From: newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com>
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2017 14:17:34 -0600
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <delMB.177230$0z5.116720@fx07.fr7>
<071120171248012172%not@aol.com> <071120171303160684%nospam@nospam.invalid>
From: newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 20:17:34 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <071120171303160684%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <jK-dnS8urYhDiZ_HnZ2dnUU78RGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 24
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-jI1BnlgdSIdUWvTbUd/o/6RmaVslJmqX/rPlrlgICaSAPz1I90yNkBZPUcd4QTTFYt6aA87L05b9THj!Q+da0QLxRBhfQ8uKruTPTkpVYZFH7CAOPzwCKjsUXAF8zU06bvsRYMyP31f/STOmUe9t3qox8n2g!G6FOFpmUW0XscsFCMzTsUD9WfPU=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2180
Print Article
Forward Article
On 07/11/2017 18:03, nospam wrote:
> In article <071120171248012172%not@aol.com>, Scott Schuckert
><not@aol.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Blurred photo? Instead of deleting it, software could make it sharp again
>>>
>>> The end of low res and blurry images could be nigh.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/photography/artificial-intelligence...
>>> enhancenet-sharpens-photos-11364227072791
>>
>> Sorry, that's not a "photograph". It's an eye-pleasing reconstruction,
>> filling in details that don't actually exist. (³automated texture
>> synthesis² that aims to recreate realistic textures in images)
> 
> *all* photographs have some amount of what you call eye-pleasing
> reconstruction and filling in details that don't actually exist.
> 
> computational photography is the next big thing.
> 

But not the "image enhancement" that we first saw in Blade Runner and is 
now almost obligatory in every forensic crime laboratory drama.