It’s a well known trope: Investigator it looking at a fuzzy security cam pic, says ‘enhance that’, and it amazingly sharpens to show the culprit.
I’m playing around with my new camera (Sony HX1) and I’m playing with the zoom out my 8th floor office window at the people leaving the hotel next door. I zoom out fully at the guy on the corner…it’s the equivalent of a 500 mm lens. You couldn’t HOPE to hold a SLR steady, by hand, with an equivalent lens. Push the button and the camera takes six shots in rapid succession, and builds a single sharp image based on them.
Pull the card and slap it in the computer and it’s Really Nice. Then I remember it’s a 9 Megapixel image and zoom in on it.
You couldn’t tell what brand watch he was wearing, but you might be able to tell his religion.
(or what color his hair was under the wig.)
Give us another 10-15 years to let the technology trickle down to surveillance equipment and ‘enhance’ might be relabeled to ‘zoom’.
Sony’s pretty much locked it at $500 everywhere. That’s not even it’s coolest feature, it does 1080p video and auto-stiches panoramas, here’s a good review:
Image processing can help with some camera shake and bluring due to less than perfect focus.
The problem with the CSI TV stuff is they do the equivalent of turning a 9 megapixel camera into something between 10 and a 100 and probably occasionally a 1000 times the number of pixels the camera “had” to start with.
Your example pic took too long to download for me, but your processed image is only going to be marginally better than if you had taken it without an shake and focus problems in the first place.
Given that CSI stuff usually involves enhancing security cameras or satellite images, where focus and shake arent nearly as prevalent as when using handheld cameras, it makes their enhancement all the more exaggerated.
Having 9 rapidly-fired images to contrast & compare with each other does indeed let you tease out details that the original resolution can’t possibly display.
The CSI stuff that’s bogus is where they zoom in on one fuzzy photo and hit the magic “sharpen” or “clarify” command button and hey wow you can see details.
In the first example you have a lot more information to work with. You can do this trick with movie footage, where each frame may fail to contain much detail but a batch of consecutive frames can be used to generate a fine crisp still image.
I’m not suggesting the ‘zoom in on his left lapel’ is accurate, but I could see a near future situation where that information might be available. If current sensor technology was combined with motion tracking, I could see it happen now, give them 10 years to up the sensor to 90 megapixels, and only retain the pixels that change and…well, it could happen.
Not actually true. I regularly handhold a 1.6 crop SLR with a 400mm lens, resulting in an equivalent 640mm lens. The lens has image stabilization built in which buys you a couple of stops, but shooting at 1/1000 second, it’s not particularly necessary.
Well, it’s the 100-400 zoom, and when it’s zoomed out all the way (it’s a push zoom) and you have the lens shade on – I don’t think it’s 2 feet, but it’s pretty impressive looking. Weighs about 3 lbs, so it’s not the ideal carry-around lens. But if you want to get up close and personal with birds and other critters, it’s a good choice. The next steps up are the ridiculously unaffordable 500mm and 600mm primes.
It does have a tripod mount.
I do keep thinking about getting one of the Sony 20x cameras for times when the SLR is just too bulky, but at $450.00, it’s just a bit too spendy for a second camera.
Enhancing an image isn’t the same thing as zooming in. If you’re zooming in on a high resolution image you’re just making it look bigger on your screen, nothing about the image is changing. It’s the same as if you walked towards a photo hanging on a wall. You can see more detail when you’re up close, but you haven’t done anything to improve or clarify the actual photo.
Lamia when you’re looking at a 10 Megapixel image on your monitor, and you’re looking at the whole image, you’re seeing a fraction of the whole image…so zooming in DOES show you more than you’re originally looking at.
Did you even read my post? I didn’t say zooming in did not provide a different view of the image. Obviously it does, in much the same way that walking closer to a photo on the wall gives you a different view of it. But that’s not “enhancing” the image.
Not sure if you are simply contrasting enhancement and zooming or if you are stating that no enhancement occurred.
If it’s the latter, then I will disagree. In the area of numerical methods, it is quite common to use several samples at lesser precision or fidelity to produce a higher quality sample, better than all of the ones that went into it. I would consider that an enhancement on the image quality.
I too think it’s kind of cool that the camera is able to do this magic.
(Of course, it could just be choosing the best of 9, based on sharpness, and showing that one, but that would take all of the fun out of it, wouldn’t it?)
I’m not sure why you’re not sure what I mean, because I used the exact words “Enhancing an image isn’t the same thing as zooming in” in my first post in this thread. Unintentionally Blank appears to be confused about this distinction, and seems to think that simply zooming in on a high resolution image is “enhancing” it because it allows him to see more detail.
With a high resolution computer screen and a 10 megapixel image, your zooming is only going to be about a factor of 2 to 3 before you are seeing all there is to see pixel wise.
Which still is no match for the typical CSI of a car tag taking up a tiny fraction of a frame and then zooming in until you can clearly read the letters.
And this CSI image type crap has been going on in TV and movies for nearly 2 decades when most images were lucky to be (in real life) any more than about 300 pixel by 500 pixels, its all the more absurd.
The point of the thread is that, yes, they’ve been wrong (and stupid) for years, but that, with the progression of technology, they may not always be so.
The interesting thing about iPhoto is: You can’t GET it to show 1:1, If it looks okay, you don’t need to know what it looks like ‘actual size’. I dunno bout you, but 2:1 is frequently easier to make out details than 1:1
If this happens to you a lot then perhaps it has something to do with your attitude. You might try learning to accept being corrected with a bit more grace.
That’s not even the worst of the CSI image enhancing absurdity. I remember one episode where a casino was robbed by a gang of men in drag, all wearing wigs and large, dark sunglasses. The image expert manages (with only a click or two, of course) to “enhance” security camera photos to show the men’s faces and natural hair without the wigs or sunglasses. :rolleyes:
