Enlarging digital images - how big is big?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Doug MacDonald - 28 Jan 2007 07:27 GMT

With resolution and clarity equal to the original: 6.3 Megapixel image will
usually go to 24" x 32" (36" APS size) and way, way larger if you care to
introduce a "viewing distance equal to the distance needed to view all the
image without moving your head.

For a couple of years now I've endured taunts, ridicule and personal
vilification from a few narrow minded people who never bothered to
investigate my claims... How could most of them? The basis for me providing
samples and confirmation for investigation was QUALIFICATIONS TO PASS
JUDGMENT. All but one, never had any. Some really nice people in this lot, I
can tell you.

So... I have in the past made statements like:
"Enlarge from a postcard size image to a poster"
"Up to 1000% enlargement"
"Add data to an image to enlarge it"

All perfectly true and ridiculed by zealots looking for recognition they
have no right seeking in the first place.

I have been able to, and founded a business on, enlarging digital images
using Interpolation. Until now I have chosen to protect my industrial
secrets and formulas by refusing to provide enlarged digital images or pixel
level crops of enlarged images to anyone for examination... Until now.

Recently I began to post to the 'groups' again after being away from them
due to the pressures of work only to discover the idiots and morons who last
year were so vocal in their condemnation of me, are still out there with the
worst of them. Offers of a reward for the identity of the worst, turned up
zilch and those I did discover had nothing worth suing for anyway.

So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe not. I
have provided an example image which I enlarged and a full pixel crop of
part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that not only is it possible but
possible at virtually zero loss of sharpness and detail in the final image.

http://canvas.photosbydouglas.com/interpolation.htm

Use the link at the bottom of the text on that page to take you to the
actual examples and explanation. Anyone who wants to have the original
(un-enlarged) image only needs to ask me without aggression or taunts and
I'll supply it as an attachment to an email only to a valid domain address
(no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail).

Signature

From Douglas...
Wedding and Portrait specialist: http://www.photosbydouglas.com
Canvas prints and Digital enlargements: http://www.canvasphotos.com.au
Wedding Photography anywhere on the east coast of Australia.

Reply to this Message

mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 28 Jan 2007 11:19 GMT

A 'few' points.. (Long, but strictly ontopic and with relatively few
"insults, taunts or aggression" in what follows from me..)

On Jan 28, 5:27 pm, "Doug MacDonald" <photosbydouglas-
gro...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> With resolution and clarity equal to the original: 6.3 Megapixel image will
> usually go to 24" x 32" (36" APS size)

The original image will show 'real' detail down to about the two pixel
level. But when interpolating, any enlargement method can at best
make a 'sensible guess' as to the extra pixels required to fill in the
gaps. Many existing algorithms do this quite well, using a
combination of bitmap and vector theorems.

The interpolated pixels are *not* real detail, therefore, at actual
pixel size the resulting image *cannot* have "resolution and clarity
equal to the original".

Finely detailed images enlarged to these sizes will show the results
of interpolation on close inspection, especially on things like grass,
fine foliage, fine details in a cityscape, etc. Indeed, Douglas'
'actual pixel crop' seems to have problems, even though this is not a
particularly challenging image.

It is perfectly true that on some types of images you *will* get away
with enlargements of this size and greater - but it largely depends on
image content, and skill at interpolating. Judging from the Douglas
'actual detail' crop, I would suggest you look closely at QImage
instead - it introduces less jaggies and artefacts. Some of this
could be 'real detail', but we don't know without the original.

> ... and way, way larger if you care to
> introduce a "viewing distance equal to the distance needed to view all the
> image without moving your head.

If you have to be moved back some unspecified distance, then you can
enlarge anything to any size.. So let's be scientific here - without
moving my head but allowing my eyes to wander to their full extent, I
have a sharp field of view that spans well over 90 degrees. A quick
check shows that I can easily view all of a 32" x 24" image without
moving my head, from about 14".

> For a couple of years now I've endured taunts, ridicule and personal
> vilification from a few narrow minded people who never bothered to
> investigate my claims... How could most of them?

Indeed, how could we, other than to point out flaws in what was
displayed? (all these pages have now been removed by Douglas). He
never posted an original image and when he posted crops, they were
*always* reductions or at best actual-pixel size - they were not
enlargements. This is the *first time* he has actually shown what
looks to be a real enlargement... But we are still missing the
original file - if we had that, the artefacts (or to be fair, the lack
of them) that his method has introduced would be clear.

> The basis for me providing
> samples and confirmation for investigation was QUALIFICATIONS TO PASS
> JUDGMENT. All but one, never had any.

I suspect the 'one' who Douglas thought was qualified may have been
Gordon Moat. Gordon had to clarify the claims made by Douglas, here:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/
thread/f0bc2af22e84217b/

Make your own mind up.

> So... I have in the past made statements like:
> "Enlarge from a postcard size image to a poster"
> "Up to 1000% enlargement"
> "Add data to an image to enlarge it"
> All perfectly true and ridiculed by zealots looking for recognition they
> have no right seeking in the first place.

Of course they are all true. But data DOES NOT equal detail. It's
the *quality* claims that were in dispute. Eg:
"Enlarged digital images with more detail than the original"
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.graphics.apps.photoshop/browse_frm/
thread/90dff1d6c6425889

> I have been able to, and founded a business on, enlarging digital images
> using Interpolation.

..using an algorithm Douglas claimed was patented (it wasn't) and had
been bought by Samsung.. Having now seen the results, it looks to be
somewhat inferior to the many good algorithms already in existence,
for example QImage's excellent Vector, Pyramid and Hybrid methods.
Can Douglas offer his comments on how those compare to his, or show us
the final result comparison?

> Until now I have chosen to protect my industrial
> secrets and formulas by refusing to provide enlarged digital images or pixel
> level crops of enlarged images to anyone for examination... Until now.

Bold move! But we still await the original file. Douglas is still
short of the proof and genuine examples offered by all of his
'competitors'.

> Recently I began to post to the 'groups' again after being away

from them

> due to the pressures of work only to discover the idiots and morons who last
> year were so vocal in their condemnation of me, are still out there with the
> worst of them. Offers of a reward for the identity of the worst, turned up
> zilch and those I did discover had nothing worth suing for anyway.

I wonder who he 'discovered'? No-one turned up at my door.
Personally, I would have thought Douglas could better spend his time
simply *proving* detractors wrong (or ignoring them), than undertaking
all these investigations..

> So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe not.

Nope. But Happy Birthday anyway!

> I have provided an example image which I enlarged and a full pixel crop of
> part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that not only is it possible but
> possible at virtually zero loss of sharpness and detail in the final image.

Note the "virtually zero" - that's a drop from "equal" or "more detail
than the original".

By the way, if you visit Douglas' page, use the position of the spider
web - you can not only see it at top right of the crop but also just a
trace of it at bottom left - to get an idea of how accurate his
'Approximation' is. These errors have always been in his favour -
must just be coincidence. But having said that and to give credit
where due, it's not actually important this time as the crop appears
to be a true enlargement! In fact he has gone way too far.. But
judge for yourself the quality - note the jaggies, haloing, and other
artefacts. At least they *look* like artefacts. Without the original
actual-pixels crop we can't tell, but it looks like 'mush' (™David) to
me.

If Doug were to post the *original* actual pixels crop, it would tell
us much more, and of course we could run it through GF, QIMage, even
PS BiCubics, SSI, maybe even some of the more exotic methods shown
here:

http://www.general-cathexis.com/interpolation.html

.. and then make a *useful* comparison. The argument would be over,
the truth of the final quality would be clear.

> Anyone who wants to have the original
> (un-enlarged) image only needs to ask me without aggression or taunts and
> I'll supply it as an attachment to an email only to a valid domain address
> (no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail).

If anyone bothers, let us know how that crop looks when enlarged using
*other* methods, especially QImage - I think there's a free 30 day
trial?

Anyway, I'm sure he does *lovely* prints - if I could only find one of
his 'TechnoAussie Digital Print Centres', I'd have one done myself!

Reply to this Message

Michael Schnell - 28 Jan 2007 11:47 GMT

If this is an advertisement (that is what it looks like), or a hint for
other to try,IMHO, it should be denoted in the subject and should not be
disguised as a question.

-Michael

Reply to this Message

Rudy Benner - 28 Jan 2007 13:31 GMT

> With resolution and clarity equal to the original: 6.3 Megapixel image
> will
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> I'll supply it as an attachment to an email only to a valid domain address
> (no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail).

It would be nice if the links to your Gallery actually worked.

Reply to this Message

Dr. Georg N.Nyman - 28 Jan 2007 15:05 GMT

Doug,
where are the pictures...on my browser I see just the background...??!!
rgds Georg Nyman

> With resolution and clarity equal to the original: 6.3 Megapixel image
> will usually go to 24" x 32" (36" APS size) and way, way larger if you
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> I'll supply it as an attachment to an email only to a valid domain address
> (no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail).

Reply to this Message

Doug MacDonald - 29 Jan 2007 09:05 GMT

: Doug,
: where are the pictures...on my browser I see just the background...??!!
: rgds Georg Nyman

I guess they must be too big for your monitor?
Sick joke, I know.
I have no idea actually. That site is hosted by godaddy.com and is (usually)
totally reliable. Where some of these things occur is when your ISP's
transparent proxy server is holding a half loaded page and feeds that up to
you as the full thing. Sometimes too, your browser can be set for no refresh
to save time when viewing regular pages.

Heck Georg... You don't even say what brand your browser is. Try again and
hit the refresh if it happens again.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Doug MacDonald - 29 Jan 2007 21:40 GMT

: Doug,
: where are the pictures...on my browser I see just the background...??!!
: rgds Georg Nyman

Georg... The issue is still unknown to me but I put the article on a
different server in another part of the USA which works with everything I
tried. Have a look:
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/canvas/html/interpolation.htm

I would appreciate you letting me know if you have a problem viewing this
link.
Douglas

Reply to this Message

Bart van der Wolf - 30 Jan 2007 01:23 GMT

SNIP

> So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe
> not.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> domain
> address (no hotmail, Yahoo or Gmail).

Hi Doug,

First things first, happy birthday. Hope your back is holding up after
your earlier surgery (and being a kind of tallish guy myself, I know
what I'm talking about).

Secondly, too bad you are just offering a JPEG version of the original
capture (unless your interpolation was also based on that). But to be
frank, assumptions about fundamental image quality aren't very
convincing in an objective test, they will only (re)enforce the
position of critics ...

As you suggest in your web-page, and I support that mentality, well
founded peer review *will* further progress. After all, that's what
regular scientific publications are all about.

I wouldn't mind providing my interpolated version of the crop area you
showed, again assuming you started from the same JPEG (and again,
assumptions are not the most credible starting points).

Print files also have different sharpening requirements depending on
the print process used, so a comparison to a print you supply/offer
may (or not) be very relevant. How about just settling for a web
version comparison to the one you published on your "example-1.htm"
page?

If you are confident enough, just respond to my e-mail. If not, well
we'll never know ...

Bart

Reply to this Message

Bart van der Wolf - 30 Jan 2007 01:50 GMT

> SNIP
>> So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied,
>> maybe not. I have provided an example image which I enlarged and a
>> full pixel crop of part of the ENLARGED image to demonstrate that
>> not only is it possible but possible at virtually zero loss of
>> sharpness and detail in the final image.

Unfortunately, my email bounced from your supplied e-mail address :-(

> If you are confident enough, just respond to my e-mail. If not, well
> we'll never know ...

Without a means to supply you with my (e-mail) address, we'll not get
very far, I'm afraid.

Bart

Reply to this Message

Pete D - 30 Jan 2007 07:20 GMT

>> SNIP
>>> So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Unfortunately, my email bounced from your supplied e-mail address :-(

OMG, OMG, OMG his always changing email address did not work. Makes it
bloody hard to killfile the bastard.

>> If you are confident enough, just respond to my e-mail. If not, well
>> we'll never know ...
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Bart

Reply to this Message

Doug MacDonald - 30 Jan 2007 10:25 GMT

: >> SNIP
: >>> So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
: >
: > Bart

Hey Pete... School's out. Time to go home for your nappy change.

Reply to this Message

Pete D - 31 Jan 2007 05:36 GMT

> : >> "Doug MacDonald" <photosbydouglas-groups@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
> message
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> :
> Hey Pete... School's out. Time to go home for your nappy change.

Thanks I will take that as a compliment. :-)

But seriously Doug how could anyone that changes their email address and
name so often be taken seriously, if that is your name of course.

And why do you give a sh.t what anyone on here actually thinks anyway?

Reply to this Message

Doug MacDonald - 30 Jan 2007 23:00 GMT

: > SNIP
: >> So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied,
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
:
: Bart

Hi Bart, as promised yesterday...
http://www.photosbydouglas.com/canvas/canvas-contact.htm
and http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/canvas-contact.htm
Provides a contact form for requests. Stay anonymous and I won't know who to
send what to!

Douglas

Reply to this Message

Doug MacDonald - 30 Jan 2007 10:23 GMT

: SNIP
: > So maybe today the disbelievers and pundits will be satisfied, maybe
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
:
: Bart

Your comments are all valid Bart. The original file was actually a JPG which
when enlarged, I saved as another JPG. I use the so called "lossless" JPEG
format of no compression for these things. I know some people are concerned
with artifacts growing from them but I seriously haven't found any in
extremely large prints although there are some in the files.

I concern myself with the final product. Others (maybe you too) worry at a
pixel level about artifacts that don't reproduce in printing. Keeping in
mind the available printers are inkjet based and although considered "photo
quality" I notice recently a new (higher res?) description of Photo LAB
quality. In any event, the Epson printer drivers all feed 720 dpi stuff to
their 4800dpi printers! Presumably this is because the real specs are 4800
dpi x 720 or 1440dpi. It's not hard to print at 4800 dpi in a straight line
across the sheet.

You may already know that Olympus cameras make very good quality hi-res jpeg
files and RAW files of huge size. Offering a JPEG file is actually offering
a copy of the original (unedited) camera file in this instance. Reply to the
address attached to this message (hit the reply to sender button) and I'll
get the message. I wasn't aware of the problem with the email on the web
site. I'll fix it in the morning.

Thanks for the well wishing... Yes, the surgery eventually cost me the price
of a new BMW (two sessions) but it was worth every penny. I suppose I'll get
used to the Toyota someday!!

Douglas

Reply to this Message