Andrew Gullen wrote:
>The fundamental limit is photon flux - how many hit a film/sensor element at
>a given light level, shutter speed, etc. The point is that we're already
>pretty close. To the public, the advances in digital and computers generally
>may appear magical and inexhaustible, but they can't make up information
>that isn't there (or at least we try not to let them do that, as the results
>are generally not happy :-) ).
>
Shouldn't be any problem. According to the police procedurals on my
telly, there is some recent process for recapturing light data that was
lost in its original capture by a $25 video camera with a random piece
of broken glass for a lens and covered with years of exhaust crud on a
$50 VCR with its heads worn down to nothing by running for 100,000
straight hours on a tape that has been taped over 2,000 times. All you
have to do is say "Could you blow that up for me?" or, in particularly
difficult circumstances, "Enhance that, would you?". Then you can read
the inscription on the belt buckle of the perp as reflected in a car
mirror 12 feet away from him in the existing darkness of a parking
garage. If that isn't magical creation of photons, I don't know what
is! :-)
And the results are always happy; the bad guy is caught and convicted.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|