• How silly CSI photo enhancing isn't all that silly
    120 replies, posted
All it takes to garner at least similar effects are clever uses of info from an image and some complicated software. Firstly, find an image that has something you want to look at more closely. I found this image of the Chinese basilica that caught my eye. [img]http://www.opanda.com/cn/iexif/images/gg_gps.jpg[/img] Now, I like the designs on the vases so I try to see what they are like with the resize option in paint. [IMG]http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/8291/20183628.jpg[/IMG] Terrible quality. Not something I could tell a design on. Now, we have two choices. The first is the easiest- convert the image to vector, or try the complicated software. The first will turn the vase into a less detailed but infinitely zoomable picture- also not something you'd want to use for viewing details.. more for resizing imges with zero artifacts. The second.. Well, we'll just have to see, right? I'll be using SizeFixer XL, which is something that NASA and other reputable companies use, so it has to hold SOME water. Before you use the software, you have to set it- and to set it, you need to know what camera the image was taken with. In this case you can view the EXIF info of the picture. This is information attached to any image taken by a digital camera or phone. You can view it by entering the image to an EXIF viewer like [url]http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&url=[/url] You can also tell WHERE some images were taken, depending on if the device that took it has GPS (this one did) So, we garner that the image was taken by a Nikon D2H. After feeding the info into the program and increasing the original image's resolution to 4200X3150, the vase looks like this [IMG]http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1097/imgdoctorfinal.png[/IMG] Much more uniform. Go with Sizefixer XL (There's a trial, I think, if it's a bit expensive for you.) unless it's a simplistic picture, in which case, vectorize it at [url]http://vectormagic.com/home[/url]
It still looks like shit.
The clarity of the last picture is stunning - ly bad. Need some boxes for the agrees please.
What do you expect? You can't make detail where it doesn't exist. You don't need to be able to see the bird's feather pattern in the reflection off of that license plate, you just need to be able to read it.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMIHNiR3CP8[/media] Necessary.
First the sister porn and now this
[QUOTE=j-richardson;19038519]First the sister porn and now this[/QUOTE] What does my sister's career have to do with this? Just leave.
Doesn't look any more detailed. It just looks like you blurred the pixels.
Cant see shit cap'tn
Do it with somebody's face and I'll believe it.
The last image made me think of [img]http://www.watchersonline.com/carwin/WOW/pickle_surprise.jpg[/img]
How does this work ?
[QUOTE=Lord Ivan;19038536]Doesn't look any more detailed. It just looks like you blurred the pixels.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. If I blurred the pixels there would be NO uniform pattern at all.
[QUOTE=Noob_Reaper;19038529]What does my sister's career have to do with this? Just leave.[/QUOTE] It has to do with the fact that you make shitty troll threads.
[QUOTE=marcin1337;19038575]How does this work ?[/QUOTE] I think the program uses a ton of logarithms to insert pixels where they WOULD be if the image was larger.
[QUOTE=Noob_Reaper;19038581]No it doesn't. If I blurred the pixels there would be NO uniform pattern at all.[/QUOTE] Depends on how you blur it.
[QUOTE=Noob_Reaper;19038599]I think the program uses a ton of logarithms to insert pixels where they WOULD be if the image was larger.[/QUOTE] algorithms.
[QUOTE=jcallan;19038518][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMIHNiR3CP8[/media] Necessary.[/QUOTE] Red Dwarf is cool!
[QUOTE=Lord Ivan;19038600]Depends on how you blur it.[/QUOTE] If you blur a pixellated image, it's just gonna be a pixellated image which is faded or mixxed up.
[QUOTE=jcallan;19038518][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMIHNiR3CP8[/media] Necessary.[/QUOTE] Lost me at uncrop...
no new information is added, the pic doesn't look any better
The second image certainly is much clearer than the first. What're you all complaining about?
[QUOTE=backfoggen;19038673]no new information is added, the pic doesn't look any better[/QUOTE] Are you slow? There's not enough pixels in the picture for the amount of detail in the final picture- not NEARLY.
Incoming flame war.
There's no "flame war" incoming. This isn't gamestop.
It's really silly to compare anything to nearest neighbor scaling.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgRwI4Z6Wqo&NR=1[/media] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3iYzeYeM1A&NR=1[/media] No, CSI technology IS silly. We have as good of an enhance feature as we can get, but we can only go so far.
OP may be onto something, although the res of the camera picture would have to be massive.
[QUOTE=noctune9;19038848]It's really silly to compare anything to nearest neighbor scaling.[/QUOTE] Except this isn't nearest neighbor scaling. This is adaptive algorithm. No it wouldn't, Fen, the base picture was 500xsomething
It's basically a very good guessing program? That's pretty neat.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.