If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
With resolution and clarity equal to the original: 6.3 Megapixel image will
usually go to 24" x 32" (36" APS size) and way, way larger if you care to introduce a "viewing distance equal to the distance needed to view all the image without moving your head. For a couple of years now I've endured taunts, ridicule and personal vilification from a few narrow minded people who never bothered to investigate my claims... How could most of them? The basis for me providing samples and confirmation for investigation was QUALIFICATIONS TO PASS JUDGMENT. All but one, never had any. Some really nice people in this lot, I can tell you. So... I have in the past made statements like: "Enlarge from a postcard size image to a poster" "Up to 1000% enlargement" "Add data to an image to enlarge it" All perfectly true and ridiculed by zealots looking for recognition they have no right seeking in the first place. I have been able to, and founded a business on, enlarging digital images using Interpolation. Until now I have chosen to protect my industrial secrets and formulas by refusing to provide enlarged digital images or pixel level crops of enlarged images to anyone for examination... Until now. Recently I began to post to the 'groups' again after being away from them due to the pressures of work only to discover the idiots and morons who last year were so vocal in their condemnation of me, are still out there with the worst of them. Offers of a reward for the identity of the worst, turned up zilch and those I did discover had nothing worth suing for anyway. So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe not. I have provided an example image which I enlarged and a full pixel crop of part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that not only is it possible but possible at virtually zero loss of sharpness and detail in the final image. http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com/interpolation.htm Use the link at the bottom of the text on that page to take you to the actual examples and explanation. Anyone who wants to have the original (un-enlarged) image only needs to ask me without aggression or taunts and I'll supply it as an attachment to an email only to a valid domain address (no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail). -- From Douglas... Wedding and Portrait specialist: http://www.photosbydouglas.com Canvas prints and Digital enlargements: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au Wedding Photography anywhere on the east coast of Australia. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
A 'few' points.. (Long, but strictly ontopic and with relatively few
"insults, taunts or aggression" in what follows from me..) On Jan 28, 5:27 pm, "Doug MacDonald" photosbydouglas- wrote: With resolution and clarity equal to the original: 6.3 Megapixel image will usually go to 24" x 32" (36" APS size) The original image will show 'real' detail down to about the two pixel level. But when interpolating, any enlargement method can at best make a 'sensible guess' as to the extra pixels required to fill in the gaps. Many existing algorithms do this quite well, using a combination of bitmap and vector theorems. The interpolated pixels are *not* real detail, therefore, at actual pixel size the resulting image *cannot* have "resolution and clarity equal to the original". Finely detailed images enlarged to these sizes will show the results of interpolation on close inspection, especially on things like grass, fine foliage, fine details in a cityscape, etc. Indeed, Douglas' 'actual pixel crop' seems to have problems, even though this is not a particularly challenging image. It is perfectly true that on some types of images you *will* get away with enlargements of this size and greater - but it largely depends on image content, and skill at interpolating. Judging from the Douglas 'actual detail' crop, I would suggest you look closely at QImage instead - it introduces less jaggies and artefacts. Some of this could be 'real detail', but we don't know without the original. ... and way, way larger if you care to introduce a "viewing distance equal to the distance needed to view all the image without moving your head. If you have to be moved back some unspecified distance, then you can enlarge anything to any size.. So let's be scientific here - without moving my head but allowing my eyes to wander to their full extent, I have a sharp field of view that spans well over 90 degrees. A quick check shows that I can easily view all of a 32" x 24" image without moving my head, from about 14". For a couple of years now I've endured taunts, ridicule and personal vilification from a few narrow minded people who never bothered to investigate my claims... How could most of them? Indeed, how could we, other than to point out flaws in what was displayed? (all these pages have now been removed by Douglas). He never posted an original image and when he posted crops, they were *always* reductions or at best actual-pixel size - they were not enlargements. This is the *first time* he has actually shown what looks to be a real enlargement... But we are still missing the original file - if we had that, the artefacts (or to be fair, the lack of them) that his method has introduced would be clear. The basis for me providing samples and confirmation for investigation was QUALIFICATIONS TO PASS JUDGMENT. All but one, never had any. I suspect the 'one' who Douglas thought was qualified may have been Gordon Moat. Gordon had to clarify the claims made by Douglas, he http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...mm/browse_frm/ thread/f0bc2af22e84217b/ Make your own mind up. So... I have in the past made statements like: "Enlarge from a postcard size image to a poster" "Up to 1000% enlargement" "Add data to an image to enlarge it" All perfectly true and ridiculed by zealots looking for recognition they have no right seeking in the first place. Of course they are all true. But data DOES NOT equal detail. It's the *quality* claims that were in dispute. Eg: "Enlarged digital images with more detail than the original" http://groups.google.com/group/comp....op/browse_frm/ thread/90dff1d6c6425889 I have been able to, and founded a business on, enlarging digital images using Interpolation. ...using an algorithm Douglas claimed was patented (it wasn't) and had been bought by Samsung.. Having now seen the results, it looks to be somewhat inferior to the many good algorithms already in existence, for example QImage's excellent Vector, Pyramid and Hybrid methods. Can Douglas offer his comments on how those compare to his, or show us the final result comparison? Until now I have chosen to protect my industrial secrets and formulas by refusing to provide enlarged digital images or pixel level crops of enlarged images to anyone for examination... Until now. Bold move! But we still await the original file. Douglas is still short of the proof and genuine examples offered by all of his 'competitors'. Recently I began to post to the 'groups' again after being away from them due to the pressures of work only to discover the idiots and morons who last year were so vocal in their condemnation of me, are still out there with the worst of them. Offers of a reward for the identity of the worst, turned up zilch and those I did discover had nothing worth suing for anyway. I wonder who he 'discovered'? No-one turned up at my door. Personally, I would have thought Douglas could better spend his time simply *proving* detractors wrong (or ignoring them), than undertaking all these investigations.. So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe not. Nope. But Happy Birthday anyway! I have provided an example image which I enlarged and a full pixel crop of part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that not only is it possible but possible at virtually zero loss of sharpness and detail in the final image. Note the "virtually zero" - that's a drop from "equal" or "more detail than the original". By the way, if you visit Douglas' page, use the position of the spider web - you can not only see it at top right of the crop but also just a trace of it at bottom left - to get an idea of how accurate his 'Approximation' is. These errors have always been in his favour - must just be coincidence. But having said that and to give credit where due, it's not actually important this time as the crop appears to be a true enlargement! In fact he has gone way too far.. But judge for yourself the quality - note the jaggies, haloing, and other artefacts. At least they *look* like artefacts. Without the original actual-pixels crop we can't tell, but it looks like 'mush' (â„¢David) to me. If Doug were to post the *original* actual pixels crop, it would tell us much more, and of course we could run it through GF, QIMage, even PS BiCubics, SSI, maybe even some of the more exotic methods shown he http://www.general-cathexis.com/interpolation.html ... and then make a *useful* comparison. The argument would be over, the truth of the final quality would be clear. Anyone who wants to have the original (un-enlarged) image only needs to ask me without aggression or taunts and I'll supply it as an attachment to an email only to a valid domain address (no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail). If anyone bothers, let us know how that crop looks when enlarged using *other* methods, especially QImage - I think there's a free 30 day trial? Anyway, I'm sure he does *lovely* prints - if I could only find one of his 'TechnoAussie Digital Print Centres', I'd have one done myself! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
If this is an advertisement (that is what it looks like), or a hint for
other to try,IMHO, it should be denoted in the subject and should not be disguised as a question. -Michael |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
"Doug MacDonald" wrote in message ... With resolution and clarity equal to the original: 6.3 Megapixel image will usually go to 24" x 32" (36" APS size) and way, way larger if you care to introduce a "viewing distance equal to the distance needed to view all the image without moving your head. For a couple of years now I've endured taunts, ridicule and personal vilification from a few narrow minded people who never bothered to investigate my claims... How could most of them? The basis for me providing samples and confirmation for investigation was QUALIFICATIONS TO PASS JUDGMENT. All but one, never had any. Some really nice people in this lot, I can tell you. So... I have in the past made statements like: "Enlarge from a postcard size image to a poster" "Up to 1000% enlargement" "Add data to an image to enlarge it" All perfectly true and ridiculed by zealots looking for recognition they have no right seeking in the first place. I have been able to, and founded a business on, enlarging digital images using Interpolation. Until now I have chosen to protect my industrial secrets and formulas by refusing to provide enlarged digital images or pixel level crops of enlarged images to anyone for examination... Until now. Recently I began to post to the 'groups' again after being away from them due to the pressures of work only to discover the idiots and morons who last year were so vocal in their condemnation of me, are still out there with the worst of them. Offers of a reward for the identity of the worst, turned up zilch and those I did discover had nothing worth suing for anyway. So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe not. I have provided an example image which I enlarged and a full pixel crop of part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that not only is it possible but possible at virtually zero loss of sharpness and detail in the final image. http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com/interpolation.htm Use the link at the bottom of the text on that page to take you to the actual examples and explanation. Anyone who wants to have the original (un-enlarged) image only needs to ask me without aggression or taunts and I'll supply it as an attachment to an email only to a valid domain address (no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail). -- From Douglas... Wedding and Portrait specialist: http://www.photosbydouglas.com Canvas prints and Digital enlargements: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au Wedding Photography anywhere on the east coast of Australia. It would be nice if the links to your Gallery actually worked. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
Doug,
where are the pictures...on my browser I see just the background...??!! rgds Georg Nyman Doug MacDonald wrote: With resolution and clarity equal to the original: 6.3 Megapixel image will usually go to 24" x 32" (36" APS size) and way, way larger if you care to introduce a "viewing distance equal to the distance needed to view all the image without moving your head. For a couple of years now I've endured taunts, ridicule and personal vilification from a few narrow minded people who never bothered to investigate my claims... How could most of them? The basis for me providing samples and confirmation for investigation was QUALIFICATIONS TO PASS JUDGMENT. All but one, never had any. Some really nice people in this lot, I can tell you. So... I have in the past made statements like: "Enlarge from a postcard size image to a poster" "Up to 1000% enlargement" "Add data to an image to enlarge it" All perfectly true and ridiculed by zealots looking for recognition they have no right seeking in the first place. I have been able to, and founded a business on, enlarging digital images using Interpolation. Until now I have chosen to protect my industrial secrets and formulas by refusing to provide enlarged digital images or pixel level crops of enlarged images to anyone for examination... Until now. Recently I began to post to the 'groups' again after being away from them due to the pressures of work only to discover the idiots and morons who last year were so vocal in their condemnation of me, are still out there with the worst of them. Offers of a reward for the identity of the worst, turned up zilch and those I did discover had nothing worth suing for anyway. So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe not. I have provided an example image which I enlarged and a full pixel crop of part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that not only is it possible but possible at virtually zero loss of sharpness and detail in the final image. http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com/interpolation.htm Use the link at the bottom of the text on that page to take you to the actual examples and explanation. Anyone who wants to have the original (un-enlarged) image only needs to ask me without aggression or taunts and I'll supply it as an attachment to an email only to a valid domain address (no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
"Dr. Georg N.Nyman" wrote in message . .. : Doug, : where are the pictures...on my browser I see just the background...??!! : rgds Georg Nyman : : I guess they must be too big for your monitor? Sick joke, I know. I have no idea actually. That site is hosted by godaddy.com and is (usually) totally reliable. Where some of these things occur is when your ISP's transparent proxy server is holding a half loaded page and feeds that up to you as the full thing. Sometimes too, your browser can be set for no refresh to save time when viewing regular pages. Heck Georg... You don't even say what brand your browser is. Try again and hit the refresh if it happens again. -- From Douglas... Wedding and Portrait specialist: http://www.photosbydouglas.com Canvas prints and Digital enlargements: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au Wedding Photography anywhere on the east coast of Australia. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
"Dr. Georg N.Nyman" wrote in message . .. : Doug, : where are the pictures...on my browser I see just the background...??!! : rgds Georg Nyman : : Georg... The issue is still unknown to me but I put the article on a different server in another part of the USA which works with everything I tried. Have a look: http://www.brisbaneweddingphotograph...erpolation.htm I would appreciate you letting me know if you have a problem viewing this link. Douglas |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
"Doug MacDonald" wrote in message ... SNIP So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe not. I have provided an example image which I enlarged and a full pixel crop of part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that not only is it possible but possible at virtually zero loss of sharpness and detail in the final image. http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com/interpolation.htm Use the link at the bottom of the text on that page to take you to the actual examples and explanation. Anyone who wants to have the original (un-enlarged) image only needs to ask me without aggression or taunts and I'll supply it as an attachment to an email only to a valid domain address (no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail). Hi Doug, First things first, happy birthday. Hope your back is holding up after your earlier surgery (and being a kind of tallish guy myself, I know what I'm talking about). Secondly, too bad you are just offering a JPEG version of the original capture (unless your interpolation was also based on that). But to be frank, assumptions about fundamental image quality aren't very convincing in an objective test, they will only (re)enforce the position of critics ... As you suggest in your web-page, and I support that mentality, well founded peer review *will* further progress. After all, that's what regular scientific publications are all about. I wouldn't mind providing my interpolated version of the crop area you showed, again assuming you started from the same JPEG (and again, assumptions are not the most credible starting points). Print files also have different sharpening requirements depending on the print process used, so a comparison to a print you supply/offer may (or not) be very relevant. How about just settling for a web version comparison to the one you published on your "example-1.htm" page? If you are confident enough, just respond to my e-mail. If not, well we'll never know ... Bart |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message ... "Doug MacDonald" wrote in message ... SNIP So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe not. I have provided an example image which I enlarged and a full pixel crop of part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that not only is it possible but possible at virtually zero loss of sharpness and detail in the final image. Unfortunately, my email bounced from your supplied e-mail address :-( If you are confident enough, just respond to my e-mail. If not, well we'll never know ... Without a means to supply you with my (e-mail) address, we'll not get very far, I'm afraid. Bart |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Enlarging digital images - how big is big?
"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message ... "Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message ... "Doug MacDonald" wrote in message ... SNIP So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe not. I have provided an example image which I enlarged and a full pixel crop of part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that not only is it possible but possible at virtually zero loss of sharpness and detail in the final image. Unfortunately, my email bounced from your supplied e-mail address :-( OMG, OMG, OMG his always changing email address did not work. Makes it bloody hard to killfile the *******. If you are confident enough, just respond to my e-mail. If not, well we'll never know ... Without a means to supply you with my (e-mail) address, we'll not get very far, I'm afraid. Bart |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Enlarging Digital images | Douglas | Digital SLR Cameras | 108 | May 15th 05 02:27 AM |