Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Most Intelligent Interpolation Software

Reply
Thread Tools

Most Intelligent Interpolation Software

 
 
T. Parker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2009
Hi,

What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
resolution. Of course we can't extract more details
than the original but the software eliminating all the
jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
I need at will.

Parker

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2009
T. Parker <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Hi,


> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
> you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
> resolution. Of course we can't extract more details
> than the original but the software eliminating all the
> jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
> of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
> I need at will.


I'm not sure what you mean by "come alive". As far as good upsampling
of size with good intelligent interpolation is concerned, I don't know
what is considered the best, and there may well be debate about that,
but Irfanview is often considered to be among the best, and a lot
better than Photoshop. Note that it provides you with a list of many
different upsampling algorithms which you can use, and which is the
best may vary with the particular photograph. This is a particular
concern of Irfan's, and the list gets updated as good new algorithms
are published, so make sure you're using a current version.

If this is an ongoing serious concern of yours you should probably
stop thinking in terms of programs and study the discussions and
comparative reviews of the different algorithms, and then find out
which programs feature those you prefer.

If the original already has jagged edges due to oversharpening etc.,
then you may need to do something about that first before trying to
upsample it, because software can't tell the difference between real
image detail and artefacts.

--
Chris Malcolm



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Don Stauffer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2009
T. Parker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
> you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
> resolution. Of course we can't extract more details
> than the original but the software eliminating all the
> jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
> of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
> I need at will.
>
> Parker
>


I don't know if it still does, but several versions ago Paint Shop Pro
used to let you add your own algorithm. I never tried this, so I don't
know how easy it was. Again, I do not know if the latest version allows
this, but I know it it gives you a choice of two or three canned ones.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Marco Tedaldi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2009
T. Parker schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
> and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
> you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
> old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
> resolution.


You're not serious, are you?

> Of course we can't extract more details
> than the original but the software eliminating all the
> jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
> of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
> I need at will.
>

This can be done by almost any scaling algorithm. You migh want to take
a look at GreyCstoration.
Demo under: http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycsto...stration.shtml
Go to the bottom of the page. Maybe this is what you want.

kruemi

--
Agfa isolette, EOS 40D
http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
And a cool timekiller: http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708
 
Reply With Quote
 
T. Parker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2009
On Apr 4, 8:23*pm, Marco Tedaldi <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> T. Parker schrieb:
>
> > Hi,

>
> > What is the image editing software with the most intelligent
> > and sophisticated interpolation technology available that
> > you have encountered or heard of? One that can make
> > old 640x480 pictures come alive in 10 megapixels
> > resolution.

>
> You're not serious, are you?
>
> > Of course we can't extract more details
> > than the original but the software eliminating all the
> > jagged edges, etc. Does this software cost thousands
> > of dollars? Mention it too because I can get any software
> > I need at will.

>
> This can be done by almost any scaling algorithm. You migh want to take
> a look at GreyCstoration.
> Demo under:http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycsto...stration.shtml
> Go to the bottom of the page. Maybe this is what you want.
>
> kruemi
>
> --
> Agfa isolette, EOS 40Dhttp://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
> And a cool timekiller:http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708


I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
like the image processor to make the text
darker turning it into 300 dpi. This is possible
because in texts and fonts, the letters have
absolute contrasts against the background.
Any idea what program I need? Also what
other newsgroup that specifically attend to
image editing besides this which seems to
be photo related only. Thanks

Parker
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jürgen Exner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2009
"T. Parker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Apr 4, 8:23*pm, Marco Tedaldi <(E-Mail Removed)>
>I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
>like the image processor to make the text
>darker turning it into 300 dpi.


That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
5000DPI nowadays.

Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
a JPEG.

jue
 
Reply With Quote
 
T. Parker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2009
On Apr 4, 8:41*pm, Jürgen Exner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "T. Parker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Apr 4, 8:23*pm, Marco Tedaldi <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
> >like the image processor to make the text
> >darker turning it into 300 dpi.

>
> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
> 5000DPI nowadays.
>
> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
> a JPEG.
>
> jue


Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
from google books. When printing on a
8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
72. If I can find a program that can make
the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
Get the idea?

Parker
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Larter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2009
T. Parker wrote:
> On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "T. Parker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
>>> like the image processor to make the text
>>> darker turning it into 300 dpi.

>> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
>> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
>> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
>> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
>> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
>> 5000DPI nowadays.
>>
>> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
>> a JPEG.
>>
>> jue

>
> Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
> letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
> from google books. When printing on a
> 8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
> 72. If I can find a program that can make
> the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
> then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
> Get the idea?


What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
T. Parker
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2009
On Apr 4, 10:46*pm, Bob Larter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> T. Parker wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> "T. Parker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >>> I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
> >>> like the image processor to make the text
> >>> darker turning it into 300 dpi.
> >> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
> >> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
> >> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
> >> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
> >> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
> >> 5000DPI nowadays.

>
> >> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
> >> a JPEG.

>
> >> jue

>
> > Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
> > letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
> > from google books. When printing on a
> > 8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
> > 72. If I can find a program that can make
> > the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
> > then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
> > Get the idea?

>
> What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
> * make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.
>
> --
> * * W
> * . | ,. w , * "Some people are alive only because
> * *\|/ *\|/ * * it is illegal to kill them." * *Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
You print it at 300 dpi.

Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
72 dpi.

However, if you scan a book at 72 dpi, and you
can image process the text or fonts to make it
increase in density. Then it's like upgrading
the image to become 300 dpi equivalently
speaking. This won't work in photos because
you can't add information that is not there,
but in texts or fonts, you can add information
by giving more density to it. Then the final
print of it would match the one scanned at
300 dpi (because after you get the 72 dpi
book image, you add information to the
texts or fonts making it look like you scanned
it at 300 dpi).

Of course, one can just scan it at 300 dpi
in the first place, but in the google books
where the final image is only 72 dpi, you
can add post image processing to improve
the quality and density of the texts or fonts
to make it equal to a 300 dpi scanned image
(sorta).

Parker
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2009
T. Parker wrote:
> On Apr 4, 10:46 pm, Bob Larter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> T. Parker wrote:
>>> On Apr 4, 8:41 pm, Jürgen Exner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> "T. Parker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 4, 8:23 pm, Marco Tedaldi <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> I got documents in jpeg that is only 72 dpi. I'd
>>>>> like the image processor to make the text
>>>>> darker turning it into 300 dpi.
>>>> That number in a JPEG file is totally meaningless because the dot
>>>> density (DPI) is determined only if and when that photo or document is
>>>> produced on a _PHYSICAL_ medium like e.g. a monitor or a piece of paper.
>>>> And at that moment the density is recomputed anyway by the appropriate
>>>> driver for the specific hardware, like some photo printers go up to
>>>> 5000DPI nowadays.
>>>> Therefore there is neither need nor benefit in changing the DPI value in
>>>> a JPEG.
>>>> jue
>>> Well. The contents of my jpegs are texts or
>>> letters, alphabeths, numbers only extracted
>>> from google books. When printing on a
>>> 8 x 11.5" paper, the effective dpi is only
>>> 72. If I can find a program that can make
>>> the text darker by filling it up with blacks,
>>> then it can become 300 dpi when printed.
>>> Get the idea?

>> What you're saying makes no sense. Changing the density of the text will
>> make no difference whatever to the DPI of the image.
>>
>> --
>> W
>> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
>> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
>> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

>
> It's like this. Supposed you scan a book at 300 dpi.
> You print it at 300 dpi.
>
> Now if you scan a book at 72 dpi, you print it at
> 72 dpi.
>
> However, if you scan a book at 72 dpi, and you
> can image process the text or fonts to make it
> increase in density. Then it's like upgrading
> the image to become 300 dpi equivalently
> speaking. This won't work in photos because
> you can't add information that is not there,
> but in texts or fonts, you can add information
> by giving more density to it. Then the final
> print of it would match the one scanned at
> 300 dpi (because after you get the 72 dpi
> book image, you add information to the
> texts or fonts making it look like you scanned
> it at 300 dpi).
>
> Of course, one can just scan it at 300 dpi
> in the first place, but in the google books
> where the final image is only 72 dpi, you
> can add post image processing to improve
> the quality and density of the texts or fonts
> to make it equal to a 300 dpi scanned image


You really need to grok the diff. between pixels and dots.

You scan at a dot rate, and 72-300 are extremely low. What you end up
with is something in pixels, with 300 ppi being high quality if the
underlying input is also HQ. When you send to a printer, the driver
thereof converts the ppi info into how many dpi's to lay down. Again,
300 dpi is a low res. print, regardless of the quality of the input.

But JPEGs of text is plain stupid, unless a small plaque in a web page.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
most software jobs are software maintenance rather than new development? apngss@yahoo.com C Programming 131 11-12-2005 07:23 PM
most software jobs are software maintenance rather than new development? apngss@yahoo.com Java 124 11-12-2005 07:23 PM
most software jobs are software maintenance rather than new development? apngss@yahoo.com C++ 134 11-12-2005 07:23 PM
[OT - intelligent debate:)] Interesting thoughts on the effect of open source software and business. Waylon Kenning NZ Computing 10 11-24-2004 04:46 AM
Extensis pxl SmartScale vs. S-spline Pro (interpolation software) Brute Force Digital Photography 1 02-13-2004 04:15 PM



Advertisments