Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question about cleaning up/enhancing pictures....

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 9:53:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,
I've got kind of an odd question, and it comes from me watching too
many crime tv shows. Anyway, I'm sure you've all seen on those crime
shows, (CSI, Navy NCIS, etc) where they have a really bad/dark/grainy
picture, and they clean it up and can make out all the details, read
license plates, etc.

Now, what I want to know, is this: Is that realistic, or not? I mean,
is it actually possible to clean up/enhance a picture that much? I've
always wondered about this, and I think it would be awesome to have a
program that could do that, if one even exists....

Anyone got any thoughts on this? I'd love to know of a program that
could do that.

Thanks...
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:27:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There are noise reduction programs that can remove, or at least reduce,
grain and digital noise quite effectively. Very simple gamma
adjustments can recover detail from what appear to be deep featureles
shadows, and more advanced software can perform what appear to be
miracles in retrieving good images from badly underexposed ones.

There are even ways to `recover` some detail from out of focus images,
although this is very difficult, needs to use very sophisticated
algorithms with input of lens characteristics, etc. It can also be
quite haphazard, with `fake` details appearing that were never there,
and complex areas often just have too much overlap for it to be of real
use. As I'm sure folk will say this is not possible (and they are
partly right!), there's an example of this here, which shows how good
and bad it can be all at once! Look at the bottom of the page..

http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/Analyzer/


And of course if the original file is of very high resolution, you can
simply zoom in, up until you hit `actual pixel` or `actual grain clump`
size.. once you get there, further enlargement is not going to
magically create more usable detail.

Having said all of that, all the examples I have seen in crime
investigation shows and in movies like `Enemy of the State` have been
just a little bit on the ridiculous side of reality...
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:39:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<nutto4beanies@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105757601.083814.84310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I've got kind of an odd question, and it comes from me watching too
> many crime tv shows. Anyway, I'm sure you've all seen on those crime
> shows, (CSI, Navy NCIS, etc) where they have a really bad/dark/grainy
> picture, and they clean it up and can make out all the details, read
> license plates, etc.
>
> Now, what I want to know, is this: Is that realistic, or not?

Generally not. Hollywood has not a clue as to how anything in real life
works; photography is no exception (odd, when you realize that photography
is the foundation of their whole economy). Short of using special cameras
and lenses that were specifically designed for intelligence work, such
enhancements are impossible.

It is not enough to say don't believe everything you see on TV. It is
probably more accurate to say don't believe *anything* you see on TV.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 14, 2005 10:45:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

And check out the license plate examples in the animated gif here:
http://www.focusmagic.com/

Looks a bit too good to believe.. (O;
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:42:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:
> There are noise reduction programs that can remove, or at least reduce,
> grain and digital noise quite effectively. Very simple gamma
> adjustments can recover detail from what appear to be deep featureles
> shadows, and more advanced software can perform what appear to be
> miracles in retrieving good images from badly underexposed ones.
>
> There are even ways to `recover` some detail from out of focus images,
> although this is very difficult, needs to use very sophisticated
> algorithms with input of lens characteristics, etc. It can also be
> quite haphazard, with `fake` details appearing that were never there,
> and complex areas often just have too much overlap for it to be of real
> use. As I'm sure folk will say this is not possible (and they are
> partly right!), there's an example of this here, which shows how good
> and bad it can be all at once! Look at the bottom of the page..
>
> http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/Analyzer/
>
>
> And of course if the original file is of very high resolution, you can
> simply zoom in, up until you hit `actual pixel` or `actual grain clump`
> size.. once you get there, further enlargement is not going to
> magically create more usable detail.
>
> Having said all of that, all the examples I have seen in crime
> investigation shows and in movies like `Enemy of the State` have been
> just a little bit on the ridiculous side of reality...
>

While I am sure the supercomputers at the US government installation for
interpretation of images from spy satellites, and reconnaissance
aircraft have some rather astounding abilities, the movie industry leads
one to believe that things can be done which are beyond current
technology. But it's fun.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:44:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:
> <nutto4beanies@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105757601.083814.84310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Hi,
>>I've got kind of an odd question, and it comes from me watching too
>>many crime tv shows. Anyway, I'm sure you've all seen on those crime
>>shows, (CSI, Navy NCIS, etc) where they have a really bad/dark/grainy
>>picture, and they clean it up and can make out all the details, read
>>license plates, etc.
>>
>>Now, what I want to know, is this: Is that realistic, or not?
>
>
> Generally not. Hollywood has not a clue as to how anything in real life
> works; photography is no exception (odd, when you realize that photography
> is the foundation of their whole economy). Short of using special cameras
> and lenses that were specifically designed for intelligence work, such
> enhancements are impossible.
>
> It is not enough to say don't believe everything you see on TV. It is
> probably more accurate to say don't believe *anything* you see on TV.
>
>
On the other hand, if you recall the Tom Clancy movie with the IR
pictures of a raid on a terrorist camp, those were REAL. Rather
amazing, and quite a few years old.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:47:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:
> And check out the license plate examples in the animated gif here:
> http://www.focusmagic.com/
>
> Looks a bit too good to believe.. (O;
>
I am sure that supercomputers used by the government can do much with
license plates. Given that shapes of the numbers and clues from the
original can be combined with actual numbers on record, this isn't
impossible. For the program advertised... I doubt it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 15, 2005 9:53:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:
> <nutto4beanies@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105757601.083814.84310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi,
> > I've got kind of an odd question, and it comes from me watching too
> > many crime tv shows. Anyway, I'm sure you've all seen on those
crime
> > shows, (CSI, Navy NCIS, etc) where they have a really
bad/dark/grainy
> > picture, and they clean it up and can make out all the details,
read
> > license plates, etc.
> >
> > Now, what I want to know, is this: Is that realistic, or not?
>
> Generally not. Hollywood has not a clue as to how anything in real
life
> works; photography is no exception (odd, when you realize that
photography
> is the foundation of their whole economy). Short of using special
cameras
> and lenses that were specifically designed for intelligence work,
such
> enhancements are impossible.
>
> It is not enough to say don't believe everything you see on TV. It is
> probably more accurate to say don't believe *anything* you see on TV.

And "*anything*" clearly includes CBS News, 60 Minutes and Dan Rather.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:48:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The fantasy from hollywood that gets me is the continuous surveillance
satellite. It is a high res one that can identify a car, so it must be
low orbit. But it stays over the area where they are following the car
forever. Real low orbit satellites are over a given area for only a
couple of minutes, time for one or maybe two good shots. They are for
what it looks like today, not what it looks like from minute to minute.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 12:51:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:o K4Gd.6545$d_6.6534@fe07.lga...
> >
> >
> On the other hand, if you recall the Tom Clancy movie with the IR
> pictures of a raid on a terrorist camp, those were REAL. Rather
> amazing, and quite a few years old.

I don't know whether they were real or not, but if real they were taken with
sophisticated special equipment, not enhancements of grainy, underexposed
news photos.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 1:05:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Martin" <metpx3c@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1105800805.530803.303680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > It is not enough to say don't believe everything you see on TV. It is
> > probably more accurate to say don't believe *anything* you see on TV.
>
> And "*anything*" clearly includes CBS News, 60 Minutes and Dan Rather.
>

Especially the latter. Most people who know anything about the news business
have known for decades that this man and his show were frauds. The Wall
Street Journal ran several exposes on him. I have not seen a single episode
that had any degree of accuracy. The forged documents finally did him in,
but none of his other shows were any more fair or accurate. Rather is what
you would call a "news bully," making a living from smearing and
blackmailing other people. Sort of a high-brow Jerry Springer, only without
most of the foul language. Rather's trick was to get you to say something
that could be edited to make it look embarrassing. He was a master at it.

His usual method was to send his minions to threaten you, saying that he was
doing a story on you or your operations, and that this was your chance to
tell your side of the story. Of course it was nothing of the kind. Instead,
he would film the interview, asking innocuous questions designed to elicit
the kind of responses he wanted. Then in editing he would cut in the
questions that everybody else got to hear. The man was a real bastard, no
doubt about it.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 1:07:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I like the part where they press a couple of buttons and change the orbit.

Paul
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 2:13:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

nutto4beanies@yahoo.com wrote:

> Hi,
> I've got kind of an odd question, and it comes from me watching too
> many crime tv shows. Anyway, I'm sure you've all seen on those crime
> shows, (CSI, Navy NCIS, etc) where they have a really bad/dark/grainy
> picture, and they clean it up and can make out all the details, read
> license plates, etc.
>
> Now, what I want to know, is this: Is that realistic, or not? I mean,
> is it actually possible to clean up/enhance a picture that much? I've
> always wondered about this, and I think it would be awesome to have a
> program that could do that, if one even exists....
>
> Anyone got any thoughts on this? I'd love to know of a program that
> could do that.
>
> Thanks...
>
So far there have been a bunch of rather flip comments.
I don't watch CST or any of those, but I have heard it
described. Image restoration is possible and is described
quite well in the open scientific literature, and is available
to everyone.

Look back in this newsgroup for a thread titled
"Image Restoration to improve image detail"
begun January 8.

Here are a couple of pages that illustrate what is possible:

Digital camera photo of a fox:
Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoratio...

Saturn with a Telephoto Lens
http://www.clarkvision.com/astro/saturn.03.02.2004

In general, to increase spatial resolution, you trade
signal-to-noise. There is no free lunch, or infinite increase
in resolution. In general, the better algorithms require
a lot of compute cycles. On the above pages, I show factors
of 2 to 3 improvement. On the first page, it took
about 1.5 hours on my 1.8 GHz pc.

Roger
Photography, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
January 15, 2005 2:40:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
> Look back in this newsgroup for a thread titled
> "Image Restoration to improve image detail"
> begun January 8.


Yes there are several programs mentioned.


>
> In general, to increase spatial resolution, you trade
> signal-to-noise. There is no free lunch, or infinite increase
> in resolution.


Yeah there's even free stuff that's very impressive but if you have a
grainy image, they enhance that too so the dramatic results make images
look awful unless you just use it for slight improvements on perfect
images taken with the very best lens as Roger demonstrates.



chrlz@go.com wrote:
> And check out the license plate examples in the animated gif here:
> http://www.focusmagic.com/
>
> Looks a bit too good to believe.. (O;


You can see the wierd grainy effects on some of these images.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:39:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:o K4Gd.6545$d_6.6534@fe07.lga...
>
>>>
>>On the other hand, if you recall the Tom Clancy movie with the IR
>>pictures of a raid on a terrorist camp, those were REAL. Rather
>>amazing, and quite a few years old.
>
>
> I don't know whether they were real or not, but if real they were taken with
> sophisticated special equipment, not enhancements of grainy, underexposed
> news photos.
>
>
They were taken from an aircraft with sidelooking IR photo equipment,
from about 200 miles away, at least according to government sources who
wanted to know just how they got into the movie.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:39:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:UsdGd.6819$w_1.4691@fe07.lga...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:o K4Gd.6545$d_6.6534@fe07.lga...
> >
> >>>
> >>On the other hand, if you recall the Tom Clancy movie with the IR
> >>pictures of a raid on a terrorist camp, those were REAL. Rather
> >>amazing, and quite a few years old.
> >
> >
> > I don't know whether they were real or not, but if real they were taken
with
> > sophisticated special equipment, not enhancements of grainy,
underexposed
> > news photos.
> >
> >
> They were taken from an aircraft with sidelooking IR photo equipment,
> from about 200 miles away, at least according to government sources who
> wanted to know just how they got into the movie.

Well, that is way cool stuff. I have seen some of this equipment -- it ain't
something that James Bond folds up and carries in his breast pocket! :-)
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:50:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 14 Jan 2005 18:53:21 -0800, nutto4beanies@yahoo.com wrote:

>Is that realistic, or not?

No, definitely not.

>is it actually possible to clean up/enhance a picture that much?

No, not to the degree that these stupid TV shows would have us
believe.

To quote William Shatner, "It's just a TV show!!!"
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:53:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

stauffer@usfamily.net wrote:
> The fantasy from hollywood that gets me is the continuous surveillance
> satellite. It is a high res one that can identify a car, so it must be
> low orbit. But it stays over the area where they are following the car
> forever. Real low orbit satellites are over a given area for only a
> couple of minutes, time for one or maybe two good shots. They are for
> what it looks like today, not what it looks like from minute to minute.
>

A large number of such satellites, some of them mobile, can present a
pretty good image for a reasonable time, but hardly continuous.
And such things are VERY expensive.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:56:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Martin" <metpx3c@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1105800805.530803.303680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>It is not enough to say don't believe everything you see on TV. It is
>>>probably more accurate to say don't believe *anything* you see on TV.
>>
>>And "*anything*" clearly includes CBS News, 60 Minutes and Dan Rather.
>>
>
>
> Especially the latter. Most people who know anything about the news business
> have known for decades that this man and his show were frauds. The Wall
> Street Journal ran several exposes on him. I have not seen a single episode
> that had any degree of accuracy. The forged documents finally did him in,
> but none of his other shows were any more fair or accurate. Rather is what
> you would call a "news bully," making a living from smearing and
> blackmailing other people. Sort of a high-brow Jerry Springer, only without
> most of the foul language. Rather's trick was to get you to say something
> that could be edited to make it look embarrassing. He was a master at it.
>
> His usual method was to send his minions to threaten you, saying that he was
> doing a story on you or your operations, and that this was your chance to
> tell your side of the story. Of course it was nothing of the kind. Instead,
> he would film the interview, asking innocuous questions designed to elicit
> the kind of responses he wanted. Then in editing he would cut in the
> questions that everybody else got to hear. The man was a real bastard, no
> doubt about it.
>
>
Was? I doubt he has reformed. What gets to me is that they fired
several people, but allowed him to resign (in May). Now they say there
was no 'political agenda' to his 'error'. If you believe that, I have
some choice beachfront property outside of Wichita, Kansas to sell you.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:56:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vIdGd.6826$0o2.4978@fe07.lga...
> >
> >
> Was? I doubt he has reformed. What gets to me is that they fired
> several people, but allowed him to resign (in May). Now they say there
> was no 'political agenda' to his 'error'. If you believe that, I have
> some choice beachfront property outside of Wichita, Kansas to sell you.

No, he has not reformed. But he is basically history. Yes, he finally
over-reached himself when he took on the President of the United States. The
fact that he nearly got away with even that is frightening to contemplate.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:56:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:42:42 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>
>While I am sure the supercomputers at the US government installation for
>interpretation of images from spy satellites, and reconnaissance
>aircraft have some rather astounding abilities, the movie industry leads
>one to believe that things can be done which are beyond current
>technology. But it's fun.

I enjoy watching CSI, but only because I get to have a good laugh at
what they do. No offense to the OP, but it really bothers me when
people actually have to ask, "Is this possible?"
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 3:57:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:39:29 -0800, "C J Campbell"
<christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>It is not enough to say don't believe everything you see on TV. It is
>probably more accurate to say don't believe *anything* you see on TV.

Excellently put!
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:04:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

..>
> I enjoy watching CSI, but only because I get to have a good laugh at
> what they do. No offense to the OP, but it really bothers me when
> people actually have to ask, "Is this possible?"


I suppose you worked at Area 51, got fired, and now want to write a book
about the place?
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:04:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Toomanyputters" <rainydays@theswamp.com> wrote in message
news:o x8Gd.22704$dt3.1808710@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> .>
> > I enjoy watching CSI, but only because I get to have a good laugh at
> > what they do. No offense to the OP, but it really bothers me when
> > people actually have to ask, "Is this possible?"
>
>
> I suppose you worked at Area 51, got fired, and now want to write a book
> about the place?

Anybody who actually worked at Area 51 never called it that.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:06:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:47:40 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>chrlz@go.com wrote:
>> And check out the license plate examples in the animated gif here:
>> http://www.focusmagic.com/
>>
>> Looks a bit too good to believe.. (O;
>>
>I am sure that supercomputers used by the government

Oh yes... the old supercomputers + government = completely out of
this world technological capabilities.

Supercomputer, or my desktop Windoz machine, if the data isn't there
to work on, it ain't gonna get done.

Geez... we can't cure cancer, or feed the hungry, but we can see a
pimple on a gnat's ass from 200km away. Yeah... right.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:47:40 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>chrlz@go.com wrote:
>>
>>>And check out the license plate examples in the animated gif here:
>>>http://www.focusmagic.com/
>>>
>>>Looks a bit too good to believe.. (O;
>>>
>>
>>I am sure that supercomputers used by the government
>
>
> Oh yes... the old supercomputers + government = completely out of
> this world technological capabilities.
>
> Supercomputer, or my desktop Windoz machine, if the data isn't there
> to work on, it ain't gonna get done.
>
> Geez... we can't cure cancer, or feed the hungry, but we can see a
> pimple on a gnat's ass from 200km away. Yeah... right.
>
Yes, we can. Ever hear of the Hubble telescope? It can do that, but
has more important things to do. And the technology in it is OLD.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:47:40 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>chrlz@go.com wrote:
>>
>>>And check out the license plate examples in the animated gif here:
>>>http://www.focusmagic.com/
>>>
>>>Looks a bit too good to believe.. (O;
>>>
>>
>>I am sure that supercomputers used by the government
>
>
> Oh yes... the old supercomputers + government = completely out of
> this world technological capabilities.

Yes, they do.

>
> Supercomputer, or my desktop Windoz machine, if the data isn't there
> to work on, it ain't gonna get done.

Because YOUR computer doesn't have access to the data doesn't mean the
data doesn't exist. Information can be taken from more than one source,
which is one way to get more information out of a picture than is
contained in THAT picture. If you will do a bit of research on the
subject, you will discover some really interesting ways to combine data
from more than one source to do some really amazing things.


>
> Geez... we can't cure cancer, or feed the hungry, but we can see a
> pimple on a gnat's ass from 200km away. Yeah... right.

We MIGHT be able to cure cancer now, IF some avenues of research weren't
closed to science, and we can easily feed the hungry, but you wouldn't
like the results, and, yes, we can see the pimple on your ass from 200
MILES away. Believe it!

>


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:06:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"secheese" <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:ns4iu0tnumoevd2ri1cgo4q1dr0hg3nh21@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:47:40 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >chrlz@go.com wrote:
> >> And check out the license plate examples in the animated gif here:
> >> http://www.focusmagic.com/
> >>
> >> Looks a bit too good to believe.. (O;
> >>
> >I am sure that supercomputers used by the government
>
> Oh yes... the old supercomputers + government = completely out of
> this world technological capabilities.
>
> Supercomputer, or my desktop Windoz machine, if the data isn't there
> to work on, it ain't gonna get done.
>
> Geez... we can't cure cancer, or feed the hungry, but we can see a
> pimple on a gnat's ass from 200km away. Yeah... right.

We actually seem to do pretty well at feeding the hungry.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:06:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:
> "secheese" <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:ns4iu0tnumoevd2ri1cgo4q1dr0hg3nh21@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:47:40 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>>>> And check out the license plate examples in the animated gif here:
>>>> http://www.focusmagic.com/
>>>>
>>>> Looks a bit too good to believe.. (O;
>>>>
>>> I am sure that supercomputers used by the government
>>
>> Oh yes... the old supercomputers + government = completely out of
>> this world technological capabilities.
>>
>> Supercomputer, or my desktop Windoz machine, if the data isn't there
>> to work on, it ain't gonna get done.
>>
>> Geez... we can't cure cancer, or feed the hungry, but we can see a
>> pimple on a gnat's ass from 200km away. Yeah... right.
>
> We actually seem to do pretty well at feeding the hungry.

I'll take a double burger, fries, and a chocolate shake.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:09:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:04:20 GMT, "Toomanyputters"
<rainydays@theswamp.com> wrote:

>.>
>> I enjoy watching CSI, but only because I get to have a good laugh at
>> what they do. No offense to the OP, but it really bothers me when
>> people actually have to ask, "Is this possible?"
>
>
>I suppose you worked at Area 51, got fired, and now want to write a book
>about the place?
>

Area 51? ;) 
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:08:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<nutto4beanies@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105757601.083814.84310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I've got kind of an odd question, and it comes from me watching too
> many crime tv shows. Anyway, I'm sure you've all seen on those crime
> shows, (CSI, Navy NCIS, etc) where they have a really bad/dark/grainy
> picture, and they clean it up and can make out all the details, read
> license plates, etc.

Anyone remember that bit in Blade runner?

clem
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:06:33 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>Yes, we can. Ever hear of the Hubble telescope? It can do that, but
>has more important things to do. And the technology in it is OLD.

Hubble is impressive for sure, but it has a viewing resolution of
0.014 arc seconds (1/3600th of a degree). Hardly enough to see a
pimple on a gnats ass at 200km! :) 

Technology will no doubt be mankind's undoing. Don't get me wrong,
I'm not a technophobe. I work with hi-tech "stuff", everyday, for a
living. It's just that I feel technology isn't the be-all-end-all,
and Joe Public often believes we are technologically way beyond where
we really are. I blame TV, movies, naivity, ignorance and a little
bit of wishful thinking, for this.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese commented courteously ...

> Technology will no doubt be mankind's undoing.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not a technophobe. I
> work with hi-tech "stuff", everyday, for a living.
> It's just that I feel technology isn't the
> be-all-end-all

[snip]

Yeah, like in cars, where people and the media repeatedly
bemoan the high prices, yet people and the government want
things like tire pressure sensors to prevent, at best,
only a handful of deaths per year.

I think the number was around 280 in 2003 where an after-
accident investigation showed that one or more tires were
underinflated, but *none* of the accidents were shown to
have actually been *caused* by low tire pressure! But, we
need a technical fix, right? Not!

Ditto for back-up radar or video and SUV electronic
stability control. I think both those things are great,
and for them that has the money, they're fine. SUVs have
been rolling over since the WWII Jeeps with people who
went too fast. Hasn't anyone ever heard of center-of-
gravity? Do they expect a Chevy Suburban to handle like a
Corvette Z06?

I don't want to pay for the 3 examples of rampant
technocracy I mention in this post (to name just 3 that
ring my bell) in every new car I buy just to protect a few
hundred dumb asses that're too stupid to live.

Just one man's opion, YMMV...

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:55:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

secheese wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:06:33 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, we can. Ever hear of the Hubble telescope? It can do that, but
>>has more important things to do. And the technology in it is OLD.
>
>
> Hubble is impressive for sure, but it has a viewing resolution of
> 0.014 arc seconds (1/3600th of a degree). Hardly enough to see a
> pimple on a gnats ass at 200km! :) 
>
> Technology will no doubt be mankind's undoing. Don't get me wrong,
> I'm not a technophobe. I work with hi-tech "stuff", everyday, for a
> living. It's just that I feel technology isn't the be-all-end-all,
> and Joe Public often believes we are technologically way beyond where
> we really are. I blame TV, movies, naivity, ignorance and a little
> bit of wishful thinking, for this.
>
Yes, and if you believe we are ONLY as advanced in some fields as is
publically announced, then you aren't doing your homework. For
instance, do you really believe that the speed record for manned
aircraft was set by an aircraft designed over 50 years ago? Did you
know anything about stealth aircraft before they were put to use?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:55:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
> secheese commented courteously ...
>
>
>>Technology will no doubt be mankind's undoing.
>>Don't get me wrong, I'm not a technophobe. I
>>work with hi-tech "stuff", everyday, for a living.
>>It's just that I feel technology isn't the
>>be-all-end-all
>
>
> [snip]
>
> Yeah, like in cars, where people and the media repeatedly
> bemoan the high prices, yet people and the government want
> things like tire pressure sensors to prevent, at best,
> only a handful of deaths per year.
>
> I think the number was around 280 in 2003 where an after-
> accident investigation showed that one or more tires were
> underinflated, but *none* of the accidents were shown to
> have actually been *caused* by low tire pressure! But, we
> need a technical fix, right? Not!
>
> Ditto for back-up radar or video and SUV electronic
> stability control. I think both those things are great,
> and for them that has the money, they're fine. SUVs have
> been rolling over since the WWII Jeeps with people who
> went too fast. Hasn't anyone ever heard of center-of-
> gravity? Do they expect a Chevy Suburban to handle like a
> Corvette Z06?
>
> I don't want to pay for the 3 examples of rampant
> technocracy I mention in this post (to name just 3 that
> ring my bell) in every new car I buy just to protect a few
> hundred dumb asses that're too stupid to live.
>
> Just one man's opion, YMMV...
>
You mean like air bags and child safety seat attachments? My car has
both, and I no use for either. A good shoulder harness would cut
fatalities 10 times better than air bags.
I would like to have backup radar, and an IR HUD, and electronic
stability control, and ditch the air bags. But I would also like to be
able to lower my power windows without turning on the ignition switch,
would MUCH prefer the horn NOT be enabled unless the switch was ON, and
can't see why I should listen to a warning when the door is opened
unless the driver is out of his seat, and then for only 10 seconds!
Sigh.
Gee, don't get me started on CARS.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:55:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter commented courteously ...

> You mean like air bags and child safety seat
> attachments? My car has both, and I no use for
> either. A good shoulder harness would cut
> fatalities 10 times better than air bags.

I think I'll keep airbags for frontal collisions. I don't
opt for the side airbags, which the Feds will soon
mandate, because I don't see a "clear and present danger"
with benefits outweighing cost.

Of course, frontal airbags *require* seat belts and knee
blockers to work correctly. As to their value, I have
three friends who were involved in either full or near
head-on collisions at speeds over 50 mph. In the
1960's/70's, these type accidents were termed "non-
survivable". Yet, my friends escaped with nothing more
than bruises on their shoulders and abdomen from the
belts. Their cars, of course, were totaled. Thanks also to
the superior energy absorbing abilities of modern cars!

I did not bemoan the demise of car-maker infant and child
seats, but I do highly approve of child safety seat
attachments. The demonstrably save lives by ensuring that
a child seat can actually withstand a collision without
becoming a missle in the car, child tethered to it.

I'm not so sanguine about the extra cost of sensors in the
front seat to prevent the dumb asses from putting their
kids in front of a dash-mounted air bag (probably without
belts) and crushing their skulls from the blast.

As to seat belts, they are a proven life saver, particular
in conjunction with air bags. But, the 3-point belts in
use for the past 30 years probably should be replaced by
more modern 4-point belts, as are being pioneered by Volvo
and others. They aren't nearly as convenient as 3-point,
but prevent people from rotating out of the belt in an
angled collisions, missing the air bag, and breaking both
legs and the shoulders.

> I would also like to be able to lower my power
> windows without turning on the ignition switch,

Yes, me, too.

> would MUCH prefer the horn NOT be enabled unless the
> switch was ON

No, I've had occasions where I wanted to warn someone
approaching my car on foot or with a car when I didn't
have the ignition on (I was a passenger).

> Gee, don't get me started on CARS.

OK.

--
ATM, aka Jerry
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 8:57:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:wuadnTE4BsVL5XTcRVn-ug@giganews.com...
> >
> > We actually seem to do pretty well at feeding the hungry.
>
> I'll take a double burger, fries, and a chocolate shake.

You are right. We actually seem to do far too well.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:20:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"George E. Cawthon" <GeorgeC-Boise@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:cgkGd.11831$S11.2779@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > I am still waiting for Hollywood to show a Nikon D70's LCD screen saying
> > "THIRTY SECONDS TO DETONATION!...29...28...27..."
> >
> >
> Actually they do think about it. The strangest part of Bond
> movies is that no one ever just shoots him. Always tie him
> up or lock him in a room where a laser or bomb is supposed
> to eventually do him in. Shoot, Damn it, Shoot.

Well, they do try to shoot him. The problem is that it is apparently
impossible. Even if there is just a railing with thin metal posts three feet
apart between Bond and the bad guys, the bullets will always hit the railing
or posts instead of Bond.

Some interesting reading is http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/index.html.
Take a look at the article "The Day James Bond Died, or When Reality
Collided with Hollywood" on that site.
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:35:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:UsdGd.6819$w_1.4691@fe07.lga...
>
>>C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:o K4Gd.6545$d_6.6534@fe07.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On the other hand, if you recall the Tom Clancy movie with the IR
>>>>pictures of a raid on a terrorist camp, those were REAL. Rather
>>>>amazing, and quite a few years old.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't know whether they were real or not, but if real they were taken
>
> with
>
>>>sophisticated special equipment, not enhancements of grainy,
>
> underexposed
>
>>>news photos.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>They were taken from an aircraft with sidelooking IR photo equipment,
>>from about 200 miles away, at least according to government sources who
>>wanted to know just how they got into the movie.
>
>
> Well, that is way cool stuff. I have seen some of this equipment -- it ain't
> something that James Bond folds up and carries in his breast pocket! :-)
>
>
Nope, not something one can carry in his shirt pocket, for sure.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:39:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:vIdGd.6826$0o2.4978@fe07.lga...
>
>>>
>>Was? I doubt he has reformed. What gets to me is that they fired
>>several people, but allowed him to resign (in May). Now they say there
>>was no 'political agenda' to his 'error'. If you believe that, I have
>>some choice beachfront property outside of Wichita, Kansas to sell you.
>
>
> No, he has not reformed. But he is basically history. Yes, he finally
> over-reached himself when he took on the President of the United States. The
> fact that he nearly got away with even that is frightening to contemplate.
>
>
I promise you that anyone old enough to remember IBM Selectric
typewriters, and the print they put out wouldn't be fooled for one
second by those phony memos, and that most certainly DOES include Mr.
RAther. Just how he thought he could get by with that is beyond belief.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 10:39:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:BCjGd.6915$3n7.1452@fe07.lga...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:vIdGd.6826$0o2.4978@fe07.lga...
> >
> >>>
> >>Was? I doubt he has reformed. What gets to me is that they fired
> >>several people, but allowed him to resign (in May). Now they say there
> >>was no 'political agenda' to his 'error'. If you believe that, I have
> >>some choice beachfront property outside of Wichita, Kansas to sell you.
> >
> >
> > No, he has not reformed. But he is basically history. Yes, he finally
> > over-reached himself when he took on the President of the United States.
The
> > fact that he nearly got away with even that is frightening to
contemplate.
> >
> >
> I promise you that anyone old enough to remember IBM Selectric
> typewriters, and the print they put out wouldn't be fooled for one
> second by those phony memos, and that most certainly DOES include Mr.
> RAther. Just how he thought he could get by with that is beyond belief.

I actually used to have one of those. I later converted it to a printer for
my Apple II+. Boy, that seems a long time ago.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 12:41:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It's pure Hollywood FICTION.

The movie and TV industries are part of the ENTERTAINMENT Industry ... and
they have **never** let the real world or truth or accuracy stand in the
way of a good story.

also asked:
"...Anyone got any thoughts on this? I'd love to know of a program that
could do that. ..."

Do a search on the string
Image Processing

Or check out a program called 'Focus Magic.' None of these programs will
match the extent of Hollywood's recovering the image of a whole license
plate from a single pixel, but several programs actually can make some
(relatively low level ... by comparison) improvements to most images.



<nutto4beanies@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105757601.083814.84310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
> I've got kind of an odd question, and it comes from me watching too
> many crime tv shows. Anyway, I'm sure you've all seen on those crime
> shows, (CSI, Navy NCIS, etc) where they have a really bad/dark/grainy
> picture, and they clean it up and can make out all the details, read
> license plates, etc.
>
> Now, what I want to know, is this: Is that realistic, or not? I mean,
> is it actually possible to clean up/enhance a picture that much? I've
> always wondered about this, and I think it would be awesome to have a
> program that could do that, if one even exists....
>
> Anyone got any thoughts on this? I'd love to know of a program that
> could do that.
>
> Thanks...
>
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 12:52:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Rant Mode>
Yes ... his obvious bias and 'political agenda' has been visible for at
least twenty-five years.

I also "wonder" about CBS's allowing him to resign (in May) ... but**only**
from the "CBS News" operation.

FWIW: Apparently Rather *still* will retain some involvement (and possibly
control) with the "60 Minutes" program/operation.

Good reason (IMHO) to seek out **other** sources. Again FWIW: I intend to
continue my long established practice of **not** watching any "news"
program produced by ... or attributed to ... CBS. For a long time "Dan
Rather" has caused an involuntary twitching of my "clicker finger" ... and
that will not change!
</Rant Mode>







"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vIdGd.6826$0o2.4978@fe07.lga...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > "Martin" <metpx3c@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1105800805.530803.303680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>>It is not enough to say don't believe everything you see on TV. It is
> >>>probably more accurate to say don't believe *anything* you see on TV.
> >>
> >>And "*anything*" clearly includes CBS News, 60 Minutes and Dan Rather.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Especially the latter. Most people who know anything about the news
business
> > have known for decades that this man and his show were frauds. The Wall
> > Street Journal ran several exposes on him. I have not seen a single
episode
> > that had any degree of accuracy. The forged documents finally did him
in,
> > but none of his other shows were any more fair or accurate. Rather is
what
> > you would call a "news bully," making a living from smearing and
> > blackmailing other people. Sort of a high-brow Jerry Springer, only
without
> > most of the foul language. Rather's trick was to get you to say
something
> > that could be edited to make it look embarrassing. He was a master at
it.
> >
> > His usual method was to send his minions to threaten you, saying that
he was
> > doing a story on you or your operations, and that this was your chance
to
> > tell your side of the story. Of course it was nothing of the kind.
Instead,
> > he would film the interview, asking innocuous questions designed to
elicit
> > the kind of responses he wanted. Then in editing he would cut in the
> > questions that everybody else got to hear. The man was a real bastard,
no
> > doubt about it.
> >
> >
> Was? I doubt he has reformed. What gets to me is that they fired
> several people, but allowed him to resign (in May). Now they say there
> was no 'political agenda' to his 'error'. If you believe that, I have
> some choice beachfront property outside of Wichita, Kansas to sell you.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 12:52:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"RSD99" <rsdwla.NOSPAM@gte.net> wrote in message
news:gggGd.2276$c%6.889@trnddc03...
> <Rant Mode>
> Yes ... his obvious bias and 'political agenda' has been visible for at
> least twenty-five years.
>
> I also "wonder" about CBS's allowing him to resign (in May) ...
but**only**
> from the "CBS News" operation.
>
> FWIW: Apparently Rather *still* will retain some involvement (and possibly
> control) with the "60 Minutes" program/operation.

It isn't just Rather. All the networks carry similar shows with about the
same ethical standards. We all still remember how NBC had to attach
fireworks to GMC trucks in order to demonstrate how dangerous the gas tanks
were.

Hey, Mickey Rooney, bless his heart, is so concerned about his loved ones
that he carries one of those rip-off life insurance policies. He is so
sincere about it that I almost forget that the man is a multi-gazillionaire
whose heirs couldn't possibly care less about a $10,000 insurance policy.
Yet Rooney comes across as a guy who is deeply concerned about this widow's
mite, as if the policy was the only thing in the world between him and the
wolf at the door.

Wilford Brimley, Jr., is another one cast from the same mold. Hey, sincerity
is everything. Once you can fake that you have it made. I call it the Arthur
Godfrey school of marketing.

Reporting the news is a lost art. No one knows how to do it any more.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:05:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A couple of points that I hope you will find to be relevant:

First:
I have read your postings and web pages for quite a while now. I am
honestly impressed with your knowledge and ability. [And ... some pretty
good photography ...]

I have also use a couple of the programs such as 'Focus Magic' ... and been
impressed. However, I have not been able to try the "Adaptive
Richardson-Lucy" method, since I do not (currently) have any software that
could implement that process ....but "it's on the list" of things to check
out in the future.

Second:
While the software to make incremental improvement(s) in image sharpness
and resolution are available, and work essentially "as advertised" (as
shown by your referenced web site and newsgroup postings), the image
recovery and/or manipulation usually shown on programs such as CSI Miami
and CSI NY usually is from several orders of magnitude improvement to many
orders of magnitude improvement. The "effect" is usually blown all out of
proportion ... more like recovering a **sharp** **clear** image of a
license plate from three or five pixels of information.

The "stuff" you have posted is *real* ... the "stuff* that "The Hollywood
Entertainment Industry" is routinely broadcasting on TV shows and Movies is
total fiction ... total hokum ... total "movie special effects!"





"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote in
message news:41E95D67.4050104@qwest.net...
> nutto4beanies@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I've got kind of an odd question, and it comes from me watching too
> > many crime tv shows. Anyway, I'm sure you've all seen on those crime
> > shows, (CSI, Navy NCIS, etc) where they have a really bad/dark/grainy
> > picture, and they clean it up and can make out all the details, read
> > license plates, etc.
> >
> > Now, what I want to know, is this: Is that realistic, or not? I mean,
> > is it actually possible to clean up/enhance a picture that much? I've
> > always wondered about this, and I think it would be awesome to have a
> > program that could do that, if one even exists....
> >
> > Anyone got any thoughts on this? I'd love to know of a program that
> > could do that.
> >
> > Thanks...
> >
> So far there have been a bunch of rather flip comments.
> I don't watch CST or any of those, but I have heard it
> described. Image restoration is possible and is described
> quite well in the open scientific literature, and is available
> to everyone.
>
> Look back in this newsgroup for a thread titled
> "Image Restoration to improve image detail"
> begun January 8.
>
> Here are a couple of pages that illustrate what is possible:
>
> Digital camera photo of a fox:
> Image Restoration Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoratio...
>
> Saturn with a Telephoto Lens
> http://www.clarkvision.com/astro/saturn.03.02.2004
>
> In general, to increase spatial resolution, you trade
> signal-to-noise. There is no free lunch, or infinite increase
> in resolution. In general, the better algorithms require
> a lot of compute cycles. On the above pages, I show factors
> of 2 to 3 improvement. On the first page, it took
> about 1.5 hours on my 1.8 GHz pc.
>
> Roger
> Photography, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:05:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:
> A couple of points that I hope you will find to be relevant:
>
> First:
> I have read your postings and web pages for quite a while now. I am
> honestly impressed with your knowledge and ability. [And ... some pretty
> good photography ...]
thanks
>
> I have also use a couple of the programs such as 'Focus Magic' ... and been
> impressed. However, I have not been able to try the "Adaptive
> Richardson-Lucy" method, since I do not (currently) have any software that
> could implement that process ....but "it's on the list" of things to check
> out in the future.
>
> Second:
> While the software to make incremental improvement(s) in image sharpness
> and resolution are available, and work essentially "as advertised" (as
> shown by your referenced web site and newsgroup postings), the image
> recovery and/or manipulation usually shown on programs such as CSI Miami
> and CSI NY usually is from several orders of magnitude improvement to many
> orders of magnitude improvement. The "effect" is usually blown all out of
> proportion ... more like recovering a **sharp** **clear** image of a
> license plate from three or five pixels of information.
>
> The "stuff" you have posted is *real* ... the "stuff* that "The Hollywood
> Entertainment Industry" is routinely broadcasting on TV shows and Movies is
> total fiction ... total hokum ... total "movie special effects!"

Very good points!
Roger
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:38:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <ns4iu0tnumoevd2ri1cgo4q1dr0hg3nh21@4ax.com>,
secheese <sec@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>Oh yes... the old supercomputers + government = completely out of
>this world technological capabilities.
>
>Supercomputer, or my desktop Windoz machine, if the data isn't there
>to work on, it ain't gonna get done.

The fonts on license plates and their spacing are known. It is not
exactly black magic to determine how each of them would blur. Just
takes a lot of super-computer time.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 4:48:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>
>> There are noise reduction programs that can remove, or at least reduce,
>> grain and digital noise quite effectively. Very simple gamma
>> adjustments can recover detail from what appear to be deep featureles
>> shadows, and more advanced software can perform what appear to be
>> miracles in retrieving good images from badly underexposed ones.
>>
>> There are even ways to `recover` some detail from out of focus images,
>> although this is very difficult, needs to use very sophisticated
>> algorithms with input of lens characteristics, etc. It can also be
>> quite haphazard, with `fake` details appearing that were never there,
>> and complex areas often just have too much overlap for it to be of real
>> use. As I'm sure folk will say this is not possible (and they are
>> partly right!), there's an example of this here, which shows how good
>> and bad it can be all at once! Look at the bottom of the page..
>>
>> http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/Analyzer/
>>
>>
>> And of course if the original file is of very high resolution, you can
>> simply zoom in, up until you hit `actual pixel` or `actual grain clump`
>> size.. once you get there, further enlargement is not going to
>> magically create more usable detail.
>>
>> Having said all of that, all the examples I have seen in crime
>> investigation shows and in movies like `Enemy of the State` have been
>> just a little bit on the ridiculous side of reality...
>>
>
> While I am sure the supercomputers at the US government installation for
> interpretation of images from spy satellites, and reconnaissance
> aircraft have some rather astounding abilities, the movie industry leads
> one to believe that things can be done which are beyond current
> technology. But it's fun.
>
>
Yep, it is fun. But it is called fiction for a reason. And
other movies are based on books of fantasy, which is also
called fantasy for a reason.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 5:00:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> chrlz@go.com wrote:
>
>> And check out the license plate examples in the animated gif here:
>> http://www.focusmagic.com/
>>
>> Looks a bit too good to believe.. (O;
>>
> I am sure that supercomputers used by the government can do much with
> license plates. Given that shapes of the numbers and clues from the
> original can be combined with actual numbers on record, this isn't
> impossible. For the program advertised... I doubt it.
>
>

I agree. The Gif moves a bit fast for me, but on the second
license plate the some of lines on the readable plate don;t
seem to correspond with the identifiable lines on the mushy
plate (if you see a vertical line in the mush, it better be
there in the improved version). That's about as believable
as a satellite picture that sees a car license plate number
in the middle the Wall Street area. It doesn't take a
genius to recognize that the view has to be nearly vertical
because the car is surround on all sides by tall buildings,
so the only thing you would see is the top of the license
plate holder.
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 5:18:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:43:43 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:

>yes, we can see the pimple on your ass from 200
>MILES away. Believe it!

Hubble can't even see the LEM (and it's big) on the surface of the
moon (and it's close). Believe what you like. And BTW... CSI is
coming on... Gotta run! ;) 

"Hubble's keenest look is 27 meters (30 yards) of actual Moon distance
or about a third the size of a football field. The three-meter lunar
rover wouldn't show up even as a speck. Nor would any other abandoned
equipment." - Eugene Cernan [NASA] when asked about Hubble
resolution.
!