Wednesday November 22, 2006
|
All
|
Chuisms
|
Computers
|
Entertainment
|
Games
|
Hockey
|
Humor
|
Kids
|
Life
|
Music
|
SciFi
|
Television
Wednesday November 22, 2006 | Stupid Wednesday | Humor |
I probably won't be blogging over the US Thanksgiving holiday, so an early jab at dumb people. The first dumb person is ...
- Me - For not buying Google stock, even at the "ridiculous" price of $100.
- Google's Calendar Team - Great system, except for one huge flaw. They've been "working on a fix" for months now. Careful guys, that might cut into your $500 stock price.
- Dave "Mega Pixels Don't Matter" Pogue - OK, I'm being harsh calling him "dumb" but a tech reporter for the New York Times should know better. This guy took a 13 mega-pixel image, down rezzed it twice to 8 and 5 MP, and then blew up all three images into 16 x 24 inch prints. Then on the streets of New York, where photography experts constantly roam the streets, he tried to find people who could tell the difference. Read the comments for lots of good explanations why he missed the point, but it was fairly obvious (to me) that resampling a 13 MP image down to 5 MP would produce a superior image than that taken by a 5MP camera to begin with. Dave needs to look up the term anti-aliasing.
Dave is correct in that the average person does not need a 13 megapixel camera (or even 8 MP), but that's like saying the average person doesn't need to live in a castle.
Happy Thanksgiving, all!
Tags: google, calendar, photography
Tags: calendar google photography
November 22, 2006 11:05 AM PST Permalink | Comments [2] |
Comments:
Okay, I read the comments, and I think it is you that has missed the point. There is no way to know from the information given how the picture was down rezzed; different procedures will give different results. But the point is that once it is down rezzed, the original information is lost, and blowing it back up again will produce a valid test.
Posted by Brian Utterback on November 27, 2006 at 12:52 PM PST #
You are right that a simple single-sampled down rez will produce a pixelized image when blown up. But most image programs, like Photoshop, use over-sampling methods (like bicubic interpolation) to create a single pixel generated from the weighted values of all of the pixels in the sample. When this image is blown up, it's still pixelized, but the pixelization is much less obvious, and certainly more likely to match the original image.
Post a Comment:
Comments are closed for this entry.
©
Kevin Chu, Some Rights Reserved.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Sun Microsystems Trademarks are in effect.
All opinons are mine! Mine! Mine! Mine! Sun Microsystems has nothing to do with them.
Subscribe 
