The world just doesn't work like Hollywood movies … if the image isn't there natively, there's little you can do beyond cleaning up noise in the shot. As BitHead said, you run the risk of going from "enhancing" to "altering."
Megapixels mean absolutely nothing in digital photography. Lense quality outweighs MP count … and the MP count can be embellished with FFT applied or any other number of mathematical tricks. So 3MP may just not be enough.
A friend of mine used to work in a photography shop. It is indeed the quality of the lense which is important to the quality. The amount of mega pixels correlates to the size of the actual image.
Yeah, megapixel count correlates to the size of the resulting image (one for one), and the definition and general importance ends right there. For instance, I have decade-old 3MP camera that will outshoot any of today's digital cameras - 8MP, 10MP, you name it - so long as the lense glass isn't Nikkor quality AF or a Carl Zeiss.
Again, assessing the quality of a camera by its MP count is like saying that someone with two $10 bills in a wallet has more money than a person with one $20 bill because the prior has more paper.
On topic if the base image isnt there, it isnt there.
Megapixels mean absolutely nothing in digital photography. Lense quality outweighs MP count … and the MP count can be embellished with FFT applied or any other number of mathematical tricks. So 3MP may just not be enough.
Uhmm.. You are stating that megapixel mean absolutely nothing. If it does not matter than how can "3MP may just not be enough"?
Megapixel correlates to many things other than just size, but indeed a good lense will always be much more important then adding megapixels.
Image reproduction or reconstruction does not work the same way then recovering, for example IM conversation or a document.
An image is subjective and variable, or fuzzy, versus the IM conversation is fixed, binary or crisp.
If enhancing of images was not allowed in court then most photo speeding tickets and similar solutions would be of little use. Almost all of those speeding, red light, etc. solutions use various techniques to enhance the image.
Of course it has to be documented and generally accepted solutions have to be used.
The option for the original poster is that he can take some frames, enhance them and if the result is of value, they can get a professional to do a proper job.
The mathematics behind image enhancement is not too complex and can be explained, even to a jury P .
I am an amateur even by the lowest standards, but I easily shoot about 1K to 1.5K images a month, usually just on my weekends. Rarely I do not enhanced them. It is generally accepted and presumed practice that white balance, brightness, contrast are adjusted, and most often unsharp, and curve was applied to a digital image.
Taking it a few steps further, overlapping stitching or HDR can be achieved with just a few additional clicks as well.
If the base image is not there on one frame, it may be there in the sum of several frames together.
I am willing to say, if the frames are acquired in a proper forensically sound manner, and a recognizable face is produced after sound, and reproducible manner, there would be little to no objections to it.
Send me 3 or 4 of the best consecutive frames and I show you what I mean.
Of course, it is possible that there is nothing there… But not because images are "as is".
My point - just because we cannot see something, it doesn't mean it is not there.
The mathematics behind image enhancement is not too complex and can be explained, even to a jury .
It's called "complex number theory" for a reason. Do you really think you can find a group of peers who understands Fast Fourier Transforms? Here's a paper for you to brush up on your math
http//
yup ! Ideas are prety good but I am in hurry …
I am trying communicate with
if anybody know any organizations are doing this kind of work ???????
please friends
Abdulcadir, Take a look at
There is also a product called "
Logg, let's refrain from ad hominems. We do not really know each other that well, or how much math background one has or does not have.
A tangent topic, it may be, but to give advice that the math underlying this topic is in any form easily understandable is quite negligent and misleading. Hence, I gave a scientific paper as a point of reference. Ad hominem arguments are to skirt the subject and attack the person; if this is how you took it, I do hope you understand it was not meant as such.
To those that claim megapixels mean nothing–you are mistaken. Megapixels absolutely have their place in the quality / quantity spectrum. There is an issue that no one has mentioned, which is the size of the sensor. You can cram 10 million pixels into 1/8th of an inch or you can fit them in 1 inch. Both have - the same quantity - 10 million (mega) pixels, however -the quality - of the larger sensor will be better. This is one reason why you will find professional SLR camera bodies cost more than point and shoot cameras with the same megapixel count. It's not 'just' the lens.
The bottom line is that there are many factors that affect the quality of a digital image. Read BitHeads post. He seems to have offered an insightful, succinct and accurate response. If you are in a position to give 'expert' opinion or testimony on an issue and you are not an expert in that field, you are doing yourself and others a disservice. Google and forums will not make you an expert. My advice is don't manipulate the image if you don't understand what you're doing to it.
Thank you… but I try a lot .. no use ? also I send a request and waiting reply from http//