XXHighEnd

Hi all,

I have been wanting to shout about this for a week or so by now, but got stalled because of my nicely own created bugs in XXHighEnd from the latest version(s) (and yep, it happened right again, but now I want to say what I have to say first). Here goes :

:teasing:

What you probably don't know, is that I started this whole, well, career, merely because of video/pictures than with a root of sound. But, both are very very similar, and what you can see from video can be perceived from sound IMO. For example :

When digital SLR cameras were born (I don't know anymore, maybe 10 years back), one of the first there was Kodak with their Pro SLR/n (Nikon mount) and later SLR/c (Canon mount). The Kodac was recieved by most as completely flawed because ... well ... it did not have an Anti Alias filter.
Hehe, this is the very same as with NOS/Filterless DACs, and you know how I think about that ...

I was a "photo critiquer" for a year or so, and just from doing that I learned how to make digital photos, which is very much uncommon to analogue, but a breeze once you know what to NOT do.
And so I learned, by just looking at pictures from others who owned a Kodak, in what cases it just made the most outstanding pictures, and in what cases it would flaw because the aliasing was all over (think of this suit with squares (aha) on them, and the shivering colors all over when looking to it on an analogue TV). Photos of trees could flaw, and most certainly roofs with tiles would get into a mess when one is not careful about it (this is angle related). BUT, the Kodak camera would allow a kind of infinit digital zoom-in on pictures taken up to the 1:1 level (a monitor of a few meters wide would be able to show the picture in full and as sharp as can be), where any other respectable DSLR would get fuzzy on half of that zooming already. Actually DSLR cameras with AA filter are fuzzy out of the box, and photos need to be sharpened (which is a destroying process).

Now ...

It has been a while back people aksed whether XXHighEnd would contain a ripping feauture. And I said "well, I guess yes, because I think it can be better and faster". Can you guess already what I am heading for ?
Here it is :

I got myself one of the highest resolution photo cameras money can buy today, and asked an engineer to remove the Anti Alias filter. This is just software ...
With one of the finest long (400mm) lenses I own, I can make macro photos, and imagine it can photograph a fly and it will show up at the full size of your rather large monitor. However, the real merits of such a photo, when shown 1:1, is near 5 meters (15') wide at the resolution which can be used.
And now I started making such photos of a CD ...

:NY01:

And here is my good old NOS/Filterless principle : all remains as sharp as can be (when the photo is at the right angle), and as you may know, beyond the 1:1 is a nother infinit digital zooming of the individual pixels, and this just enables a photograph of the burned holes of the CD !!!
(not that you can see the holes, put the pixels show in a different color).

Tadaaaaaa

The first thing which occurs to me, and a microscope may show the same, is that not all burned holes look even. Ha !, that's what we thought, right ? But for dead sure I see the difference between a 1 and a 0. Btw, the not-holes *also* don't look even, and that could be a matter of the burning laser "after glowing" or so ?

Ok, it is not done and over with yet, because the interpretation of all is a kind of hustle, but I am 100% sure it can be done. Think of the circles all is in (it's just like an LP, but from the inside to the outsise and all is even-spaced), and it just needs the  following of those tracks by means of a program that examines that huge file. Trrrrrrrt ... Done !

Elsewhere I said I didn't like patents, but if one is prone to it ... :swoon:

:whistle:
Peter

how big would this picture be in MB's.
this would be smaller then 700 to 800 MB you normally use.

gtz roy

Well done Peter!

You've made far greater progress than my feeble attempts to do a similar thing a while ago. I just couldn't overcome the chromatic abberation inherent in my Hubbleoptics lens, with the results you see in the picture below.

The Dutch certainly are a resourceful lot ;)

Regs,

Russ

I've just looked up the European Patent Office's registry (http://www.epo.org/) and unfortunately Mr A F Day already has a patent for this technology...  :(

Mani.

In raw format (this is not JPEG) 204MB times 4. So 816MB. This is times 4 because it can't be done with one photo becasuse the resolution is too low. Or better explained : the lens has to be too far away, and *then* the resolution is too low.
The alignment of the photos is super simple, but taking the photos is not at all (that is related to the alignment of course).

But this is not the literal file to examine (ok, maybe I just don't know how yet). What I do is what eyes also would do : put the picture on the screen, and blow it up until you can see with your eyes the squares of the pixels (if you keep on blowing it up one pixel shows as 2x2cm if you like). So, with this "remapping" to how my brain can deal with it, it is just a matter of reading the screen. This goes internally though, and the picture doesn't need to be on the screen.

If you'd look at the back of the coverart Wallpaper (when no back.jpg is there) you see the picture inverted. In order to do that just each of the pixels of the original picture have to be read and put on the other side.

To be even more close to how my brain (assuming I have any) wants to work (and to those who understand computer programming a little bit), on a 16 bit color scheme for a computer monitor, it is said that 16 even colors exist ("even" : all pixels are the exact same, opposed to colors which comprise of several colors). I wanted more, and what I did was putting a square of 1x1cm of each of the 16M colors on the screen, and read it back from the monitor's memory itself. When the whole square read the same values, it was an "even" color. And so I found 2 more. Hahaha. It's even a secret to Bill Gates. 18 even colors exist (in general color pickers only those 16 "known" are available).
Just be creative ...

Unfortunately each lens suffers from CA, but what possibly few know is that this is so much emphasized by a. the anti aliasing and b. the means to find *that* which is sharpening again. You can just try it : oversharpen a random digital photo, and CA shows up everywhere.
So the importance is the combination of no AA filter and no *need* to sharpen and a most sharp picture is the result (with a good lens of course).

Before this wasn't really possible (I think) because it needs a full frame camera. Why ? because otherwise you'd suffer from defraction, which by itself is incurred by a smaller diaphragm opening needed, and *that* is needed because otherwise the sides of the picture blurr opposed to the middle (depth of field) ... which is incurred for by the close macro photography. :heat:

So do I understand this right, you could just take a picture with a lets say 400mm fixed lens of a person say 30m away and you still could make a iris scan from that picture? Or is this structure too complex?
Ava

Haha, but I don't know anything about iris scans. I do know that at 30 meters a person would just fit on the photo, and the eye is then a small part of that. I guess that that can't work ... I just tried ... such a lens will focus in normal mode at 6 meters, and then an eye will take approx. 20% of the width of the photo. This is 5 x 4 = 20 less then what I did with the CD. But then the resolution needed for an iris scan maybe is not so high ? I don't know.
Btw, in macro mode the lens will focus within a few cm only.

HA-HA  .....1st of APRIL right?

probably :welcome:

I am already happy with a rip function in XXHE that do the work in 10 minutes!  :veryhappy:

I would be more than glad to have one :)^XXHE

What, is not an april's fool?

wait...
are you going to sell us the camera setup too?  i already paid for my licence... that includes this new ripping function,,, using the camera you'll send me, right?

Haha, but you may wonder how the copy right stuff works here. I send you a photo and you use it as music. Your fault. You should have put it to the wall. That was my intention.

What about a LP (vinyl) function build-in
I asume that it works too??????????? :yes:
Just brainstorming here
 :wacko:

I think that this would be much harder to accomplish. The structures  are much more complex,well this is analog and not 1s and 0s. But this would be truly awesome. Do remember that there is a laser operating LP digitalizer which some national archives already use,as I can remember. Ava