Re: Lena's Birthday Question: Neatest Optical Hacks
- From: jsavard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (John Savard)
- Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 14:59:54 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 12:54:58 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote, in part:
I wish it were that simple. No, I don't mean that--only that image
processing is not in general the panacea that it's sometimes cracked up
to be--so that a great many image processing papers are in fact bad,
whether Lena and her ostrich feather are in there or not. We talked
about that on last Lena's Birthday, as you can read in Google Groups.
I'm not down on the entire field, but I'm sick of reading about how the
Latest And Greatest Technique can make blurred pictures of ugly people
into sharp pictures of pretty people, or in general how postprocessing
can be used as a substitute for good data. It can't. Like a Crescent
wrench, postprocessing has its place in the toolbox, but it isn't for
everything.
Also, the famous picture of Lena Sjooblom - spelled Lenna in her
original Playboy appearance so that people would know how it was
pronounced - was part of a famous set of images. One web site shows the
origins of some of the other images; I'm pretty sure I once saw the
originals of the mandrill image in an old issue of National Geographic
(it was one of two side-by-side photos of baboons at the bottom of a
page, I remember, but I don't remember other details).
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Lena's Birthday Question: Neatest Optical Hacks
- Next by Date: Re: Undocumented Workers and Optical Design Software
- Previous by thread: Re: Lena's Birthday Question: Neatest Optical Hacks
- Next by thread: Re: Lena's Birthday Question: Neatest Optical Hacks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
