"Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:kshuj.91400$_m.30196@bignews4.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> "(not quite so) Fat Sam" <samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:fp9mti$21u$1@aioe.org...
>> Norm Dresner wrote:
>>> I know that the sequences on crime shows like CSI where they take a
>>> small section of a blurry image, usually comprising fewer than a
>>> dozen pixels, and "sharpen" that to a full license plate number or
>>> window sticker are pure fiction.
>>
>> Those shows annoy the hell out of me.
>> The worst one I ever saw was where some cops were looking at a photo of
>> somebody walking through a town with a carrier bag full of stuff.
>> On one side of the bag was the logo of the shop it came from, but they
>> needed to know the name and address of the shop, so the cops asked the
>> computer geek guy to rotate the photo and enhance the details on the
>> other (hidden) side of the bag - the side facing away from the camera.
>> Some typing tok place - no mouse work or graphics tablet - all command
>> line stuff.
>> Then we saw an animation involving a wireframe 3D model of the entire
>> scene which rotated through 180degrees so we're now looking at it from
>> theother side. Then it was rendered over with a badly pixelised image.
>> "Can you clean that up a bit?" asked the cop.
>> "Sure" said the geek as he started typing again - never touched the
>> mouse, graphics tablet, space bar, number pad or enter key. He just
>> randomly mashed his fingers over the keyboard.
>> Then suddenly, the pixels resolved themselves into a crisp clear
>> photograph showing the opposite side of the bag. The side that was facing
>> away from the camera. The side that could not possibly have been
>> photographed.
>> And to the cops immense pleasure, there was a name, address, and
>> telephone number printed on that side of the bag.
>>
>> I swear, I threw things at my TV and shouted so loud it scared the dog.
> Sorry Sam but I happen to use special propriatory software in my work to
> replace missing pixels and no mouse is used in the process. Unfortunately
> I cannot give you the name of the software or which agency employs it. I
> can tell you it is extremely expensive and outside of the realm of
> consumer use. I doubt that you personally would have been able to handle
> such complex software because you seem unable to lack the control
> necessary to use it. If you throw things at TV's you would never be
> permitted to use this software.
> That's why I can recreate missing pixels and you are a buffoon.
> Go throw something at your monitor.


can you post a before and after of an image you did with it??
or take one for an example?

or that is all top secret as well??

you know we won't believe you until you prove it