High resolution...through digital interpolation...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Des, Apr 5, 2005.

  1. Des

    Des Guest

    My camera takes photos in normal resolution but claims to be able to take
    finer photos at a higher pixel-rate through "digital interpolation".
    Surely that's just stretching the image and not worth doing?
    Can't I improve the image to the same degree later using filters in Corel
    Photopaint?

    Is there any real advantage in terms of image quality between an image
    that's been digitally interpolated to a higher resolution?
    It's no substitute for a higher resolution CCD in the camera is it?

    D.
     
    Des, Apr 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Des

    Larry Guest

    In article <d2ugk2$psk$>,
    says...
    > My camera takes photos in normal resolution but claims to be able to take
    > finer photos at a higher pixel-rate through "digital interpolation".
    > Surely that's just stretching the image and not worth doing?
    > Can't I improve the image to the same degree later using filters in Corel
    > Photopaint?
    >
    > Is there any real advantage in terms of image quality between an image
    > that's been digitally interpolated to a higher resolution?
    > It's no substitute for a higher resolution CCD in the camera is it?
    >
    > D.
    >
    >
    >


    On some cameras the improvement is there but only slight, on others its just
    an up-sizing that gives you a bigger picture, but not a better one.

    Fuji makes several that "interpolate upward" and on the S7000 there is
    USUALLY some improvement, but the file is twice as big, but NOT 2 times
    better. (at any rate, doubling the pixels dosent double the quality anyway,
    even if you increase the sensor count, twice as many isnt twice as good, only
    twice as big).



    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Apr 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 17:07:15 +0000, Des wrote:

    > My camera takes photos in normal resolution but claims to be able to take
    > finer photos at a higher pixel-rate through "digital interpolation".
    > Surely that's just stretching the image and not worth doing?
    > Can't I improve the image to the same degree later using filters in Corel
    > Photopaint?
    >
    > Is there any real advantage in terms of image quality between an image
    > that's been digitally interpolated to a higher resolution?
    > It's no substitute for a higher resolution CCD in the camera is it?
    >
    > D.


    There's a simple rule on processing information
    (photo/video/audi) digitally:

    garbage in = garbage out

    It's as simple as that. Any pixel that was not produced by light hitting
    the sensor and having its colour properly registered, is not a real pixel.
    Sure it may be there, but it doesn't represent any visual information that
    was present in the scene when the photo was taken. It was calculated after
    the fact and therefore it is artificial.

    There is absolutely nothing that a digital process can do after the
    picture was taken to add real pixels. It is simply impossible. Now of
    course there are plenty of sharpening tricks that create a pretty good
    illusion of detail on interpolated images. They're nothing more than
    illusions though and you can only go a certain length before the fact that
    your pixels are fake starts showing. If the camera gives you all the
    pixels it actually captured, then it is in no way capable of more than
    good interpolating on your PC.. like Photopaint.

    In practice you can usually interpolate up to 125% or even 150% of the
    original size, apply a sharpening filter and end up with a decent print.
    The result however is no substitute for a higher real resolution.

    I see this a lot on really cheap desktop scanners. They claim to go up to
    14400dpi while their optics start to struggle beyond 600dpi. Years ago I
    bought a $3000,- flatbed scanner that had lesser specs than my neighbor's
    $100 scanner, at least when we compared the boxes they came in. Turned out
    that 'my' 1000dpi. was a lot sharper than 'his'. All the result of
    interpolation and good optics.

    Bas
     
    Bas v.d. Wiel, Apr 5, 2005
    #3
  4. Des

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Des writes:

    > My camera takes photos in normal resolution but claims to be able to take
    > finer photos at a higher pixel-rate through "digital interpolation".
    > Surely that's just stretching the image and not worth doing?


    Correct.

    > Can't I improve the image to the same degree later using filters in Corel
    > Photopaint?


    You can't improve an image through any type of manipulation. You will
    never have better quality than the image had when originally recorded.
    Interpolation is the creation of an optical illusion; it does not
    improve real image quality.

    > Is there any real advantage in terms of image quality between an image
    > that's been digitally interpolated to a higher resolution?


    No.

    > It's no substitute for a higher resolution CCD in the camera is it?


    No, it's not.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 5, 2005
    #4
  5. Des

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Larry writes:

    > On some cameras the improvement is there but only slight, on others its just
    > an up-sizing that gives you a bigger picture, but not a better one.


    There is never an improvement.

    > Fuji makes several that "interpolate upward" and on the S7000 there is
    > USUALLY some improvement ...


    There is never any improvement. It's a mathematical impossibility.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
     
    Mxsmanic, Apr 5, 2005
    #5
  6. Des

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Des wrote:
    > My camera takes photos in normal resolution but claims to be able to take
    > finer photos at a higher pixel-rate through "digital interpolation".
    > Surely that's just stretching the image and not worth doing?
    > Can't I improve the image to the same degree later using filters in Corel
    > Photopaint?
    >
    > Is there any real advantage in terms of image quality between an image
    > that's been digitally interpolated to a higher resolution?
    > It's no substitute for a higher resolution CCD in the camera is it?
    >
    > D.
    >
    >

    It is marketing, just like 'digital zoom'. Many 'enhanced digital
    zooms' do basically the same thing, interpolating to a larger size, then
    cropping.
    It's mostly smoke and mirrors, but the pictures usually DO look
    smoother, just not more detailed.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 5, 2005
    #6
  7. Des

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Larry writes:
    >
    >
    >>On some cameras the improvement is there but only slight, on others its just
    >>an up-sizing that gives you a bigger picture, but not a better one.

    >
    >
    > There is never an improvement.
    >
    >
    >>Fuji makes several that "interpolate upward" and on the S7000 there is
    >>USUALLY some improvement ...

    >
    >
    > There is never any improvement. It's a mathematical impossibility.
    >

    There is an 'apparent' improvement, since 'jaggies' are artificially
    reduced.

    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 5, 2005
    #7
  8. Des

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    > Des writes:
    >
    >
    >>My camera takes photos in normal resolution but claims to be able to take
    >>finer photos at a higher pixel-rate through "digital interpolation".
    >>Surely that's just stretching the image and not worth doing?

    >
    >
    > Correct.
    >
    >
    >>Can't I improve the image to the same degree later using filters in Corel
    >>Photopaint?

    >
    >
    > You can't improve an image through any type of manipulation. You will
    > never have better quality than the image had when originally recorded.
    > Interpolation is the creation of an optical illusion; it does not
    > improve real image quality.
    >
    >
    >>Is there any real advantage in terms of image quality between an image
    >>that's been digitally interpolated to a higher resolution?

    >
    >
    > No.
    >
    >
    >>It's no substitute for a higher resolution CCD in the camera is it?

    >
    >
    > No, it's not.
    >


    Sigh.
    Ok, let's start a firestorm here.
    IF you have taken a picture at, say 4mp, and the picture has a lot of
    sharp lines, some at angles to the horizon, then you CAN get a better
    looking picture if you interpolate to a larger size, but ONLY because
    the interpolation algorithm is able to insert pictures that are the same
    as what would have been captured by a higher resolution sensor. They
    aren't 'real', but they end up in the same place as a real one would be,
    so the difference is rather more theoretical than practical.

    That said, the utility of this kind of interpolation is limited, and
    will rarely give you noticeably better results than just processing the
    picture with Photoshop.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 5, 2005
    #8
  9. Des

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Larry writes:
    >
    > > On some cameras the improvement is there but only slight, on others its just
    > > an up-sizing that gives you a bigger picture, but not a better one.

    >
    > There is never an improvement.
    >
    > > Fuji makes several that "interpolate upward" and on the S7000 there is
    > > USUALLY some improvement ...

    >
    > There is never any improvement. It's a mathematical impossibility.
    >
    >



    Well its wonderful that you know everything there is to know about a camera
    you dont own, havent tried, and dont know shit about.

    There is SOMETIMES, an aparent increse in picture detail with the Fuji S7000.
    Does it make a 12mp image YES! Does it have 12mp of resolution? NO! Does it
    sometimes improve the aparent resolution? YES! Even some reviewers say that
    SOMETIMES it works, however, nobody that I've read recommends it, and niether
    do I, so whats your problem????? Fuji sells it as a 6mp Camera (Thats what it
    says on the box it came in.

    Personally, I use it in 6mp mode, and used that way it takes good pictures.

    Sometimes though, when Im shooting RAW with it, I let the software do it both
    ways, then use the picture that looks better, and SOMETIMES the interpolated
    image looks better.




    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
     
    Larry, Apr 5, 2005
    #9
  10. Des

    Tony Guest

    It is advertising bull. There is no such thing.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    "Des" <> wrote in message
    news:d2ugk2$psk$...
    > My camera takes photos in normal resolution but claims to be able to take
    > finer photos at a higher pixel-rate through "digital interpolation".
    > Surely that's just stretching the image and not worth doing?
    > Can't I improve the image to the same degree later using filters in Corel
    > Photopaint?
    >
    > Is there any real advantage in terms of image quality between an image
    > that's been digitally interpolated to a higher resolution?
    > It's no substitute for a higher resolution CCD in the camera is it?
    >
    > D.
    >
    >
     
    Tony, Apr 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Des

    Bryan Heit Guest

    Des wrote:
    > My camera takes photos in normal resolution but claims to be able to take
    > finer photos at a higher pixel-rate through "digital interpolation".
    > Surely that's just stretching the image and not worth doing?
    > Can't I improve the image to the same degree later using filters in Corel
    > Photopaint?
    >
    > Is there any real advantage in terms of image quality between an image
    > that's been digitally interpolated to a higher resolution?
    > It's no substitute for a higher resolution CCD in the camera is it?
    >
    > D.


    You have asked what you might call a loaded question, if you haven't
    noticed that already. From a technical point of view resolution is the
    smallest object that your camera can detect. This is determined by the
    number of pixels in the CCD of your camera (and the camera's optics).
    Interpolation CANNOT improve resolution. The only way to improve
    resolution is to have a CCD with more pixels. Some people will refer to
    resolution in respects to how good a picture looks. Although this isn't
    the technical definition of resolution it does get at the desired output
    of high resolution (i.e. nicer pictures). This may or maynot be
    improved with interpolation, but this kind of "pseudo-resolution" is in
    the eyes of the beholder.

    What interpolation does is increase the size of the image beyond what
    the CCD generates. The process which is used basically stretches out
    the image and makes educated guesses as to the color of the new pixels
    it creates. Although this creates a larger image, there is no more
    detail in the larger image then in the original image. In some cases
    interpolation may even decrease the overall results of the image due to
    the "guesses" it makes when it expands the image. Not only that, but
    interpolated images are larger, so you'll be able to take fewer pictures
    if you interpolate.

    As for what you should do in terms of taking pictures, my advice would
    be to take the pictures at your cameras maximum resolution without
    interpolation. This will let you get 100% of your camera's resolution,
    without wasting any space on your card. If you want to interpolate or
    otherwise alter your images afterwards you can do so with a graphics
    program such as Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop. These graphics programs
    have multiple other filters you can use, aside form interpolation, so
    you'll be able to adjust your images to a greater extent on-computer
    then you can on the camera.

    Bryan
     
    Bryan Heit, Apr 5, 2005
    #11
  12. Des

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    >> Fuji makes several that "interpolate upward" and on the S7000 there is
    >> USUALLY some improvement ...


    >There is never any improvement. It's a mathematical impossibility.


    No, you must double the number of pixels in the output to preserve all
    the input; that is, if you intend to store in a traditional bitmap
    format.

    o o o o
    o o o
    o o o o
    o o o

    must become

    ooooooo
    ooooooo
    ooooooo
    ooooooo

    or detail will be lost.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Apr 5, 2005
    #12
  13. Des

    Guest

    In message <d2uuq1$894$>,
    Bryan Heit <> wrote:

    >Interpolation CANNOT improve resolution.


    Yes, but the Fuji 7000, when it outputs 6MP from its 6MP sensor *is*
    interpolating, with loss. At 12MP, it is also interpolating, but with
    *no* loss.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Apr 5, 2005
    #13
  14. Des

    Bubbabob Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    >
    > You can't improve an image through any type of manipulation. You will
    > never have better quality than the image had when originally recorded.
    > Interpolation is the creation of an optical illusion; it does not
    > improve real image quality.
    >


    I suggest that you look into the field of deconvolution algorithms. Images
    CAN be improved. NASA/HST do it every day. Not to mention the NRO and a few
    other black ops.
     
    Bubbabob, Apr 6, 2005
    #14
  15. Des

    Guest

    >I suggest that you look into the field of deconvolution algorithms. Images
    >CAN be improved.


    Images can be improved - we all do it when we lighten/darken etc but
    that is not interpolation.
    Interpolation (as I understand it) turns one pixel into four (for
    example) by "Guessing" what the colours should be.
    When nasa improve the picture the info is already there and they bring
    it to the fore.
     
    , Apr 6, 2005
    #15
  16. Des

    Eric Gill Guest

    wrote in news::

    > In message <d2uuq1$894$>,
    > Bryan Heit <> wrote:
    >
    >>Interpolation CANNOT improve resolution.

    >
    > Yes, but the Fuji 7000, when it outputs 6MP from its 6MP sensor *is*
    > interpolating, with loss. At 12MP, it is also interpolating, but with
    > *no* loss.


    I'm not sure how you would arrive at that conclusion.

    It's much bigger brother the S3, for example, produces very good 6mp
    images, but it's 12 mp images aren't on par with those from a true 8MP
    body:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page21.asp
     
    Eric Gill, Apr 6, 2005
    #16
  17. Des

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Bubbabob wrote:
    > Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>You can't improve an image through any type of manipulation. You will
    >>never have better quality than the image had when originally recorded.
    >>Interpolation is the creation of an optical illusion; it does not
    >>improve real image quality.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I suggest that you look into the field of deconvolution algorithms. Images
    > CAN be improved. NASA/HST do it every day. Not to mention the NRO and a few
    > other black ops.


    yes, and if you had their processing power in your camera, you could
    probably do wonders too. Maybe NEXT year...


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 6, 2005
    #17
  18. Des

    Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    >>I suggest that you look into the field of deconvolution algorithms. Images
    >>CAN be improved.

    >
    >
    > Images can be improved - we all do it when we lighten/darken etc but
    > that is not interpolation.
    > Interpolation (as I understand it) turns one pixel into four (for
    > example) by "Guessing" what the colours should be.
    > When nasa improve the picture the info is already there and they bring
    > it to the fore.
    >

    No, not always. Sometimes they combine information from several frames
    of the same data, taken with different filters, or different lighting,
    and the software makes educated guesses to fill in the blanks. It isn't
    necessarily EXACTLY what a better sensor would record, but it is
    PROBABLY what you would see if you were there.



    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 6, 2005
    #18
  19. "Eric Gill" <> wrote:
    > wrote in news::
    >
    > > In message <d2uuq1$894$>,
    > > Bryan Heit <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Interpolation CANNOT improve resolution.

    > >
    > > Yes, but the Fuji 7000, when it outputs 6MP from its 6MP sensor *is*
    > > interpolating, with loss. At 12MP, it is also interpolating, but with
    > > *no* loss.

    >
    > I'm not sure how you would arrive at that conclusion.


    The Fuji cameras have sensors that are rotated 45 degrees. What that means
    is that they can't be read out at their native resolution without losing
    information, and have to be read out at double resolution to retain all the
    information captured. The resulting image is a 12MP image that has 6MP of
    information.

    > It's much bigger brother the S3, for example, produces very good 6mp
    > images, but it's 12 mp images aren't on par with those from a true 8MP
    > body:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/page21.asp


    Exactly<g>. Fuji's idea that rotating the sensor increases resolution is, of
    course, hogwash.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 6, 2005
    #19
  20. Des

    Stewy Guest

    In article <d2ugk2$psk$>,
    "Des" <> wrote:

    > My camera takes photos in normal resolution but claims to be able to take
    > finer photos at a higher pixel-rate through "digital interpolation".
    > Surely that's just stretching the image and not worth doing?
    > Can't I improve the image to the same degree later using filters in Corel
    > Photopaint?
    >
    > Is there any real advantage in terms of image quality between an image
    > that's been digitally interpolated to a higher resolution?
    > It's no substitute for a higher resolution CCD in the camera is it?
    >

    Interpolation can be quite 'clever' or really dumb. It depends on how
    much time someone has spent on getting things right. However the fact
    remains - an 8mpxl camera will deliver a better image than a 6mpxl
    camera interpolated to 12mpxl. But that 12mpxl image can look as good as
    the 6mpxl and 12 megapixels will give more leeway when cropping and
    correcting perspective if you're trying to print A3. Filters and
    interpolation works in a similar way in PSP etc, but I feel the camera
    will do it better.

    The only way you can see if any advantage exists if a visual comparison
    - it's like the Dolby noise reduction for noisy audio cassettes - some
    people like it, other don't and if you, personally are satisfied with
    the quality, then it IS the better way.

    I'm sure the photo hacks working for print media will do 'anything' to
    get that shot.
     
    Stewy, Apr 6, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. phobos

    Re: Interpolation on a lowres camera

    phobos, Jul 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    477
    John H. Guillory
    Jul 29, 2003
  2. Charles Schuler

    All digital cameras use interpolation

    Charles Schuler, Jan 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    192
    Views:
    3,061
    Dave Martindale
    Feb 10, 2004
  3. KL234
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    947
    Dave Hau
    Feb 26, 2004
  4. HS Crow
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    760
    HS Crow
    Sep 23, 2005
  5. Frank ess
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    263
    Neil Harrington
    Nov 5, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page