HansKeesom wrote:Instead of making one photo with a certain lens, you can shoot a number of rows and columns with a longer lens and then stitch them together using autopano
psmeraldi wrote:Thanks Georg and Klaus, I did not know these software.
psmeraldi wrote:
It seems to me that autopano could be tweaked or used to this purpose.
Thanks Georg and Klaus, I did not know these software.
klausesser wrote:psmeraldi wrote:What you call "superresolution" is something different and - i repeat - does NOT increase your resolution
in terms of a bigger amount of pixels
slipstick wrote:klausesser wrote:psmeraldi wrote:What you call "superresolution" is something different and - i repeat - does NOT increase your resolution
in terms of a bigger amount of pixels
That isn't correct. Have a look at the link previously provided: http://photoacute.com/tech/superresolution_faq.html
The resulting images are four times the size: twice the number of pixels on length and width. And it is "real", not interpolated, resolution, building on the additional information each image in a stack brings.
The downside is the requirement for individual lens / camera combination configurations. So one has to shoot with a combination that is known the photoacute for best results.
klausesser wrote:[...]A real gain in resolution will only take place when you double or quadruple the physical amount of pixels.
slipstick wrote:klausesser wrote:[...]A real gain in resolution will only take place when you double or quadruple the physical amount of pixels.
http://photoacute.com/tech/superresolution_faq.html#q2
It's real.
klausesser wrote:Doubling the resolution this way simply is a somewhat ridiculous joke, sorry.
slipstick wrote:klausesser wrote:Doubling the resolution this way simply is a somewhat ridiculous joke, sorry.
Well, a) I don't think you're sorry and b) you're incorrect. in effect doubling resolution without buying a new lens and stitching additional images, and without resorting to multi-row stitches. Simpler workflow.
HansKeesom wrote:I am not impressed with the examples.
Nanard wrote:I think one should distinguish two aspects :
The mathematical one :
information cannot be 'invented', so by interpolation you can double the number of pixels but the amount of information, ie the number of original pixels does not change.
Bernard
mediavets wrote:
Surely it's the case that interpolation does indeed invent new information when increasing the pixel dimensions of an image; the extra pixels are invented by the software.
mediavets wrote:Surely it's the case that interpolation does indeed invent new information when increasing the pixel dimensions of an image; the extra pixels are invented by the software.
mediavets wrote:Nanard wrote:I think one should distinguish two aspects :
The mathematical one :
information cannot be 'invented', so by interpolation you can double the number of pixels but the amount of information, ie the number of original pixels does not change.
Bernard
Surely it's the case that interpolation does indeed invent new information when increasing the pixel dimensions of an image; the extra pixels are invented by the software.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests