australian Government Department of Employment, Training and
Further Education G.P.O. Box 2352, Adelaide 5001

If you like I'll request the name and address of the person at the
console when this message was sent and post that info too... Then we'll
all know who the real idiot is.

Bugger off child, you're out of your league here.

Douglas at Ryadia's PC in the Techno Aussie studio.

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
May 3, 2005, 11:19:26 PM5/3/05
to
Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Further, the noise level is very low, although there is some blocking up
> in the shaddow areas, but this is not very noticeable at normal distances.

Though, if the noise is in the original image, that's not the fault of the
process, right? It's just giving you a really nice rendering of what you
gave it, noise and all. Or are you saying the process *added* this noise?

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Chrlz

unread,
May 4, 2005, 2:02:56 AM5/4/05
to
So let's just summarise this thread, and briefly look at that feeble
attempt to *change the subject*, shall we?

YOU posted this request for feedback on an enlarging algorithm. YOU
REFUSE to allow the algorithm to be tested in any way, except by giving
out your chosen samples and advertising. YOU abuse and denigrate
anyone who dares to suggest that your algorithm is worthless unless
proven to be effective, and you will not allow any tests whatsoever.

YOU then posted a clearly fraudulent attempt to deceive others into
thinking that your franchises were highly valuable and about to be
bought out by 'the Asians'. I note that YOU HAVE NOT DENIED THIS.
Answer the bloody question - ARE YOU GRAHAM HUNT?? (But we already
know that - I've proven it above. And read my lips - IP addresses
don't come into it when *you* SIGN a post, allegedly by Graham Hunt, as
`DOUGLAS`..!! What a moron!) There are numerous examples of your
schizophrenia littered all over these groups, and I invite anyone who
doubts that you are a lying sockpuppeting lowlife to look at posts like
the above-mentioned "chromat aberration" in rec.photo.equipment.35mm
where you really gave the game away, and your laughable support as
Graham, for your alter-ego Douglas, in "20D Autofocus issue" in this
group. Over in "Canvas Prints" in the aus.photo group, you post as
Graham again, kindly helping out someone who complained that Doug's
mailbox was full, and again I quote (were you pissed,
Gra/Doug/Rya/Tech/Joe/One?):

================== Quote:
>Graham Hunt Apr 5, 10:33 pm
>Newsgroups: aus.photo
>From: Graham Hunt <million_p...@yahoo.com>
>Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 12:33:04 +1000
>Local: Tues,Apr 5 2005 10:33 pm
>Subject: Re: [comm] Re: Canvas prints (advertisment)
>
>> I tried to email you, but Hotmail bounced it with a "Mailbox
>> unavailable" error.
>
>With as many identities on the 'net as he/I/we have,
>it's pretty hard to keep track of who we/he/I am/is today.
>..you'll find the address is correct except for the hotmail part.
>It should be yahoo. Anyway...
>
>Who do you want to be today and... Where do you want
>to go today?
>...I'd like to be ryadia today.
>damn...
>Forgotten who I am again!
================== EndQuote:

It would be funny, except that you think the folk here are idiots. So
why don't you just admit that you ARE Graham Hunt, and that you posted
a fraudulent attempt to boost your franchise value? It's up there for
all to see. And all your other lame-ass sockpuppetry is scattered all
over these newsgroups, Douglas / Graham Hunt / Ryadia / Technoaussie /
Joe Bailey / One Million Pics / Million Pics - have I missed any?

It's a question that I will keep asking, over and over, and repost as
necessary whenever your bullshit reappears.. And I think a letter to
ASIC and the ACCC might be in order, if you really are promoting these
as franchises - I'll look up some of my old mates. Let me assure you
that such behaviour is highly illegal.

So, I'm out of my league, am I? Good. Because I don't want to be in
any `league` that someone like you is part of. Am I *acting* like I am
out of my league? You'll note I'm still here, and I won't go away
until you admit your FRAUDulent actions. So keep bumping this thread..


((By the way, not that it matters, but the Dept you refer to includes
training authorities, CentreLink, schools and school libraries, TAFE
colleges, related computer classrooms and internet access suites,
libraries, etc. From that you think I'm unemployed? <grin> And it is
interesting that you think my posting location has any bearing on this.
It must be frustrating for you that I don't resort to all the
personalities/sockpuppets that *you* seem to need to bolster your
position. That position is looking a little tenuous now.

If anyone takes you seriously again, I might have to remind them of a
few facts.


Facts that you are avoiding like the proverbial plague.

You are guilty as charged. But feel free to try to change the subject
again, and I'll go find more examples to discredit you. There's LOTS
of stuff out there - it's pretty amusing really!

Chrlz

unread,
May 4, 2005, 2:09:56 AM5/4/05
to
By the way, where did `Graham` go???

Come back and tell us more!!!! (O;

Douglas

unread,
May 4, 2005, 2:59:15 AM5/4/05
to

"Chrlz" <ch...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1115186576....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>

Identify yourself or crawl back under your rock, child.
The concept that I would provide any business related information to anyone
at the prodding of someone hiding their identity (and not very well) behind
Google is quite an interesting one. If you think my shot at Ken Chandler in
aus.photo who, like you cannot comprehend that there may be several PCs I
post from, is in any way related to fraud, your fertile imagination has been
fertlised with the wrong weed.

On the subject of identity, how do you suppose it is that I can post from 4
people's computers at 4 different locations and using 4 different ISPs and
sign my name to avoid confussion and still manage to confuse you? Says a lot
about your infantile mind, doesn't it? Not damaged by the dope is it?

It really wouldn't matter how many employment related departments are
involved in the block of addresses belonging to the source, I doubt any
Government funded organisation would allow you to use their facilities to
anonymously slander and defame anyone once they identified you.

Maybe I should give them a ring and see what they're policy on the matter
is? If like you say, you are not actually on the dole, you could be real
soon. You really are out of your league if you think threatening me with
"your mates" is likely to have any effect. Don't forget the old fire with
fire thing lest you get burned yourself.

Douglas at Douglas's PC.


Chrlz

unread,
May 4, 2005, 4:29:49 AM5/4/05
to
((Off-topic, apologies to other posters for wasting your time. Do not
read on unless interested in watching Douglas/Ryadia squirm..))

Douglas wrote:
> Identify yourself or crawl back under your rock, child.

Why? I'm not the one lying and avoiding the subject. My information
speaks for itself. YOU are the one posting under false names with a
view to fraudulently increase the value of your franchises.. You STILL
haven't denied it, nor have you offered ANY explanation for signing off
as Douglas when you were pretending to be Graham. It's tricky when you
get caught up in a web of lies, isn't it..


> The concept that I would provide any business related information..

Bwahhahahh!! I'm not asking for your business information, you wanker.
I'm simply calling you out for FRAUD, and sockpuppetry.


>If you think my shot at Ken Chandler in aus.photo..

Read it again. This has nothing to do with the many arguments you get
into with *other* folk here. In that posting you ADMIT you are using
these false identities. It's *that* simple. I'm trying to keep you
on-topic!


>how do you suppose it is that I can post from 4 people's computers

Who gives a toss? Check my IP on this one, and the next one.
Different? That's 3... but it's frigging irrelevant. I REPEAT, I'm
calling you out for fraudulent use of identities to promote your lame
business using LIES. No-one cares where you, or I, post from.


>I doubt any Government funded organisation would allow you to use

>their facilities to anonymously slander and defame anyone..

Funnily enough, most organisations don't care much about occasional use
of text-based services that consume little bandwidth. And
slander/defamation only applies when someone is misrepresenting the
truth. I am not. You *are* doing what I have accused you of. You ARE
a liar, Graham/Doug/Ryadia/Joe/....


> Maybe I should give them a ring and see what they're (sic) policy
> on the matter is?

You do that. And ring the owner of the one I'm posting from *now*, and
the one I will be posting from later tonight, if it floats your boat.
And keep avoiding the issue, and don't ever actually quote any of my
messages, and keep avoiding the fact that you are Graham Hunt, and that
you fraudulently tried to pass yourself off as another person, with a
view to promote your business.


>You really are out of your league if you think threatening me with
>"your mates" is likely to have any effect.

Why are you `threat`-ened? I'm just going to write them a courteous
letter asking them to take a look at this thread. And I'll happily
admit I'm a little out-of-touch about franchise law, and of course you
could be bullshitting about the franchises anyway, but I think at the
very least you will get a warning. The letter is ready to go. I do
still have mates working in ASIC, and I'll be happy to have a chat with
them again about the old days. I just thought you might like to know,
in case you still want to think I'm ill-informed, that I used to manage
the Liquidations and Strike-Offs section in what used to be the
Corporate Affairs Commission, which is now ASIC. T'was a long time ago,
back when the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes were rife - interesting
days indeed.

And like I said, I'm *delighted* to not be in your `league`. People
like you make me sick.

> Don't forget the old fire with fire thing lest you
> get burned yourself.

Well gee thanks for the scary warning. If I had done something as
despicable as you did, I *would* be worried...


> Douglas at Douglas's PC.

Chrlz at a different PC.

(grinning all the way)

Douglas

unread,
May 4, 2005, 6:46:26 AM5/4/05
to
Only in Australia could it happen...
God I just love the attitude problems that create a whole bunch of
unemployable dole bludgers I pay tax to support. Get a life idiot. Maybe
then you can get a job.

Nah... on second thought I wouldn't wish you as an employee on my worst
enemy.

Alan Browne

unread,
May 4, 2005, 8:26:42 AM5/4/05
to
Jeremy Nixon wrote:

I have no way of knowing where the noise originated from. I would
expect that the producer of the image would see it and PS it out (smooth
it) but that's his choice.

Message has been deleted

Ryadia

unread,
May 5, 2005, 11:34:30 PM5/5/05
to
Alan Browne wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne <alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Further, the noise level is very low, although there is some blocking
>>> up in the shaddow areas, but this is not very noticeable at normal
>>> distances.
>>
>>
>>
>> Though, if the noise is in the original image, that's not the fault of
>> the
>> process, right? It's just giving you a really nice rendering of what you
>> gave it, noise and all. Or are you saying the process *added* this
>> noise?
>
>
> I have no way of knowing where the noise originated from. I would
> expect that the producer of the image would see it and PS it out (smooth
> it) but that's his choice.
>
>
>
Actually Alan, I did not do a single thing to either of those image to
alter the noise. I used Canon's recommended USM to clear the fuzz from
the anti-alias filter and turned up the contrast on the flower but the
old Ford engine, is pretty much full frame, as shot except for the
modifications that take place (edge enhancement) during enlargement.

To have doctored the images in any other way, would have defeated the
reason for providing them... As images taken with a camera, not ones
created with Photoshop.

Douglas

Ryadia

unread,
May 6, 2005, 12:11:47 AM5/6/05
to
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

>>He had the first hand chance to see my claim is indeed correct and
>>declined.
>
>

> Not correct.
>
> Your claims were: 1) your method of interpolation is superior to any
> other method of interpolation; and 2) at enlargements up to 1000 %
> there is "no loss of discernable detail".
>
> A visual inspection of your interpolated prints (which are all very
> nice, clean and smooth, I am sure) is irrelevant with respect to
> verifying (or falsifying) these two claims .

That's interesting Gisle... I provided Alan and Gordon the camera
original images on mini CD and 24"x36" prints I had enlarged from them.
The same offer I made to you.

Now if you had accepted that offer and could have used your "Fred
Miranda's" stair interpolation action which you used in your first
attempt to discredit me ...and discovered for yourself that what you
posted on your blogg was not equal to what I provided you, why would you
then continue on your crusade to prove me wrong when many hundreds of
customers are happily accepting the enlargements and paying money for
them without questioning the process used to make them?

You see Gisle, I'm having a bit of difficulty here understanding your
motives. If, as you say you are a photographer, every day you use
processes and patented algorithms to take your photographs and
(seemingly) never question their origin or their developer.

I provide a service for photographers... Enlarging their photos and
printing them on canvas and other material. They concentrate on taking
good photos and if I get the colour and sharpness in their prints right.
Not one of them has ever asked me to prove how I make their
enlargements. They take the print as evidence it can be done.

Then along comes a person from the other side of the world who is never
likely to become a customer of mine or provide anything usable to me and
begins to question if what I do for a living does in fact do what it
does and I take just a little tiny bit of objection to this.

Why I do is because like you, I participate in these groups to learn a
few things and where possible, provide information to other posters. For
me it is very much like a club where until recently I never had to worry
about idiots and rivals looking for an edge over me.

I have never advertised my business here. Although I have an E-commerce
site and provide gallery facilities for my client's customers to order
prints, in the spirit of what Usenet is, I never promote any of it on
these groups although I often make reference to commercial things I have
a vested interest in.

SO when you (or anyone else) start or continue a thread in a manner I
would expect someone hostile to me would, I return the hostility. This
whole thing with you and me started in another group when I told someone
how to go about enlarging their digital images because someone else
(possibly you) said it couldn't be done.

You got your rocks off claiming my claims of 1000% enlargements were a
load of bunkum and proceeded to use an very basic and clearly flawed
process (Fred Miranda's) to try and either goad me into providing my
process for you to play with or discredit my claim entirely ...and you
have offered no reason for doing this.

Well if you look around the 'net you'll discover my claims are quite
modest compared to some who seem to think 1600% is obtainable without
loss of detail yet you choose to have a go at me, not them. Why is that,
Gisle? Is it racist? Maybe I'm just available to you? Whatever your
motives, you shouldn't be doing it if it's just for your entertainment.
Why don't you stop now?

Douglas

Ryadia

unread,
May 6, 2005, 12:14:29 AM5/6/05
to
Alan Browne wrote:
> Douglas wrote:
>
>
>> Where ever you or he got the idea it was, is beyond me. The process is
>> part of a franchised digital print centre.
>
>
> Is the franchise the whole business (a turnkey business) or is the
> franchise related to the pring technique itself?
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>

I provide you with considerable information about the process and it's
development in the accompanying letter I included with the example
prints I sent you. Discussing further the business aspect here, is unlikely.

Douglas

Gisle Hannemyr

unread,
May 6, 2005, 2:26:20 AM5/6/05
to
Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

>>> He had the first hand chance to see my claim is indeed correct and
>>> declined.

>> Not correct.
>> Your claims were: 1) your method of interpolation is superior to any
>> other method of interpolation; and 2) at enlargements up to 1000 %
>> there is "no loss of discernable detail".
>> A visual inspection of your interpolated prints (which are all very
>> nice, clean and smooth, I am sure) is irrelevant with respect to
>> verifying (or falsifying) these two claims .

> That's interesting Gisle... I provided Alan and Gordon the camera
> original images on mini CD and 24"x36" prints I had enlarged from
> them. The same offer I made to you.

No, you did not. You offered me the prints for visual inspection,
period. There was no mention of camera original image files in
the original offer you made me.

If you also offer provide the camera original files for comparison,
I'll be happy to accept your offer. Please send them to:

Gisle Hannemyr
University of Oslo
Faculty of Computer Science
P.O.Box 1080, Blindern
NO-0316 Oslo
Norway

> Now if you had accepted that offer and could have used your "Fred
> Miranda's" stair interpolation action which you used in your first

> attempt to discredit me ... and discovered for yourself that what


> you posted on your blogg was not equal to what I provided you, why
> would you then continue on your crusade to prove me wrong when many
> hundreds of customers are happily accepting the enlargements and
> paying money for them without questioning the process used to make
> them?
>
> You see Gisle, I'm having a bit of difficulty here understanding
> your motives. If, as you say you are a photographer, every day you
> use processes and patented algorithms to take your photographs and
> (seemingly) never question their origin or their developer.

You've made some extraordinary claims about what your process does.
For instance:

"In order to maintain the original detail, we must add detail to
the picture. This we do with mathematics, harnessing the power
of several powerful microprocessors."
( Re.: http://users.tpg.com.au/hpc/examples2.htm )

While I am just an amateur photographer, I'm a trained mathematician.
Statements like the above challenges a fundamental law of nature, and
it goes against my training to just accept them. Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proofs - as the saying goes.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gisle Hannemyr

unread,
May 6, 2005, 3:33:58 AM5/6/05
to
Gisle Hannemyr <gisle...@ifi.uio.no> writes:
> You've made some extraordinary claims about what your process does.
> For instance:
> "In order to maintain the original detail, we must add detail to
> the picture. This we do with mathematics, harnessing the power
> of several powerful microprocessors."
> ( Re.: http://users.tpg.com.au/hpc/examples2.htm )

I've now looked more careful at the two images on this page,
and noticed the follwing features:

1. The small square on the first image is supposed to be reproduced
as a crop in the second. But the two does not overlap. In fact,
the crop displays a 5.4 times /larger/ portion of the image than
the outlined square.

2. The crop, as reproduced on the webpage, is 421 x 299 pixels.
If we interpolate the image back to its original size
(3504 x 2336 pixels), the crop actually occupy 566 x 402 pixels.
This means that the crop displayed on the webpage is not "full
size" (as claimed) but /downsampled/ to approx. 55% of the
original 20D file.

Now, as far as your ability "add detail" with mathematics goes, I
think that a crop /downsampled/ to 55% of the original is a rather
weak proof.

Chrlz

unread,
May 6, 2005, 5:14:07 AM5/6/05
to
Gisle, may I congratulate you on not responding to Douglas
(/Ryadia/Graham/Joe/One..) in the same insulting tone as *his* post.
You were very courteous, and absolutely correct in your assertions, and
you managed to avoid using insults. I will try to do the same, as I
pull him up on some of the things he said. As usual, he takes various
liberties with the truth.

Douglas>I have never advertised my business here."
Oh, really? Shall I post all the examples? Not only do you advertise
it, you even posted on this thread as Graham Hunt, and said "The
franchise is `Techno Aussie digital print centres`... the cost of one


is around $53k... If you can get one. Word is the Asians

have put in an offer for the whole thing, patents and all." *You* are
Graham Hunt, Douglas, we all know it, and that was a fraudulent attempt
to boost your franchise value.

Douglas>Although I have an E-commerce site and provide gallery


facilities
> for my client's customers to order prints, in the spirit of what
Usenet is

>I never promote any of it...
.... (chokes briefly on soup..) Yes, we can clearly *see* you don't
advertise. Perhaps your definition is slightly different to the rest
of the world's. And what exactly was the point of the original post
again?

Douglas>SO when you (or anyone else) start or continue a thread in a


manner
>I would expect someone hostile to me would, I return the hostility.

Can you post a quote where Gisle was hostile on this thread? I can
only see courteousness. You seem to have a bit of a problem with
actually quoting examples - all we ever see are your words, your
interpretation. This whole thread consists of people calling you out
on your claims of algorithms that `manufacture detail`, claims that
suddenly files gain resolution when printed large by you, and, of
course, you alone, and claims that you can enlarge a digital file 10
times with no loss of that `disernable detail` of yours. And yet when
we take a look at any example (and there is just one) that you deem to
offer, we simply find that you cheat. The example on your webpage
shows the crop at (conveniently) the wrong size, and as pointed out by
Gisle, what is claimed to show the enlargability is actually a 55%
downsample!!! Heavens above, if *I* reduce a good 20D file by 55%, as
you have done on that webpage (where it is *supposed* to show
enlargement!!!), I would be showing you a *razor-sharp image* that Mr
Gillette would be proud of. There would be no blurring, sharpening
halos and posterisation/jpeg artefacts as there are on that `example`.
I guess, in one way, it is a GREAT example - it shows your ability
very clearly.

No-one has said you can't do large prints from good quality 6-8Mp (or
greater) files, using a good algorithm (of which there are many). But
you surround this with such extraordinary, and often silly, claims,
that it is no wonder you get yourself into such a corner.

Douglas>This whole thing with you and me started in another group
Your history with anyone is irrelevant to the major issue. Just answer
the questions. You refuse to address the issues, so you lose your
credibility (if any is left).

Douglas>because someone else (possibly you) said it couldn't be done.
Another example of you relying on possibly flawed memories to launch
into abuse. Post the evidence, or drop it. And anyway, what *you*
claim in regard to enlarging 10x without loss of detail, and your
algorithm's alleged ability to manufacture detail, indeed, simply CAN'T
BE DONE. Personally I doubt the existence of any such algorithm. You
claim you have done it yourself, yet don't understand the simplest
mathematics (as witnessed by your complete misunderstanding of
perspective, and that flawed attempt at showing enlargement on your
webpage). I note that you have NEVER posted a single example, patent
number, or ANYTHING to prove its existence. You just tell us your
prints look great and you have happy customers (and no-one has even
disputed that!!).. but no, you're not advertising, oh no, certainly
not.

Douglas>You got your rocks off claiming my claims of 1000% enlargements


>were a load of bunkum

They *are*. *Because* you said the magic words "no loss of
`disernable` detail". Maybe on a close up soft-focus portrait, but
that doesn't count for anything in the real world - anybody can blow
one of them up....

Douglas>.. and proceeded to use an very basic and clearly flawed


>process (Fred Miranda's) to try and either goad me into providing

>my process for you to play with or discredit my claim entirely. ...


>and you have offered no reason for doing this.

First, Fred Miranda's process does not claim to do magic. Second, it
was obviously the latter, ie discredit your claim entirely. Thirdly,
there is very good reason to always discredit people who make claims
that are not supported and fly in the face of common sense. If they
(you) cannot or do not support those claims, they (you) are
discredited. End of story.

Douglas>.. you'll discover my claims are quite modest compared to


>some who seem to think 1600% is obtainable

Examples? These people use the same words and claims as you? Let us
at'em... (O;

Douglas>without loss of detail yet you choose to have a go at me
AHA, GOTCHA!!! BUT *YOU* claim to *manufacture* detail!!! THERE is
the difference, in black and white.

Douglas>Is it racist? Maybe I'm just available to you? Whatever your


>motives, you shouldn't be doing it if it's just for your
entertainment.
>Why don't you stop now?

......
......
Well, I'm speechless at that little tirade.. How do you argue with
someone with this attitude? I shall refrain from saying what I really
think, but this thread is certainly a testament to something.... And
it is not Mr Techno's magical ability to enlarge digital images in a
way better than anything that currently exists..


By the way... instead of whinging about the immense cost of posting
these examples out, why don't you just send out the ORIGINAL camera
file as many have suggested, along with a 11" x 8" *CROP* at the
enlargement ratio you wish to claim? That way, no-one can get any
information about your algorithm, they can readily have a look at the
level of detail, and you're out of pocket what, a few dollars?....
They can also use pretty well any decent printer and algorithm to try
to match or exceed your results. Hmm, did I say 'try'? (O;

But of course the problem with this is that your claims will be shown
up for what they are, so I'm sure you will have no end of excuses about
this too. Or as usual, you will simply ignore that which does not suit
your fantasy world.

So, in summary, I'm sure you do lovely big prints, Douglas. And your
customers (at least those that don't see this stuff) are delighted with
what you can do and what a lovely man you are.

Just take the bull$#!? elsewhere.

Paul Furman

unread,
May 6, 2005, 6:41:54 AM5/6/05
to
Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
> Gisle Hannemyr <gisle...@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>
>>You've made some extraordinary claims about what your process does.
>>For instance:
>> "In order to maintain the original detail, we must add detail to
>> the picture. This we do with mathematics, harnessing the power
>> of several powerful microprocessors."
>> ( Re.: http://users.tpg.com.au/hpc/examples2.htm )
>
>
> I've now looked more careful at the two images on this page,
> and noticed the follwing features:
>
> 1. The small square on the first image is supposed to be reproduced
> as a crop in the second. But the two does not overlap. In fact,
> the crop displays a 5.4 times /larger/ portion of the image than
> the outlined square.


I pointed that out before on these newsgroups & he said I was picking on
meaningless technical details of a mere web page or something to that
effect. Notice the cropped image shows the entire center part of the
flower & the small rectangle encloses less than 1/4 of the flower's
center part.

Alan Browne

unread,
May 6, 2005, 10:12:38 AM5/6/05
to
Ryadia wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:

>> I have no way of knowing where the noise originated from. I would
>> expect that the producer of the image would see it and PS it out
>> (smooth it) but that's his choice.
>>
>>
>>
> Actually Alan, I did not do a single thing to either of those image to
> alter the noise. I used Canon's recommended USM to clear the fuzz from
> the anti-alias filter and turned up the contrast on the flower but the
> old Ford engine, is pretty much full frame, as shot except for the
> modifications that take place (edge enhancement) during enlargement.
>
> To have doctored the images in any other way, would have defeated the
> reason for providing them... As images taken with a camera, not ones
> created with Photoshop.

Thanks for the clarification. The comment above was not aimed at you or
your process, but what somebody might do if the noise was an issue to
him. I also stated, that at 'normal' viewing distance the noise in the
image was not an issue.

Cheers,
Alan

Alan Browne

unread,
May 6, 2005, 10:19:02 AM5/6/05