Best software for increasing resolution?

On Oct 23, 3:39 am, IggyZiggy <bloc....RemoveThis@spamfree.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:49:42 GMT, "SS" <xsx20....RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I have seen that Genuine Fractals and Photozoom seem to be 'intelligent'
> >software but have also seen a review that puts the fred Miranda 'stair
> >interpolation' Photoshop action better than these. I wonder what
> >experiences/advice the subscribers to this newsgroup can give. Is there
> >anything even better on the market now.
>
> >Thanks
>
> Any of the methods that are using PhotoShop's native bicubic interpolation and
> its 16-bit math foundation (like Miranda's stair interpolation or that
> Richardson-Lucy iteration) will be abysmal compared to other more evolved
> interpolation methods. PhotoShop is still only using 16-bit math (think Windows
> 3.1), it has to throw away so much data required for the detail. If you are
> using 16-bit images you're already at the limit of PhotoShop's math-bandwidth.

It might surprise you to know that many of the modern scientific
deconvolution codes had their roots in PDP-11 with FPS-120 arithmetic
array processors strapped on the side. Images were usually held as
16bit data because almost no techniques could originate source data
with that dynamic range (and disk space was scarce).

> Trying to do anything complex with 16-bit data in a 16-bit math environment is
> pushing it beyond what it was designed for and inherently limited to. No

Great care is needed to avoid overflows, and the main calculations are
done in floating point, but there is nothing inherently wrong with
16bit source data for storing images. Very few imaging systems use all
16 bits.

> There's no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to upsampling.

That at least is a true statement. You have to decide what you mean by
"best" before the question is answerable.

Do you want a plausible pretty looking image?
or
An image which shows the highest resolution detail and optimised
signal to noise consistent with the measurement process? (the latter
can be important in forensic work, but is almost never pretty to look
at)

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:07:39 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

>IggyZiggy wrote:
>
>> The extra detail created in PhotoZoom looks about as real as anything I've ever
>> seen before.
>
>Yes, software that creates extra detail is indeed 'real'.
>
>Snorfle.

Would it have helped to prevent you from revealing your immaturity and stupidity
with your "snorfle" if I had said "real looking" instead of just "real"? The
same is implied when stated either way, IF you could understand simple syntax of
the english language. Hint: "looks about as real as" = "real looking" = "not
really real, but looks as if it could be real." Do you need everyone to explain
such simple things to you all the time? Don't bother answering, I already know
the answer to that is "yes". They get dumber and dumber all the time online. I
knew they did something wrong by making computers "user friendly", then every
idiot in the world could log onto the internet. The reply from J. McWilliams is
all the proof of that that you'll ever need.