Image Expansion

Yes yes I know. But I don't know any other forums that have a section like this one where people can ask general computer questions and get an intelligent answer, and fairly quickly as well. A lot of you guys really know your computer shit. Neoseeker has something like it, but they've got so many different forums, that many of them go unnoticed for weeks or even years at a time. And I'm not registered anywhere else that pays host to any sort of computer nerd. So Anski, I know you really want to hassle me for making another thread in here. Just let it out fast, will ya?

The rest of you, I have an inquiry that perhaps you can help me with.

You see, I need to enlarge an image without it losing resolution. Is this physically possible? I'm talking like, a freakin' 216 x 650 into a 1080 x 3250. In fact, I'd prefer to make it even larger than that. Is it possible to do this without pixelation? If so, what software would I need? Can it be done?

it can be done in photoshop, I know, but it will be blurry...

What happens is that photoshop blends it so that it looks smooth, but, it's kinda like looking at the background of a pic, it just isn't a clear as it should be...

If you need, I'll give it a shot, perhaps I might be able to make it a bit clearer too, but I'm not promising anything.

FUCK YOU FOR MAKING THREADS THIS ISN'T A FOURM IT'S A JAIL

But no, there's nothing that can be done, honestly. It's unfortunate but theoretically impossible with current technology.

It's physically impossible to resize an image 5x without it looking pixelated or blurry. A program can't just create information when resizing an image and make it look like a photo that didn't undergo enlargement. The best it can do is add interpolation, which basically just makes it look blurry and awful.

Original:


5x cropped with bicubic interpolation:

I was basically going to draw in fixes... so that way it would nice, but not really... perfect or nothing...

You're going to draw in fixes on something resized five times the original size or greater? Good luck with that.

It sounded smarter in my head...

yeah, I really shouldn't be allowed to answer questions... 

You can use the eraser tool to fix mistakes. That's what an eraser is for!

Too bad. Well, if it can't be done than it can't be done. It wasn't anything vital anyway, but thanks a bunch for teaching me this painful reality.

Nope only happens in TV and movies. Especially the resolution your talking about

Spoiler for:

If the image is very simple, it's possible to do it by going the vector route, but it's very time consuming.

That's pretty cool.

lol roph's avatar

Would you consider an anime chick lying on her back a "simple" image? I'm uncertain.

well, we can never know unless we try, ammirite?

Just post it up, and I'll see if I can pull anything off... Although, no guarantees.

Read a bit more into rophs link, found a cool example on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_to_vector

Try inkscape, i use it for drawing anyway, its cool

Would you consider an anime chick lying on her back a "simple" image? I'm uncertain.

Depends on the level of shading, lines, textures, etc..
Vectors will -always- have simpler results than raster images because of the design process.

Basically, if there's hard-cel shading and not tons of textures/small lines, you're likely to get a good result just having illustrator trace it for you, else, it'll either lose quality (if there's soft shading or textures) or just come out muddy (if there's too many lines).

Read a bit more into rophs link, found a cool example on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_to_vector

Try inkscape, i use it for drawing anyway, its cool

I never knew Inkscape had that tool, that quality is quite amazing too. Very cool, wonder if I still got it installed...

Read a bit more into rophs link, found a cool example on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raster_to_vector

Try inkscape, i use it for drawing anyway, its cool

I never knew Inkscape had that tool, that quality is quite amazing too. Very cool, wonder if I still got it installed...

Actually, clicking the image, it's a pretty crappy.
Jagged edges everywhere, messed up from the film grain, it'd be better off if someone manually did it and worked with gradients.

It wouldn't look hyper-realistic, but it'd be cleaner.
Maybe it's just me.

Compared to the others though, yeah, it's pretty HQ.

yeah just actually zoomed in on that,

If its a drawing, which im guessing it is, it should work better.

HMPH! I KNEW IT WAS POSSIBLE!

All you people are such downers (that is, those who posted before Roph)! ; P

Anyways... I'm actually kinda interested in seeing the pic that AF was talkin about.

Chihaya Images

And here's one that has both at the same time in it, without the damn HobbySearch logo:

403 Forbidden

Stop using Imageshack, it's a pile of shit. bb.xieke.com or tinypic.com forever

ooooooh~ Riske~!

Well, I don't see any hurt in giving it a shot... I'll be back in a day or two, unless you want me to wait for the non-hobbysearch one...