RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Shaztoni on Friday 16 March 07 09:00 GMT (UK)
-
This picture was taken of my son a few years back, I have been trying and trying to get the proper picture so I can print it but to no avail as the newspaper that took it don't keep copies.
I know a thumbnail and really small, I've tried making it bigger myself but the pixelation gets pretty bad.
You can remove that strange bag he gas under his right eye too.
Thanking you all for your attempts
Sharon
-
Hi Sharon
I have never done this before, I don't know if it's any bigger on here, it was in Photshop, but as a Novice, I don't know if it will convert, so to speak ??? ??? Fingers crossed :-\ :-\
Lones
-
I think I just lost the clarity :'(
Sorry, I tried :(
Lones :-\
-
By increasing the size in small increments - say 2-4% at a time you can minimise the pixelation.
Denn
-
Thanks Denn ;)
I will try to remember that for next time, but am sure to forget ??? ???
Lones
-
Thank you Lones.
Thanks Denn, I'll try that next time, cheers
Sharon
-
Not brilliant but the attached photo shows on the right, incremental enlargement and on the left enlargement done in one move.
Denn
-
Sorry - got my right and left mixed up
-
Wow Denn, your right, you can really see the difference
Thanks
-
Very good tip , Thanks Denn
Jim
-
Denn,...it's so strange
Pixel Dimensions 264 x 400
Doc. size 264 x 400 inches
Res. 1 pixel/inch
I don't think I've ever seen that before, why is the picture so big and only one pixel per inch??.... yet it's printing small.
Jean
-
I have no idea how this is going to display but it's, at least, bigger ;D
Di
-
I can really see the difference there Denn, thanks
Lovely Di, a vast improvement.
Sharon
-
Denn,...it's so strange
Pixel Dimensions 264 x 400
Doc. size 264 x 400 inches
Res. 1 pixel/inch
I don't think I've ever seen that before, why is the picture so big and only one pixel per inch??.... yet it's printing small.
Jean
It's easy; just lets look at equivalent sizes. If we raise the resolution to our screen resolution of say 72 dots/pixels per inch, then we must divide the size by 72 (remember doing this in maths at school) - so 264 inch divided by 72 equals 3.6: if your screen resolution is 90 then it is 2.9 inch.
This all comes back to an old maxim of mine that when it comes to the information contained in an image I don't worry about resolution but I do worry about actual pixel dimensions:
You can have a resolution of 1000 dots/pixels per inch, but if the image is only 1 inch across it will not contain the same amount of information that a 100 dots/pixels per inch image will if that image is 20 inches across (maths tells us that it will contain half the information).
Hope this doesn't confuse you,
Denn
-
Here's my attempt from square one!
Mudge
-
Thank you Mudge, he defiantly doesn't look as blotchy now.
Sharon
-
And a BW version
Mudge
-
And another
Mudge
-
Thanks for that Denn, I now remember you saying all that on another thread .... you must get sick of 'thickos' like me asking the same question over and over again..
Gonna right it all down....then I wont forget..
Jean
-
Thank you again Mudge.
I'm going to have to write it down too Jean ;D
It was such a pity that I couldn't get my hands on the original, as it was such a nice picture of him.
Sharon
-
Thanks for that Denn, I now remember you saying all that on another thread .... you must get sick of 'thickos' like me asking the same question over and over again..
Gonna right it all down....then I wont forget..
Jean
No I don't get sick at all. It's amazing though just how many people have problems grasping the - size-pixels-resolution thing. It seems to be one of those things that either clicks or it doesn't, a bit like ome people with maps and navigation. Or ike ome eople who keep issing keys when typing.
Denn
-
It seems to be one of those things that either clicks or it doesn't, a bit like ome people with maps and navigation. Or ike ome eople who keep issing keys when typing.
;D ;D ;D