# WOW, CSI was more right than I thought. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [November 10, 2009, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-csi-was-more-right-than-i-thought/517045 "2009-11-10T14:57:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-csi-was-more-right-than-i-thought/517045/21 "2009-11-11T07:19:20Z")
> [@minor7flat5](#): > > But your exact words don’t make sense to me; no-one claimed enhancing the image was the same as zooming in. The OP certainly seemed to be making that claim to me, even saying that “enhance” might be relabeled “zoom” in a few years. I wasn’t sure if this was just unclear writing or if he was really confused about the distinction between these two terms, so in the interest of fighting ignorance I explained in post #10 that enhancing an image isn’t the same thing as zooming in. I honestly did not foresee that this would be considered confusing or controversial. > [@](#): > > \*I imagine that the OP is referring to technology that does something like this. \*He mentions such technology in his OP, but he also talks about zooming in. I was specifically addressing the “zooming in” part. I didn’t say anything at all about image averaging, because that IS a form of enhancement and thus had nothing to do with the point I was making. I said “Enhancing an image isn’t the same thing as zooming in” because that was exactly what I meant. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-csi-was-more-right-than-i-thought/517045/22 "2009-11-11T09:53:04Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > 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. I dunno. The interpolation that is done when you zoom past 1:1 on an image should probably count as a form of enhancement. The interpolated pixels are not a part of the original image. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-csi-was-more-right-than-i-thought/517045/23 "2009-11-11T13:05:28Z")
Let me clarify: I took a hi-res photo, from the 8th floor, and could tell the guy was not clean shaven but HAD a haircut reciently. That he wasn’t wearing a t-shirt under his business casual shirt, and that his shoes looked well cared for. The things that let me do this are (but not exclusively) -a 530 mm Zoom (Which used to be a large piece of glass that was larger than the camera itself -The ability to capture 3456x2592 chunks of information at that distance. -the ability to stitch together multiple exposures, in-camera, to make one clear shot out of several (at 1/160 shutter, f/5, now that I look at the EXIF data) -this was done with what is considered an expensive, but not stupidly so, consumer camera. -this was done with a CMOS sensor, rather than a CCD. There’s a CMOS sensor in your phone. They weren’t good in the past due to noise issues that are being sorted out. They are comparatively CHEAP to manufacture when compared to CCDs. CSI and it’s ilk have done stupid things that bend science for the sake of plot, especially where it comes to taking a .3 Mpixel cameraphone picture, then zoom in on a reflection, then determine by the teeth stains that the murderer likes guatemalan coffee. I’m merely sayin that this may be an artifact of the time in which we live, as 10-15 years from now, that may be a _35_ Megapixel image, with light enhancement, auto white balance, and near infrared capture, and the phone (security cam, whatever), may be doing it 24 frames per second as long as it’s turned on, and have the processing power to throw away information that’s not important. (But why when it’s got 5 Tb of on board storage?) Or, it may be a 15 Mpixel security cam that works in near zero light, zooms to infinity, and automatically detects movement. ETA: Finding the culprit may just require zooming in on a part of the photo (although I reserve the right to fuck with the Gamma, too) ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-csi-was-more-right-than-i-thought/517045/24 "2009-11-11T13:48:24Z")
whoops. Wrong thread. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2009, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-csi-was-more-right-than-i-thought/517045/25 "2009-11-11T13:48:35Z")
stay blue then I guess. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wow-csi-was-more-right-than-i-thought/517045.md?page=1)