How do you make small pixel photos better on printout?

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
#
# There are 26 letters in the western alphabet. Changing each of
# these letters for number, from 0 to 25, is a change of medium -
# but *NOT* the total amount of information contained in any message
# composed of those letters!
#
# Cypherpunk wrote:
# No, you're wrong. The new numbers (or say a new alphabet) might change
# the relationships. The letters C and S and K might be reduced to two
# symbols representing just the S and K sounds, freeing up a symbol to
# represent something new.
#
# That is irrelevant...

No it's not, and it was your challenge-example. I violated no rules
by assigning new meanings when changing symbols. Talk about being
burdened by legacy systems! Post in EBCDIC why doncha?

Just what kind of wise-guy are youz?

# From: "R. Kennedy McEwen"
# Subject: Why did the ... cross the road?
# Date: 1996/06/01
# Message-ID: #1/1
# organization: Turn left at Greenland!
# newsgroups: alt.tasteless.jokes
#
# Why did the pervert cross the road?
#
# Because he had his dick stuck in the chicken!
#
# --
# Ken

Oh...that kind. ;-)

----

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
#
# It does not change the total amount of information that can
# be carried by combinations of those 26 letters or numbers!
#
# Cypherpunk wrote:
# Same number of symbols, something new and more expressive though.
#
# No - more efficient use of the information space available,
# just like lossless compression of data.

Exactly. There's more information in the same physical space.

Something achieved by my new encoding of the 26 symbols
even if I didn't use bit-level compression.

----

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
# Cypherpunk wrote:
#
# What you said is false. If I opaquely overlay text over someone's
# forehead, I've added information regardless of the byte count.
#
# No - and by making such a ludicrous statement it is clear that you do
# not understand what *information* actually is!

It's not byte-count, Ken.

# You have removed information from the original in order to place the text.
#
# More "signal." Our brains will assume "forehead" under the text.
#
# Learn the difference between assumption and knowledge. You *assume*
# that the perfect skin of a forehead is a continuance of what lies behind
# the text, but you do not *know* that - the text could conceal an ugly
# scar on the individual or even conceal text placed on the image by a
# previous user, such as a watermark. Indeed, what is concealed by the
# text may be the only discriminating feature of the individual which
# identifies him from a twin brother, distant relative or anyone who
# randomly has similar characteristics - you assume it doesn't, but you do
# not know because you have lost the very piece of information that would
# allow to know.

What are you going on and on about? I said "assume."

It's a safe assumption based on knowledge of foreheads.

----

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
# Cypherpunk wrote:
#
# Or if I secretly added a message in the low order bits but the
# photo looked the same to the human eye. The original low order
# bits conveyed almost no information, the new ones are a complete
# new message. Not all bits are the same, information-wise, because
# of the interaction with our brains.
#
# Well at least you have acknowledge that you are removing information in
# order to do so - but you have *NO* knowledge of what the importance of
# that information is.

Sure I do, they were the Least Significant bits of an image.
By definition I know their importance.

# You assume it is unimportant, but you do not know that!

You are assuming the new text is less important than the
now missing original low-order bits!

# I could, for example, wish to modify the image levels to improve
# the visibility of shadow, mid range or highlight detail, in itself
# sacrificing some information, in which case the loss of those lower
# bits to your hidden message would be immediately obvious.

Right, and your image transformation doesn't need the least
significant bit compared to my message existing entirely there.

It's my example, I've added a msg which I consider important,
so you can't claim I have no knowledge of the importance of the
information.

Low importance: the least significant bit in the image words.
High importance: the secret message.

# Your example of text on the forehead is making assumptions for those
# "known unknowns" - you don't know what information the text conceals,
# you assume.

Yeah, I'm assuming there was no special information in the
forehead bits. Call me crazy!

# And if I change a smoking friend's face to all green and put
# a word balloon on it saying "I need another cigarette then I'll
# feel fine", I have (once again) added information.
#
# At the expense of much more information than you introduce!

You are using a bizarre argument: that all overlay changes
to the original image to create a new image results in a
loss of information.

At other times you refer to the same transformation as
not changing the amount of information.

So you're arguing in whatever direction is handy.

# Changed bits is NEW information replacing OLD information
# - total information content is UNCHANGED.

Oh, yeah, now you're on the 'unchanged' track again.

See what I mean about blowing in the wind?

The only thing unchanged is the number of bytes.

Information-wise - it depends on the person evaluating it
and what they're looking for. That I assume forehead bits
are forehead bits and not sekret message bits is my
evaluation. Your assumptions of the possibility of
sekret message bits is your evaluation.

Both of us make our own assumptions.

----

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
# Cypherpunk wrote:
#
# Take the original photo and the greatly enlarged one.
#
# Backup twenty feet. ;-)
#
# More detail is delivered to the eye by the larger image.
#
# Not compared to the small photo viewed at close range it doesn't!
#
# WHOOOSH! If the detail can't be seen at twenty feet then defacto
# the detail doesn't reach the eye and so ain't there.
#
# And your point is what?

Redundant data is no longer redundant if you need to use it!

So even redundant info is *more* info.

# It would be impolite to remind you

.... then you continue...

# that *you* introduced the term
# "amount of information" to contest my comments in your post of Fri, 30
# Jan 2004 19:09:00GMT reference ,
# however it is there on record and publicly accessible to all who doubt
# that you did! Since then that is what the discussion has addressed -
# the total amount of information in the image. There is no point in now
# changing your argument back to relative importance or robustness of the
# information since that is exactly back on the path that *you* decided to
# divert from!

And on that point you are wrong.

I said "amount of information" (which you incorrectly interpret
as number of bytes) and *you* said "Ever heard of signals and noise?"

You brought up satellites early on and later "signal/noise", and
that involves assigning relative importance to parts of the raw
data (the information part), and relative importance to some
information (planes) than other information (winnebagoes).

Information does not exist in a vacuum. It is evaluated relative
to some environment, such as somone's brain, which is a neural net
with a particular information exposure. (Esoteric example: in PL/I
data can be evaluated in the calling function's environment _or_
the current environment, depending on usage.)

The same picture can convey different meanings (information) to
different people. That means different information is conveyed
from the same data. Or are you going to deny that too?

You are once again arguing in whatever direction is handy by saying
there is relative information importance (seeking signal within
satellite data), then arguing that line of reasoning is unimportant
(the same number of bytes always conveys the same amount of information).

You've said both of those.

In article , Carrie Lyons
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
#
# There are 26 letters in the western alphabet. Changing each of
# these letters for number, from 0 to 25, is a change of medium -
# but *NOT* the total amount of information contained in any message
# composed of those letters!
#
# Cypherpunk wrote:
# No, you're wrong. The new numbers (or say a new alphabet) might change
# the relationships. The letters C and S and K might be reduced to two
# symbols representing just the S and K sounds, freeing up a symbol to
# represent something new.
#
# That is irrelevant...

No it's not, and it was your challenge-example. I violated no rules
by assigning new meanings when changing symbols.

It is irrelevant *BECAUSE* you violated no rules. If you had violated
rules it would simply have been *WRONG*. Changing information content
or the meaning of particular parameters within that information space
does not change the amount of information any particular message within
that space can contain.

Talk about being
burdened by legacy systems! Post in EBCDIC why doncha?

Why would I want to do that when the 26 letters (52 including capitals)
and a few punctuation marks I use for may messages already use only a
small amount of the information space available in 7-bit ASCII code?
Only a complete idiot would suggest using 8-bit EBDIC, which provides
twice as much information space to send the same content across systems
which are fully capable of handling the former. Talk about wasted
bandwidth!

Just what kind of wise-guy are youz?

Just what sort of a moron are you?

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
#
# It does not change the total amount of information that can
# be carried by combinations of those 26 letters or numbers!
#
# Cypherpunk wrote:
# Same number of symbols, something new and more expressive though.
#
# No - more efficient use of the information space available,
# just like lossless compression of data.

Exactly. There's more information in the same physical space.

Something achieved by my new encoding of the 26 symbols
even if I didn't use bit-level compression.

Not at all, you have replaced "assumption" for a "known unknown".
Assumption is NOT information.

# Cypherpunk wrote:
#
# What you said is false. If I opaquely overlay text over someone's
# forehead, I've added information regardless of the byte count.
#
# No - and by making such a ludicrous statement it is clear that you do
# not understand what *information* actually is!

It's not byte-count, Ken.

No, it isn't, nor did I suggest it was, however your "added information"
totally ignores both the information you have subtracted to make that
addition and the fact that your added information is less than what was
removed, based purely on the number of unique states either the added or
subtracted information could occupy.

# You have removed information from the original in order to place the text.
#
# More "signal." Our brains will assume "forehead" under the text.
#
# Learn the difference between assumption and knowledge. You *assume*
# that the perfect skin of a forehead is a continuance of what lies behind
# the text, but you do not *know* that - the text could conceal an ugly
# scar on the individual or even conceal text placed on the image by a
# previous user, such as a watermark. Indeed, what is concealed by the
# text may be the only discriminating feature of the individual which
# identifies him from a twin brother, distant relative or anyone who
# randomly has similar characteristics - you assume it doesn't, but you do
# not know because you have lost the very piece of information that would
# allow to know.

What are you going on and on about? I said "assume."

It's a safe assumption based on knowledge of foreheads.

Really? The only safe assumption is knowledge based on information. You
have removed that information from the image and with it your knowledge,
and hence making an unsafe assumption.

A blonde takes a photo of her deceased grandfather to a photographer for
restoration and asks if she can remove the hat he is wearing because its
no longer in fashion. "Fine" say's the photographer, "But what colour
hair did he have?" She replies: "Brown, I think, but won't you find out
when you take his hat off?"

You are making the same fundamental assumption - you have destroyed the
information that determined whether the forehead was normal, clean,
dirty, had a frontal lobotomy scar. The information that was there has
been destroyed, forcing you to make an assumption instead. You call it
safe, but there is no evidence that it is at all safe.

Developing the Rumsfeld quotation, because it is relevant to your "safe"
assumption and the topic he made it on:
* Replacing unknown unknowns with assumption is the art of deception.
* Replacing known unknowns with assumption is risk, and universally
quantifying that risk to be zero is foolhardy.
* Replacing known knowns with assumption is abject stupidity!

In one example you have managed to demonstrate both foolhardiness and
abject stupidity!

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
# Cypherpunk wrote:
#
# Or if I secretly added a message in the low order bits but the
# photo looked the same to the human eye. The original low order
# bits conveyed almost no information, the new ones are a complete
# new message. Not all bits are the same, information-wise, because
# of the interaction with our brains.
#
# Well at least you have acknowledge that you are removing information in
# order to do so - but you have *NO* knowledge of what the importance of
# that information is.

Sure I do, they were the Least Significant bits of an image.
By definition I know their importance.

Not relative to the information contained you don't! The least
significant bits may actually be the only information space actually
used by the image - such as in a low contrast area. As already stated,
if I want to enhance the visibility of that low contrast area, your so
called secret message will become painfully obvious because it will have
removed the information in the image that I wanted to see in order to
place it.

# You assume it is unimportant, but you do not know that!

You are assuming the new text is less important than the
now missing original low-order bits!

No, I am not - but neither am I assuming that it is more important.

# I could, for example, wish to modify the image levels to improve
# the visibility of shadow, mid range or highlight detail, in itself
# sacrificing some information, in which case the loss of those lower
# bits to your hidden message would be immediately obvious.

Right, and your image transformation doesn't need the least
significant bit compared to my message existing entirely there.

How do you know that? As with most people using high resolution
scanning equipment, I frequently find that 8-bits per colour channel is
inadequate to capture all of the information on a slide image.
Furthermore, your "least significant bits" might only be, for example,
the fourth bit - or even the most significant if the image is binary -
making it very visible without any image modification.

It's my example, I've added a msg which I consider important,
so you can't claim I have no knowledge of the importance of the
information.

Good lord, I think you have finally got it! You are accessing
information which is not in the image at all, but another medium
entirely - the relative importance of the message and the image
information it replaced. However, neither I nor anyone else who has not
seen your original image, can therefore access that information which
you remove to replace by your secret message. We therefore have no
knowledge of its relative importance - that information is not contained
in the image. Consequently, even seeing your message in the lower bits
amounts to no more than seeing faces in flames or concocting faces on
images of the surface of Mars. Your message might be important compared
to what it replaced, on the other hand it might not and, without access
to other image outside of the information space available in the image,
there is no way of telling. Does your secret important message conceal
the identifiable face of a murderer or terrorist lurking in the
background, or the tell tale signs of a long lost treasure - who knows
the importance of the information you removed to fit in your message?
Only you - and only because you have access to the original. To anyone
else it is impossible to say because that information is no longer
contained in the image.

Low importance: the least significant bit in the image words.
High importance: the secret message.

Only to you - that relative metric is only applicable if you also have
the information that the message *is* important, which is not contained
in the message itself!

# Your example of text on the forehead is making assumptions for those
# "known unknowns" - you don't know what information the text conceals,
# you assume.

Yeah, I'm assuming there was no special information in the
forehead bits. Call me crazy!

Nah, stupid is much more apt - replacing known knowns with assumption!

# And if I change a smoking friend's face to all green and put
# a word balloon on it saying "I need another cigarette then I'll
# feel fine", I have (once again) added information.
#
# At the expense of much more information than you introduce!

You are using a bizarre argument: that all overlay changes
to the original image to create a new image results in a
loss of information.

Not *all* overlays, just the text, word balloons, or other inefficient
coded, overlays that you are using as examples.

At other times you refer to the same transformation as
not changing the amount of information.

Indeed, when referring to the general case as opposed to your specific
example.

So you're arguing in whatever direction is handy.

Only when you cannot follow logic - which you seem to be demonstrating
admirably!

# Changed bits is NEW information replacing OLD information
# - total information content is UNCHANGED.

Oh, yeah, now you're on the 'unchanged' track again.

See what I mean about blowing in the wind?

Have you stopped reading aloud yet?

The only thing unchanged is the number of bytes.

Not necessarily. Anther unchanged parameter is the entropy, but there
is little point progressing that since you clearly haven't grasped the
basics of IT.

Information-wise - it depends on the person evaluating it
and what they're looking for. That I assume forehead bits
are forehead bits and not sekret message bits is my
evaluation. Your assumptions of the possibility of
sekret message bits is your evaluation.

Both of us make our own assumptions.

Speak for yourself. Your image containing the secret message carries
the same amount of information to me as the image without the secret
message - I am making no assumption about it. Without *additional*
information which is *NOT* in the image, I have no way of knowing if the
secret message is part of the real image, a freak of the light like
faces on a Martian plain, or something you have implanted.

----

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
# Cypherpunk wrote:
#
# Take the original photo and the greatly enlarged one.
#
# Backup twenty feet. ;-)
#
# More detail is delivered to the eye by the larger image.
#
# Not compared to the small photo viewed at close range it doesn't!
#
# WHOOOSH! If the detail can't be seen at twenty feet then defacto
# the detail doesn't reach the eye and so ain't there.
#
# And your point is what?

Redundant data is no longer redundant if you need to use it!

So even redundant info is *more* info.

Certainly the information space has been increased in the larger image,
but the actual information contained within that space is exactly the
same as in the smaller image. All that has happened is that the
information has been shifted in spatial frequency terms to a band which
is more capable of passing through the spatial filters in the visual
system at distance. This is essentially the same as modulating an
electronic audio signal onto a radio wave for transmission rather than
direct feed to a speaker. The radio frequency *can* carry more
information - just as the large image could if more, smaller pixels were
used - but it does not. Consequently, at the receiver the audio signal
can be demodulated and fed to a speaker when the audio band signal would
never transmit as far or as noise free if sent to the transmitter
directly. Try reading up on the works of Nyquist, Marconi, Armstrong
etc. if its lost you again!

# It would be impolite to remind you

... then you continue...

# that *you* introduced the term
# "amount of information" to contest my comments in your post of Fri, 30
# Jan 2004 19:09:00GMT reference ,
# however it is there on record and publicly accessible to all who doubt
# that you did! Since then that is what the discussion has addressed -
# the total amount of information in the image. There is no point in now
# changing your argument back to relative importance or robustness of the
# information since that is exactly back on the path that *you* decided to
# divert from!

And on that point you are wrong.

I said "amount of information" (which you incorrectly interpret
as number of bytes)

No I don't - and I have referred to lossless compression methods
specifically to highlight that the number of bytes is *NOT* a measure of
the amount of information - if it were then there could only be lossy
compression techniques!

and *you* said "Ever heard of signals and noise?"

You brought up satellites early on

Now we really are going round in circles of lies - examine who brought
up the subject of satellites, their imagery and what can be viewed from
them in message ! No previous
mention of the word satellite exists in this thread!

Black and white is the same amount of information - but you seem to be
determined to argue that they are therefore completely interchangeable!

The same picture can convey different meanings (information) to
different people. That means different information is conveyed
from the same data. Or are you going to deny that too?

The fact that the data can convey different meanings has never been in
question, but those different meanings do NOT prove or even imply that
more information is carried by the data. It is only possible to achieve
different meanings from the data if additional information is available.
As I said before, this has been the basis of cryptography since the days
of the Abyssinians! In the specific context of images conveying
different meanings to different people that exploits additional
information outside of the image itself, such as cultural background or
education etc., that determines which set of assumptions you add to or
ignore from the information. However, irrespective of the individual
viewing the image, the information it contains remains unchanged.

You are once again arguing in whatever direction is handy by saying
there is relative information importance (seeking signal within
satellite data), then arguing that line of reasoning is unimportant
(the same number of bytes always conveys the same amount of information).

You've said both of those.

More lies - I have made neither statement in this thread! In fact, I
specifically mentioned that your example images composed of pixels, each
represented by a certain number of bytes, often ended up containing LESS
information than they previously did as a consequence of your
modification of them.

Since you have been reduced to lies, deception and even quoting posts
from completely different topical newsgroups, it is clear that you have
nothing of merit to add to this thread.

Goodbye dear fool! Plonk!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
#
# There are 26 letters in the western alphabet. Changing each of
# these letters for number, from 0 to 25, is a change of medium -
# but *NOT* the total amount of information contained in any message
# composed of those letters!
#
# Cypherpunk wrote:
# No, you're wrong. The new numbers (or say a new alphabet) might change
# the relationships. The letters C and S and K might be reduced to two
# symbols representing just the S and K sounds, freeing up a symbol to
# represent something new.
#
# That is irrelevant...

No it's not, and it was your challenge-example. I violated no rules
by assigning new meanings when changing symbols.

It is irrelevant *BECAUSE* you violated no rules. If you had violated
rules it would simply have been *WRONG*.

Right: you are infallible and by definition anyone trying to
discuss something with you is wrong.


Changing information content or the meaning of particular parameters
within that information space does not change the amount of information
any particular message within that space can contain.

You are once again mistaking number of bytes for amount of information.

Talk about being burdened by legacy systems!
Post in EBCDIC why doncha?

Why would I want to do that when the 26 letters (52 including capitals)
and a few punctuation marks I use for may messages already use only a
small amount of the information space available in 7-bit ASCII code?
Only a complete idiot would suggest using 8-bit EBDIC, which provides
twice as much information space to send the same content across systems
which are fully capable of handling the former. Talk about wasted
bandwidth!

"Only a complete idiot" would read my tweak literally.

----

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
writes

What you said is false. If I opaquely overlay text over someone's
forehead, I've added information regardless of the byte count.

No - and by making such a ludicrous statement it is clear that you do
not understand what *information* actually is!

It's not byte-count, Ken.

No, it isn't, nor did I suggest it was...

You *insisted* it was byte count in your 26 characters example, that
the "total information" couldn't change because of that.

----

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
writes

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
# Cypherpunk wrote:
#
# Or if I secretly added a message in the low order bits but the
# photo looked the same to the human eye. The original low order
# bits conveyed almost no information, the new ones are a complete
# new message. Not all bits are the same, information-wise, because
# of the interaction with our brains.
#
# Well at least you have acknowledge that you are removing information in
# order to do so - but you have *NO* knowledge of what the importance of
# that information is.

Sure I do, they were the Least Significant bits of an image.
By definition I know their importance.

Not relative to the information contained you don't! The least
significant bits may actually be the only information space actually
used by the image - such as in a low contrast area.

What a space cadet!!! Every edge condition is equally plausible
to you. Image words are mainly 16 bit or greater these days.

----

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
writes

# You assume it is unimportant, but you do not know that!

You are assuming the new text is less important than the
now missing original low-order bits!

No, I am not - but neither am I assuming that it is more important.

Oh, lord, how do you get up and travel about for the
day given all the unknowns!

----

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
writes

I could, for example, wish to modify the image levels to improve
the visibility of shadow, mid range or highlight detail, in itself
sacrificing some information, in which case the loss of those lower
bits to your hidden message would be immediately obvious.

Right, and your image transformation doesn't need the least
significant bit compared to my message existing entirely there.

How do you know that? As with most people using high resolution
scanning equipment, I frequently find that 8-bits per colour channel is
inadequate to capture all of the information on a slide image.
Furthermore, your "least significant bits" might only be, for example,
the fourth bit - or even the most significant if the image is binary -
making it very visible without any image modification.

How are you capable of holding a conversation with *anyone*
given the level of knee-jerk iconoclastic crap you output?

Oh, here's the answer:

Goodbye dear fool! Plonk!

Your assertions were undefendable.

And what a jerk to make a large detailed reply ending with a plonk.

get a copy of ImageIn and use the file size option and other features to get
the quality and size you need

"Mark Herring" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:31:58 GMT, wrote:

I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on
it?

Can't add information that is not there. Your file size equates to
~70-80 PPI for 8X10. Good prints need more like 200-300.

you CAN use the un-sharp mask in Photoshop---or some other sharpening
SW to make them look a bit sharper. Also, make sure the contrast is
as high as possible without losing highlight or shadow detail.

Finally, with that file size, I would stay in the range of 4x6 to 5x7.
**************************
Mark Herring, Pasadena, Calif.
Private e-mail: Just say no to "No".



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/20/2004

I don't know what the software is but there are software that do simulations
to accomplish virtual image enhancement. You see this kind of thing in the
movies all the time .. basically the software does a bunch of trials and
errors in an iterative mode until you start seeing what you wanted. Call
the CIA and ask them. Forget what I said earlier about using ImageIn. It
would work fine going the other way. The way you want to go you have to add
pixels and create psuedo resolution. ImageIn would allow you to add pixels
but it would be so tedious that you would quickly abandon the approach. I
suppose you could start by sharpening the image in Photoshop or the like and
then taking it to ImageIn and removing the noise manually. This would yield
a modest improvement given the time to do the pixel by pixel editing you
would have to do. You need a kind of high tech pixel editor/enhancer. When
I have time I will search for such things, just for fun. You should do this
too.


wrote in message
...
wrote:
I got a bunch of photos that are only 560x700 or so and when I print
them on 8 x 11 the features are not very fine. How can I improve on
it?

Any decent photo processing software should be able to get rid of the
pixelization if that's what you mean by "not very fine". Unfortunately,
nothing will actually add detail that's not there.

Bryan


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.564 / Virus Database: 356 - Release Date: 1/20/2004