Upsizing you 10 megapixels to 30 mp sort of...

Status
Not open for further replies.
1st Rule of everything;

You cannot add resolution, only take away..... no exceptions , ever....


But you sure can do stuff to give the impression... Id like to hear more about it too...
 
gmarquez said:
Not quite...it sounds like he is layering them, but offset from each other by sub-pixel amounts. Also, it shounds like one technique is to use pure luma (brightness, b&w) for one of the offsets.
Click to expand...

Ok, but resolution of the image has not changed. Well, by one pixel in each direction, but that's just a product of the process and is not the primary intent.

While this process might produce some kind of beneficial result, which I am not arguing nor do I have the capacity to argue, I was taken aback by the comment about not flattening the image. Whether you flatten the final result or not in a case like this is purely abstract and does not affect output. When you view the image, regardless of layering, you are viewing a "flattened" image. We're only working in two dimensions here.

Flattening would remove the ability to make changes to the layering technique after the flattening process. Perhaps that is all he meant. Although he did specifically say it would negate the size of the file. Which again begs the question, "in what way does it look like a 30MP image?" Does this help when making larger prints? Is there something inherently good about a 30MP image even if you're not exceeding the maximum output resolution of your final medium (e.g. if your output is 4x6" at 300dpi, you only need 1200x1800 pixels, and both 10 and 30 megapixel cameras provide more than enough resolution to achieve this)?
 
If you want to get more bang out of your camera, just shoot a few pictures in a panoramic sequence and stitch the sides together! Sure it only works for verticle or horizontal panoramic shots, but you can get some nice effects that way!

Sorry for being a little off topic
 
max, man, seriously, thanks for calling him out on this one.

this sounds pretty far fetched, and is he ever going to reply to this?
 
DSLR noob said:
LMAO. You just basically called BenjiKan, a professional fashion photographer, a fashion photo n00b! LMAO!!!!!
Click to expand...

Cheers for this.
One of the best posts I've read on this forum. Had me laughing out loud!!!

As far as the subject of the thread goes - i don't know if i'd have been as harsh or critical as Max but I'm with him on the "I don't see how it can work" front.

Look forward for Benjikan explaining all..............................
 
MaxBloom said:
I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense. In fact, there's now way you could mathematically conclude that you have come close to tripling the number of pixels via the process you outlined. For that matter, it also stands to reason that you can't make a 10mp image "look like" a 30mp image. It either is or isn't. And I'm willing to bet that if you took your new image and actually put it next to a 30mp image of the same subject, you would notice quite a quality difference. The only way to artificially increase the resolution of an image is through pixel interpolation, which your method does not do.

Your process is neither mathematically nor logically sound. For whatever reason, you seem to enjoy making excuses for why you shoot with a K10D. I'm sure it's a very nice camera. I own several Pentax cameras in different formats and love all of them. But unless you were actually foolish enough to turn down the offer to shoot with a proper digital back, then to be honest I think that you're lying, because the only cameras that MF digital backs are made for are at the very least much better suited to fashion photography, and in most cases they are better cameras on the whole.

If you think that this actually works, then more power to you, but I think that you're kidding yourself. You know as well as I do that everyone who is anyone in the fashion industry worldwide uses MF (usually digital). I'm not saying that you're a nobody, but I am saying that I think your post is rather silly. If you actually have the power to purchase and use a real MF digital camera, but choose not to for whatever reason, then that's perfectly fine. But I think it defies all reasonable explanation why someone who is so in love with their camera that they claim to have turned down the use of a real camera (in the fashion industry), would attempt some process that seeks to mimic those other cameras.
Click to expand...

Actually I am just another photographer with 27 years of experience. Just wanted to share something I have done in PP for all of your edification. Just one of many techniques. Perhaps, I'll reserve my comments to forums that aren't as defensive about the issue...
 
no, we are just sceptic on this.

why don't you show us a FULL, high res file, both before and after so we can see what you are talking about, at the link at top i only saw small files.
 
 
thanks for the links, but i meant, like can you show us a before and after of this process?

with the full files?
 
also, i don't think anyone here is questioning your credentials . . . people who stay up on current photogs have probobly heard of you, or at least if they are up on current fashion photogs.
 
gmarquez said:
I believe you are wrong here...he is not offsetting by 1 pixel, he is (attempting) to offset by 1/2 a pixel. What that gains you is debatable, but it IS a bit more complex than just shifting everything over by 1 pixel. I don't know any better whay to explain it. Again, a 10 Megapixel Bayer interpolated image is not "really" 10 Megapixel, but the effects of the firmware make for an "interestingly hi-res approximation". His method may be a way to interpret the data a bit differently. Is her "really" getting the same image as a 30 Megapixel non-Bayer interpolated image. No. Is he getting an image that some may consider "as good as" a 30 Megapixel image once it's in print? I don't know. Sometimes "faked" looks better than "real" due to the human visual system.

It also depends on how the photos will be used. Will they be blown up to 40 feet tall for an outdoor add campaign?



Interpolation seems to be exactly what he is going after. By attempting (notice the word ATTEMPTING) to shift each image plane by 1/2 a pixel, and then blending, he is attempting to blend.
Click to expand...

Hello;

Actually, my images are blown up to about 3.5 x5.5 meters at the Festival in Cannes and printed on huge canvas on the "Croisette" of Cannes, France. At my permanent exhibitions at Lumas Galleries world wide the images are 0.80 x 1.20 meters and are about 170 mega each. These were shot originally on anywhere fro 6.3 to 16.7 megapixel camera's. My X-Mas "Swarovski" campaign was blown up to 2.5 x about 1.6 meters.

Sorry...I guess, something is working. The technique I employed for those were as indicated earlier in another post re: my workflow method.
 
newrmdmike said:
also, i don't think anyone here is questioning your credentials . . . people who stay up on current photogs have probobly heard of you, or at least if they are up on current fashion photogs.
Click to expand...

That's Ok. That wasn't the reason for the CV's..It was the tone of the post. "Me thinks he protesteth too much"..I'd be thrilled if he would link me some of his "works"...

Look, I just do what I do and have been doing it non stop since 1980...

None the less, thanks for the heads up..

Ben:wink:
 
i really don't follow your instructions too well, could you explain the " introduce three layers with a microscopic shift on each of the layers" a little more?
 
THORHAMMER said:
1st Rule of everything;

You cannot add resolution, only take away..... no exceptions , ever....


But you sure can do stuff to give the impression... Id like to hear more about it too...
Click to expand...

Yes I agree. I said kind of. It is similar to floating three images on top of one another and offsetting them slightly giving it a subtle stereoscopic effect or pseudo "3D". I never said it was 30 mega but "Kind of"..Anyhow. I have used it, like it for some applications and just wished to share it with all of you. It is certainly not flawless and may not be of interest to most users. None the less, just another technique available to experiment with.

I do not flatten for pre-press reasons. Of course we are dealing with a 2 dimensional image. As to a little aside voiced here by someone, what was it? "found out" or something like that, yeah I guess your right. Look when I started cross processing in '83 it was considered totally off the wall and incomprehensible. None the less, it was just another technique. I like the "Effect" no more no less.

Thanks
Ben
 
I think it may be a cool and viable technique, taking 10mp to 30 in software just sounds so off the mark that people might call you on it, no biggie, were all your fans !!! ;)

I think we all just have issues cause we cant see each other when we type...

no body language to speak of...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Over exposed?

< Previous Thread

Should I buy some studio lights?

Next Thread >

Most reactions

Similar threads

benjikan
A More Precise Explanation of Workflow
Replies
0
Views
1K
benjikan
benjikan

New Topics

TPF Gallery Photos

7985-C130sMoodyTPF
Tree stump
116-File3934-02
new work
7985-CornVendor
Child
swing
A New Day Dawns.
Grackle.jpg
116-File3937
Hybiscus 2
7985-GeorgiaCypressTreesTPF
Back
Top