They may (or may not) collect say 7200dpi, but we only see at 3600dpi (the 7200 is sort of real, not interpolated, but it doesn't deliver real world 7200). A bit like the scanners sold these days as 7000+ dpi when there real world resolution is nearer half that figure. I can't help wondering if we are straying into the realms of voodoo here, or, perhaps rather more mundanely, marketing. (Don't know if it can do the required deconvolution, though).
#FOCUS STACKING SOFTWARE FOR PHOTOLINE FREE#
It's free and can align images at sub-pixel distances and merge them into higher resolution images.
If you want to experiment with super-resolution images, then have a look at Hugin. If you look at the stacked image at 100%, then the quality isn't really convincing – I doubt that it has more detail than one of the original images. The necessary deconvolution also increases noise a lot. But that's different from the super-resolution technique mentioned above.ītw., if you aim at better image quality, then you are much better off taking a 3 x 3 panorama instead (if only because your lens only has to deliver half the resolution, and because the pixel area acts as a low pass filter). Yes, that's just upscaling (if your image has 100 ppi and the printer prints at 300 dpi, then that's what you need to do). But aren't you in reality simple 'inventing' detail that the camera never captured?
#FOCUS STACKING SOFTWARE FOR PHOTOLINE PROFESSIONAL#
Superres2.png (2.09 KiB) 2014 mal betrachtet d (8.48 KiB) 61-mal heruntergeladenīruce1951 hat geschrieben:Many professional printers can 'rip' a file to get a larger than 'standard' resolution. With normal equipment I would take a few pictures with slightly tilted camera, scale the pics up by 400% and then place and mix them with some feel.
I remember that there was a camera that supported this sub pixel movement by design, Hasselblad? I don't know what PS can do for you today. Years ago there were special tools for this "superresolution". You get no idea about the details when you look at the result.īut now you move your camera and take 3 more pictures: Half a sensor pixel right, half down, half into both direction.īut then you average them all: Now you see details, somewhat blurred, but that can be handled by deconvolution. Unfortunately the resolution of your sensor is too rough, only half of what you need.Ĥ Pixels hit one cell of your sensor, and the result is an average of them. If your sensor (the grid) would be just that fine, you'd get a perfect picture.
0 kommentar(er)
