I just read this article.

Looks like all that stuff on TV about taking a grainy/pixelated image and bringing out the actual image is based on reality after all.

Please discuss.

Wow. I wonder if that is related to the odd effect that our brain sees better resolution in a blurred image if we sprinkle a little noise on it.

Oscar has far too much time on his hands. I wonder what else he works on in his spare time???

I reply to threads like this

http://www.di.ens.fr/~mairal/resources/pdf/ICIP0907.pdf

This has some examples. So taking grain out of an image is great. But it's not exactly making something hi res. A blurry low res image with grain is still going to look like a blurry image, but with no grain. It's still impressive. I'd like to see a sparse filter for photoshop for when I'm scanning images. Dust removal is okay, but tends to blur the image.

It's like those before/after images; you can see that they inverted the order, the person really just got fatter. They just added noise to the picture.

Yes, that shows me nothing. They took a picture with a lot of noise and removed it. I want to see the picture that start as three blobs of color and they fix it so you can see what color the guys eyes are.

It's all REAL folks! See by yourself... A single pixel can hold bunch of information.
Check the video.

http://ae.tutsplus.com/tutorials/ae-plus/enhance-your-images-with-holos-ae-plus/

BTW, this is some serious bullcrap.

The software/algorithms which Tofu found, are pretty real and will most likely do a great job. However, you need to read carefully - it will not do the CSI trick.

The magic word here is SCALING, which does NOT happen with that software.
The software does something in the field of "compression and data reconstruction", like what we all use as mp3 for audio data.
It is perfectly possible to calculate noise away and to reproduce "sharp" data out of fragments.
The fragments, however, is the important thing. They need to be "sharp" (from a sharp source, that is). If you have fragments from noise, the software will generate noise, no sharp data.

In my example below you will maybe see the point. The data of 16 pixels can generate completely different results - it depends solely on what you start with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=KUFkb0d1kbU&feature=related

Why won't this link properly? I've tried putting it in the "url" brackets, no go. <a href>... no go. Pasting the entire url........no go!!!

I am befuddled

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUFkb0d1kbU

Thanks Tesore!

I think I know what the problem was, now.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "Find water droplet"