How can I keep the quality of a image even when it gets large?

[adu123]

I have a small image file that's about 10.6 KB, I usually open it with Windows Photo Gallery. When I try to enlarge it using the wheel on my mouse to get a better look of it, all I can see are the pixels! (very blur)

I wonder if there're any programs that I can use to keep the quality of the image even when it became large, just like the computer expert at the movie help the FBI to enhance the quality of the surveillant tape with a few click.

Any helps are appreciated.

 

[acidosmosis]

That which you see on TV, well let me explain it to you in one word.

Rubbish.

I've been working with graphics applications for years. It's not possible to take a surveillance camera's video footage, take one of the frames and enhance a section from an already ridiculously pixelated image, then clear it up and make it look like a 13 megapixel camera took the picture. Although Hollywood will tell you it is (and a lot of people).

Sorry dude.

 

[adu123]

So that means there's no way I can enhance the pixel quality of a image(when it gets large)? No ways at all?

a while ago, some people suggest me to convert the bmp image to a vector image, but the vector image program doesn't help me to get what I wanted, it only TRACE the outline of the original image, NOT enhance the pixel quality.

I just don't understand why it is so difficult to develop a tool that does that?

 

[caravel]

So that means there's no way I can enhance the pixel quality of a image(when it gets large)? No ways at all?

a while ago, some people suggest me to convert the bmp image to a vector image, but the vector image program doesn't help me to get what I wanted, it only TRACE the outline of the original image, NOT enhance the pixel quality.

I just don't understand why it is so difficult to develop a tool that does that?

It's a mathematical impossibility to generate a higher quality image from a lower quality image. Raster images will always appear more and more pixellated as you scale them up / zoom in. You cannot take one of those pixels and some how enhance it, simply because the better quality, higher resolution data was not there to start with.

Converting to a vector won't help either as the trace progam will also trace all of the jagged pixellated edges. The result will be a mess with many many nodes will look the same when zoomed in and won't be worth the effort to clean up.

If it's a simple image just paste it into your vector program (coreldraw? Illustrator?) and then manually trace over it to reproduce it.

 

[adu123]

If it's a simple image just paste it into your vector program (coreldraw? Illustrator?) and then manually trace over it to reproduce it

It's not a simple image, it's a photo taken from a camera.

The vector program I'm using is Inkscape, When I trace the photo(.bmp format), the color is in black and white, and all the human feature are missing too. I'm not sure if I used it correctly.

 

[zipperman]

Post it

Attachments are allowed.

I have received many camera pics.Their usually huge
and need resizeing smaller.
This makes them even better quality.
Check your camera,doesn't sound right.

 

[Obi-Wan Jerkobi]

I would agree with Zipperman. My $50 5.1MP Camera takes pictures at 2592x1944 at 5.1Megapixels. That's probably 2x larger than your screen resolution.

And that FBI thing is just (mostly) fiction, I don't think it's possible to take a 30x30 GIF and turn it into a High Quality 800x800 image.

 

[zipperman]

enlarging

29 x 29 to 300 x 300 pixels
Doesn't work too well.

 

[CCT]

Theoretically, a sophisticated computer of GREAT power could be programmed (ie: have a program installed) that could interpolate by inferance capabilities what would appear if a specific area was expanded IF the starting picture was high definition enough to start with (say 128 bit and extremely HIGH resolution).

The USofA probably has satellite surveilance that generates pictures of that quality (Hubble looking at your backyard deck), but the average consumer won't get that capability.

 

[zipperman]

Pixel shape

We must remember that pixels are squares.I learned many years ago about
jaggys.Drawing a line will look like a set of stairs at low rez and colors.Windows
has told me that I need 32 bit 16 million colors for smooth icons and fonts etc.
Magnify these and see how it's useing many colors to fool you into seeing
a straight line,or circle thats truly round.
You can see that in my enlarged rose.
:grinthumb

 

[tipstir]

I have a small image file that's about 10.6 KB, I usually open it with Windows Photo Gallery. When I try to enlarge it using the wheel on my mouse to get a better look of it, all I can see are the pixels! (very blur)

I wonder if there're any programs that I can use to keep the quality of the image even when it became large, just like the computer expert at the movie help the FBI to enhance the quality of the surveillant tape with a few click.

Any helps are appreciated.

Grayscale the image and use rendering.. I repair a lot of photos under PhotoShop some really bad and cracked faded and washed out. Video you can only do so much. I say get rid of the color chroma noise and filter it out and make high res gray/black/white. Not like were on Mars trying to make every image look rust color.

 

[zipperman]

Thats even worse

Grayscale the image and use rendering.. I repair a lot of photos under PhotoShop some really bad and cracked faded and washed out. Video you can only do so much. I say get rid of the color chroma noise and filter it out and make high res gray/black/white. Not like were on Mars trying to make every image look rust color.

He wants a larger color picture.Greyscale will only make it more pixelized.
It needs 16 Million colors for any enlargement possibilities.

 

[tipstir]

He wants a larger color picture.Greyscale will only make it more pixelized.
It needs 16 Million colors for any enlargement possibilities.

Don't forget 1 Billion colors 32-bit or higher, 24-bit for 16 Million colors. Oh well so he needs color video.

 

[adu123]

Wow! It sounds so complicated, I'm not sure what you guys talk about here.

Once again, is there any way I can see the all the features in the image clearly when I enlarge it?

The small image is 47x46, I've attach the image

Thank you for all the advices

 

[kimsland]

400 Percent
Sharpened slightly

It is poor quality though

 

[zipperman]

I have to say NO

Wow! It sounds so complicated, I'm not sure what you guys talk about here.

Once again, is there any way I can see the all the features in the image clearly when I enlarge it?

The small image is 47x46, I've attach the image

Thank you for all the advices

I doubled it in size and it's not so good.Use this as a lesson on useing
this camera.As i said they usually need to be resized smaller.
Can't you just waste this picture.They cost nothing i was told.
:wave:

 

[captaincranky]

Flogging a Dead Horse Named, "Should Be Obvious"

400 Percent
Sharpened slightly

It is poor quality though

But why stop there, can't you turn this into hi-res wallpaper? :haha:

The only reason they sell high resolution digital cameras is as fashion accessories. You can do it all with a phone. :stickout: :wave:

 

[tipstir]

Wow! It sounds so complicated, I'm not sure what you guys talk about here.

Once again, is there any way I can see the all the features in the image clearly when I enlarge it?

The small image is 47x46, I've attach the image

Thank you for all the advices

Tiny image I'll have to switch to my video editor box to see what I can do...

 

[tipstir]

Not much to work with but this is what I've done before you hit the blur mode..

Actual one I had worked on.. The first one the picture site likes to blow it up to full screen...

 

[captaincranky]

Wow! It sounds so complicated, I'm not sure what you guys talk about here.

We try to relegate ourselves to the possible.

Once again, is there any way I can see the all the features in the image clearly when I enlarge it .

I'll try to keep this answer as breif and unambiguous as possible.........NO!


The small image is 47x46, I've attach the image

Thank you for all the advices[/QUOTE]

So that means there's no way I can enhance the pixel quality of a image(when it gets large)? No ways at all?

a while ago, some people suggest me to convert the bmp image to a vector image, but the vector image program doesn't help me to get what I wanted, it only TRACE the outline of the original image, NOT enhance the pixel quality.

I just don't understand why it is so difficult to develop a tool that does that?

Since it shouldn't be dificult, why haven't you succeeded in doing so? You're probably wasting too much time on the internet wondering what the people here at Techspot talk about.

The High-Tech explanation:
I have a degree in photography, and I think I know why it can't be done, because the computer just can't pull non-existing, imaginary information out of it's a**, then paste it into the photograph to your liking.

 

[tipstir]

It's the skilled human being and the dummy computer (college professor code name for the PC) have to perform the task of editing a poor image into a good one. If it can be done or not? There are photo studios that can use Adobe Photoshop or better to try to clean up the image. Not going to be cheap process either way you cut the pie!

 

[caravel]

I'm sure you know this tipstir and this is really directed at adu123, but Pixel averaging/blurring is not equal to increasing quality. What tipstir has done is the best you can hope for.

 

[Obi-Wan Jerkobi]

The High-Tech explanation:
I have a degree in photography, and I think I know why it can't be done, because the computer just can't pull non-existing, imaginary information out of it's a**, then paste it into the photograph to your liking.

Best...explanation...ever! :haha:

 

[tipstir]

I'm sure you know this tipstir and this is really directed at adu123, but Pixel averaging/blurring is not equal to increasing quality. What tipstir has done is the best you can hope for.

Yes I know it's aim at that user, but thanks for the nod though...

 

[DelJo63]

this is a classic Desktop Publishing issue; resolution ( xx by yy) is not the same thing
as DPI (Dots per Inch).

• the image size is measured in the resolution which defines the paper size needed to contain it.
• the DPI setting controls the print quality. minimal lazer printer dpi is 300, but professional
  b/w, 4 color spot images or full color printing is sent to the printer in EPS formats with
  a dpi > 1200.

do the math (1200 dpi x resolution width x resolution height) and you see that these
are VERY LARGE files.

the original image must have a high DPI value if enlargement is to have any hope of
decent quality.

a GIF/BMP is always low dpi as they are designed for screen (monitor) display,
while a JPEG can contain any reasonable dpi * resolution.