Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
In article <delMB.177230$0z5.116720@fx07.fr7>, David B.<DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> 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...
> nhancenet-sharpens-photos-11364227072791
Sorry, that's not a "photograph". It's an eye-pleasing reconstruction,
filling in details that don't actually exist. (
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
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. (
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
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.
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
In article<jK-dnS8urYhDiZ_HnZ2dnUU78RGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>,
newshound<newshound@stevejqr.plus.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...
> >>> re-
> >>> 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.
that's not intended to be real, and anything can be overdone.
plenty of film photos and movies 'reconstruct' reality.
it's just easier now.
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:03:21 UTC, 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.
A bit like Synthehol, it'll catch on for those with limited appreciation of the real thing.
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:47:43 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:03:21 UTC, 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.
>
>A bit like Synthehol, it'll catch on for those with limited appreciation of the real thing.
From what little I know I expect that in certain respects it will
exceed the capabilities of the real thing. Time will tell.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:48:20 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:47:43 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:03:21 UTC, 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.
> >
> >A bit like Synthehol, it'll catch on for those with limited appreciation of the real thing.
>
> From what little I know I expect that in certain respects it will
> exceed the capabilities of the real thing. Time will tell.
whatever that means.
So it'll give detail in an image that never actually existed or that it will leave out niose and
other artifacts ?
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 02:29:36 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 20:48:20 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 02:47:43 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
>><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:03:21 UTC, 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.
>> >
>> >A bit like Synthehol, it'll catch on for those with limited appreciation of the real thing.
>>
>> From what little I know I expect that in certain respects it will
>> exceed the capabilities of the real thing. Time will tell.
>
>whatever that means.
>
>
>So it'll give detail in an image that never actually existed or that it will leave out niose and
other artifacts ?
The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
existed cannot be a photograph.
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> existed cannot be a photograph.
That almost sound like philosophy 
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>
>> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
>> existed cannot be a photograph.
>
>
>That almost sound like philosophy
Logic.
>
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens
--
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >
> >
> >> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> >> existed cannot be a photograph.
> >
> >
> >That almost sound like philosophy
>
> Logic.
kirlian photography
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
In article<f1c25b39-9a86-4b66-8949-c3f25f9dc7bc@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
> ><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> > >> existed cannot be a photograph.
> > >
> > >
> > >That almost sound like philosophy
> >
> > Logic.
>
> kirlian photography
makes a real phenomena visible and does there fore not count more than
infrared... pling plong dave?
<http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html>
next time you're heading for jupiter stay there, but let europa be! :-ppp
--
teleportation kills
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Monday, 13 November 2017 10:43:28 UTC, android wrote:
> In article<f1c25b39-9a86-4b66-8949-c3f25f9dc7bc@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
> > ><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> > > >> existed cannot be a photograph.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >That almost sound like philosophy
> > >
> > > Logic.
> >
> > kirlian photography
>
> makes a real phenomena visible
exactly it's not photographing an image, nothing you can see with the human eye that is the point.
>and does there fore not count more than
> infrared... pling plong dave?
what does that even mean.
Unless you're agreeing with me in that it's not a photograph of an image.
>
> <http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html>
>
> next time you're heading for jupiter stay there, but let europa be! :-ppp
> --
> teleportation kills
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
In article<4710a517-92dc-44f4-99fd-6de9d2051f8a@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 13 November 2017 10:43:28 UTC, android wrote:
> > In article<f1c25b39-9a86-4b66-8949-c3f25f9dc7bc@googlegroups.com>,
> > Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
> > > ><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> > > > >> existed cannot be a photograph.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >That almost sound like philosophy
> > > >
> > > > Logic.
> > >
> > > kirlian photography
> >
> > makes a real phenomena visible
>
> exactly it's not photographing an image, nothing you can see with the human
> eye that is the point.
Photography means drawing or writing with light. Photographing an image
would be like taking a picture of a painting...
>
>
> >and does there fore not count more than
> > infrared... pling plong dave?
>
> what does that even mean.
> Unless you're agreeing with me in that it's not a photograph of an image.
No an image can exist without you being able to see it...
>
>
>
> >
> > <http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html>
> >
> > next time you're heading for jupiter stay there, but let europa be! :-ppp
> > --
> > teleportation kills
--
teleportation kills
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Monday, 13 November 2017 15:51:31 UTC, android wrote:
> In article<4710a517-92dc-44f4-99fd-6de9d2051f8a@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 November 2017 10:43:28 UTC, android wrote:
> > > In article<f1c25b39-9a86-4b66-8949-c3f25f9dc7bc@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
> > > > ><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> > > > > >> existed cannot be a photograph.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >That almost sound like philosophy
> > > > >
> > > > > Logic.
> > > >
> > > > kirlian photography
> > >
> > > makes a real phenomena visible
> >
> > exactly it's not photographing an image, nothing you can see with the human
> > eye that is the point.
>
> Photography means drawing or writing with light. Photographing an image
> would be like taking a picture of a painting...
But there isnlt light present what you are collecting is the corona discharge not the object, not
sure if there's a digital equivalent yet.
> > >and does there fore not count more than
> > > infrared... pling plong dave?
> >
> > what does that even mean.
> > Unless you're agreeing with me in that it's not a photograph of an image.
>
> No an image can exist without you being able to see it...
So wind is an image is it.
You can take a picture of teh trees blowing and you might say you can see wind but you can;t
photograph wind.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > <http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html>
> > >
> > > next time you're heading for jupiter stay there, but let europa be! :-ppp
> > > --
> > > teleportation kills
> --
> teleportation kills
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
In article<5b2fc39c-c265-4f92-9f06-15450527384f@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 13 November 2017 15:51:31 UTC, android wrote:
> > In article<4710a517-92dc-44f4-99fd-6de9d2051f8a@googlegroups.com>,
> > Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, 13 November 2017 10:43:28 UTC, android wrote:
> > > > In article<f1c25b39-9a86-4b66-8949-c3f25f9dc7bc@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
> > > > > ><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> > > > > > >> existed cannot be a photograph.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >That almost sound like philosophy
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Logic.
> > > > >
> > > > > kirlian photography
> > > >
> > > > makes a real phenomena visible
> > >
> > > exactly it's not photographing an image, nothing you can see with the
> > > human
> > > eye that is the point.
> >
> > Photography means drawing or writing with light. Photographing an image
> > would be like taking a picture of a painting...
>
> But there isnlt light present what you are collecting is the corona discharge
> not the object, not sure if there's a digital equivalent yet.
>
>
> > > >and does there fore not count more than
> > > > infrared... pling plong dave?
> > >
> > > what does that even mean.
> > > Unless you're agreeing with me in that it's not a photograph of an image.
> >
> > No an image can exist without you being able to see it...
>
> So wind is an image is it.
> You can take a picture of teh trees blowing and you might say you can see
> wind but you can;t photograph wind.
At first you have to learn to distinguish between an image and a
photograph...
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.skepdic.com/kirlian.html>
> > > >
> > > > next time you're heading for jupiter stay there, but let europa be!
> > > > :-ppp
--
teleportation kills
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Monday, 13 November 2017 16:58:39 UTC, android wrote:
> In article<5b2fc39c-c265-4f92-9f06-15450527384f@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 13 November 2017 15:51:31 UTC, android wrote:
> > > In article<4710a517-92dc-44f4-99fd-6de9d2051f8a@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, 13 November 2017 10:43:28 UTC, android wrote:
> > > > > In article<f1c25b39-9a86-4b66-8949-c3f25f9dc7bc@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
> > > > > > ><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> > > > > > > >> existed cannot be a photograph.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >That almost sound like philosophy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Logic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > kirlian photography
> > > > >
> > > > > makes a real phenomena visible
> > > >
> > > > exactly it's not photographing an image, nothing you can see with the
> > > > human
> > > > eye that is the point.
> > >
> > > Photography means drawing or writing with light. Photographing an image
> > > would be like taking a picture of a painting...
> >
> > But there isnlt light present what you are collecting is the corona discharge
> > not the object, not sure if there's a digital equivalent yet.
> >
> >
> > > > >and does there fore not count more than
> > > > > infrared... pling plong dave?
> > > >
> > > > what does that even mean.
> > > > Unless you're agreeing with me in that it's not a photograph of an image.
> > >
> > > No an image can exist without you being able to see it...
> >
> > So wind is an image is it.
> > You can take a picture of teh trees blowing and you might say you can see
> > wind but you can;t photograph wind.
>
> At first you have to learn to distinguish between an image and a
> photograph...
and I can.
But after any manipulation the differnce becomes blurred, which is wherre you're having problems.
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On 11/13/2017 10:51 AM, android wrote:
> In article<4710a517-92dc-44f4-99fd-6de9d2051f8a@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 13 November 2017 10:43:28 UTC, android wrote:
>>> In article<f1c25b39-9a86-4b66-8949-c3f25f9dc7bc@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
>>>>><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
>>>>>>> existed cannot be a photograph.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That almost sound like philosophy
>>>>>
>>>>> Logic.
>>>>
>>>> kirlian photography
>>>
>>> makes a real phenomena visible
>>
>> exactly it's not photographing an image, nothing you can see with the human
>> eye that is the point.
>
> Photography means drawing or writing with light. Photographing an image
> would be like taking a picture of a painting...
>>
>>
>>> and does there fore not count more than
>>> infrared... pling plong dave?
>>
>> what does that even mean.
>> Unless you're agreeing with me in that it's not a photograph of an image.
>
> No an image can exist without you being able to see it...
The old tree falling in a forest discussion.
--
PeterN
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
In article<oudf4k078u@news6.newsguy.com>,
PeterN <"peter,newdelete"@deleteverizon.net> wrote:
> On 11/13/2017 10:51 AM, android wrote:
> > In article<4710a517-92dc-44f4-99fd-6de9d2051f8a@googlegroups.com>,
> > Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, 13 November 2017 10:43:28 UTC, android wrote:
> >>> In article<f1c25b39-9a86-4b66-8949-c3f25f9dc7bc@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
> >>>>><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> >>>>>>> existed cannot be a photograph.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That almost sound like philosophy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Logic.
> >>>>
> >>>> kirlian photography
> >>>
> >>> makes a real phenomena visible
> >>
> >> exactly it's not photographing an image, nothing you can see with the human
> >> eye that is the point.
> >
> > Photography means drawing or writing with light. Photographing an image
> > would be like taking a picture of a painting...
> >>
> >>
> >>> and does there fore not count more than
> >>> infrared... pling plong dave?
> >>
> >> what does that even mean.
> >> Unless you're agreeing with me in that it's not a photograph of an image.
> >
> > No an image can exist without you being able to see it...
>
>
> The old tree falling in a forest discussion.
Define sound... Is the Louvre empty after it closes up for the night?
--
teleportation kills
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Tuesday, 14 November 2017 00:55:03 UTC, PeterN wrote:
> On 11/13/2017 10:51 AM, android wrote:
> > In article<4710a517-92dc-44f4-99fd-6de9d2051f8a@googlegroups.com>,
> > Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, 13 November 2017 10:43:28 UTC, android wrote:
> >>> In article<f1c25b39-9a86-4b66-8949-c3f25f9dc7bc@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Whisky-dave<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Friday, 10 November 2017 22:00:58 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:17:55 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
> >>>>><whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thursday, 9 November 2017 20:34:38 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The techniques might but strictly speaking an image which never
> >>>>>>> existed cannot be a photograph.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That almost sound like philosophy
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Logic.
> >>>>
> >>>> kirlian photography
> >>>
> >>> makes a real phenomena visible
> >>
> >> exactly it's not photographing an image, nothing you can see with the human
> >> eye that is the point.
> >
> > Photography means drawing or writing with light. Photographing an image
> > would be like taking a picture of a painting...
> >>
> >>
> >>> and does there fore not count more than
> >>> infrared... pling plong dave?
> >>
> >> what does that even mean.
> >> Unless you're agreeing with me in that it's not a photograph of an image.
> >
> > No an image can exist without you being able to see it...
>
>
> The old tree falling in a forest discussion.
That's why I said it's philosophy, because that tree falling was a philosophy discusion NOT a
scientific one.
How about If a man is speaking in a forest and no women is there to hear him is he still wrong.
>
> --
> PeterN
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:48:01 -0500, Scott Schuckert<not@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <delMB.177230$0z5.116720@fx07.fr7>, David B.
><DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> 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...
>> nhancenet-sharpens-photos-11364227072791
>
>Sorry, that's not a "photograph". It's an eye-pleasing reconstruction,
>filling in details that don't actually exist. (
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On 8/11/2017 3:32 @wiz, David B. 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...
>
>
Nup. Focus Magic walks all over the current crop of sharpening tools
and that one is just a reconstruction that is a guess at best...
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
On 11/9/2017 2:05 AM, Noons wrote:
> On 8/11/2017 3:32 @wiz, David B. 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...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Nup. Focus Magic walks all over the current crop of sharpening tools
> and that one is just a reconstruction that is a guess at best...
I was reading the reviews of FM, they were quite favorable, if you
follow their tutorials. However, I have not seen any comparing CC 2018,
which seems to have decent sharpening filters. I did some quickies, and
did not see any significant difference, between FM and what I already
have. Having said that i really like the defocusing, but it is "not yet
available," as a plugin. But that is just my personal preference.
--
PeterN
Subject: Re: Blurred photo?
What if we wanted to blur them on purpose? :/
David B.<DavidB@nomail.afraid.invalid> 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...
--
Quote of the Week: "I go out of my way to avoid stepping on ants." --Terry McGovern, daughter of
Senator George and Eleanor McGovern, subject of the book "Terry by her father"
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.