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.

BUT ... The best I've found so far is Focus Magic. Is there anything better
I'm missing?

TIA
Norm

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.

"(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.

The producers have said on a number of occasions that they do take some
artistic license with the show but hey ho its only a TV show.

Next you will be telling me the Kermit the Frog was just a puppet



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

(not quite so) Fat Sam wrote:
> 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.
[snip]
>

You are just upset because the CSI plug-in for Photoshop/PSP is deemed
classified and only sold to law enforcement agencies.


--

Len

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:21:51 -0000, "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam"
<samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:

>
>I swear, I threw things at my TV and shouted so loud it scared the dog.

And I thought it was just me!



Easy to use graphics effects:
http://www.ransen.com/

"(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.

"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

"KatWoman" <spamfree@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HXluj.103399$L%6.32773@bignews3.bellsouth.net ...
>
> "Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
> news:kshuj.91400$_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
>
We know where you live KatWoman. Please stand directly in the center
of your monitor and stare at it for 5 seconds. That's it. Thank's for
you cooperation.

"Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:eomuj.76853$k27.610@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> We know where you live KatWoman. Please stand directly in the center of
> your monitor and stare at it for 5 seconds. That's it. Thank's for you
> cooperation.

Frank is a poseur. If he had a serious job he would not be posting all day.
If he was in a security position, he would not be posting at all. Put this
character into your kill file.

"Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
news:dMmuj.76864$k27.28330@bignews2.bellsouth.net. ..

Posted a phony example of the process of blurred image extraction.. He
started with the larger image and reduced it until it was unrecognizable,
just the way they do it on TV.

Norm

KatWoman wrote:
> "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

LOL. I think he was just having a bit of a laugh KW.
I interpreted his post as a bit of good humoured banter - Perhaps I
misunderstood him.

"(not quite so) Fat Sam" <samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote in
message news:fpelpu$dqe$1@aioe.org...
> KatWoman wrote:
>> "Frank Arthur" <Art@Arthurian.com> wrote in message
>> news:kshuj.91400$_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
>
> LOL. I think he was just having a bit of a laugh KW.
> I interpreted his post as a bit of good humoured banter - Perhaps I
> misunderstood him.
Bingo!

Stewy wrote:
> In article <fpelpu$dqe$1@aioe.org>,
> "\(not quite so\) Fat Sam" <samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> KatWoman wrote:
>>> "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
>>
>> LOL. I think he was just having a bit of a laugh KW.
>> I interpreted his post as a bit of good humoured banter - Perhaps I
>> misunderstood him.
>
> Interpolated I'm sure

Very good, LOL.

In article
<jVXtj.616538$kj1.422437@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Norm
Dresner <ndrez@att.net> 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.
>
> BUT ... The best I've found so far is Focus Magic. Is there anything better
> I'm missing?
>
> TIA
> Norm
>
<flame war deleted>

Also look at Unshake <http://www.hamangia.freeserve.co.uk/Unshake/>

Tom

"Tom Nelson" <ludibund@xintegraonline.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:230220081831072705%ludibund@xintegraonline.co m.invalid...
| In article
| <jVXtj.616538$kj1.422437@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Norm
| Dresner <ndrez@att.net> 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.
| >
| > BUT ... The best I've found so far is Focus Magic. Is there anything
better
| > I'm missing?
| >
| > TIA
| > Norm
| >
| <flame war deleted>
|
| Also look at Unshake <http://www.hamangia.freeserve.co.uk/Unshake/>
|
| Tom

OMG!!

I can't believe that after all this time someone actually recognized
that I asked a question that required an answer and hadn't intended to start
a flame war.

Thanks

Norm