Edge-on Spiral Galaxy ESO 243-49 (NASA)

[Atmos (Colin)]

I ask again, what is this technique supposed to achieve? That is what I am curious about.

[Ironbird (Terri)]

I'll tell you what software I'm using .. I'm using XNView. The most basic of basic image editors. First order of business in assessing enhancement potential is to look at how many colours are in the picture. If it's 256 or less it's a bit of a hard-go .. but not impossible.

Wonder why NASA offers up 256 colors or less in a lot of there mission images? Adding noise emphasizes anomalies through subtle colorization. < I amp on this otherwise 256 color (or less) images are completely constipated from an enhancement perspective. << NASA take note please .. no $10 Wallmart camera images please. Time to hit the camera upgrade button!

So moving right along .. if the #of colours is in the thousands .. you know you have a winner from an enhancement perspective ... convert to tru-color (in case it's not already).

Next we drub the image (soften it up with a few left hooks). Drubbing consists of the application of median filtering. Pretty standard stuff. Doesn't introduce much by way of image artifacting is my understanding especially as applied to high resolution images.

Drubbing smooths the functionality of the various image control sliders. Non-drubbed images elicit a stoccatic response from the sliders .. drubbing smooths things out .. equalizes it (normalizes it). It's a wonderful thing.

So MEP'ing is really a two part operation .. one is the drubbing slash pre-conditioning and the other is the actual image parameter manipulation re: hue and levels and sharpness etc.

The rub is in how to apply the filters. And that's about all I got to say : )'

[Ironbird (Terri)]

Originally Posted by Atmos

I ask again, what is this technique supposed to achieve? That is what I am curious about.

Normal images are rude and crude i.e. don't respond well to standard enhancement. I've developed a means of softening up the image (numerically punch the stuffing out of it a bit) and making it much more amenable to traditional techniques. It's like night and day the way the sliders behave before and after the initial punch-out (drubbing).

So part of it is to achieve better response from my image parameter sliders.

The other thrust of this particular protocol is its application to glare-reduction. It works great at seeing through the glare of a billion suns in the galactic nucleus region - specifically.

And finally; it's to boldly go where no man has gone before!

Kirk out!

[Ironbird (Terri)]

Originally Posted by graham.hobart

with no reference to scale or procedures it's hard not to assume these are just artifacts introduced. That's what they look like to me and I remember doing a Dr Who on earlier pictures with similar results.
I am not learning anything from this line of work.
Sorry, but I visit this site to learn from people who explain techniques and skills for free and in good will.
This just looks like Gustav Klimt type nonsense to me
Graham.

Thou art protestesting too much!

[Atmos (Colin)]

Originally Posted by Ironbird

Normal images are rude and crude i.e. don't respond well to standard enhancement. I've developed a means of softening up the image (numerically punch the stuffing out of it a bit) and making it much more amenable to traditional techniques. It's like night and day the way the sliders behave before and after the initial punch-out (drubbing).

So part of it is to achieve better response from my image parameter sliders.

The other thrust of this particular protocol is its application to glare-reduction. It works great at seeing through the glare of a billion suns in the galactic nucleus region - specifically.

And finally; it's to boldly go where no man has gone before!

Kirk out!

From looking at it I cannot see any scientific application although from the way you are explaining it, that was not your intention. From a scientific perspective you really need to work from the original data files while they are still in their linear form. The editing of the images from their pure form will cause artefacts.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Ironbird

I'll tell you what software I'm using .. I'm using XNView. The most basic of basic image editors. First order of business in assessing enhancement potential is to look at how many colours are in the picture. If it's 256 or less it's a bit of a hard-go .. but not impossible.

Wonder why NASA offers up 256 colors or less in a lot of there mission images? Adding noise emphasizes anomalies through subtle colorization. < I amp on this otherwise 256 color (or less) images are completely constipated from an enhancement perspective. << NASA take note please .. no $10 Wallmart camera images please. Time to hit the camera upgrade button!

So moving right along .. if the #of colours is in the thousands .. you know you have a winner from an enhancement perspective ... convert to tru-color (in case it's not already).

Next we drub the image (soften it up with a few left hooks). Drubbing consists of the application of median filtering. Pretty standard stuff. Doesn't introduce much by way of image artifacting is my understanding especially as applied to high resolution images.

Drubbing smooths the functionality of the various image control sliders. Non-drubbed images elicit a stoccatic response from the sliders .. drubbing smooths things out .. equalizes it (normalizes it). It's a wonderful thing.

So MEP'ing is really a two part operation .. one is the drubbing slash pre-conditioning and the other is the actual image parameter manipulation re: hue and levels and sharpness etc.

The rub is in how to apply the filters. And that's about all I got to say : )'

I've used XNView for years. It's a good image viewer with very basic image editing capabilities . So not really an editor. Now you've confused me. I don't understand what you are talking about in the above or even showing in your pictures. It looks like posterized artwork not data enhancement. You might think you see things in your patterns but it is just artefacts generated by the processing. I don't see it as data enhancement but more like fabrication of colors, shapes and outlines. It's arty but that's about it.

[RickS (Rick)]

Sounds like a Turbo Encabulator to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag

[Eden (Brett)]

Originally Posted by RickS

Sounds like a Turbo Encabulator to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac7G7xOG2Ag

Nothing quite like a bit of Sinusoidal Depleneration to keep you on your toes.

I prefer the Mike Kraft version:

Mike Kraft does the Retro Encabulator for Rockwell Automation

[Ironbird (Terri)]

it's all done in XNView which should speak to it's non-forgedness. No posterization nor edge-detection was employed. Somebody suggest bump-filters. I don't believe I've employed any. Just a reasonably-modest amount of
median filtration.

The rectilinearization is pronounced as it is extant and my filtering protocol emphasizes it.

Lets have a look at a test image .. a nice drop of water on a sprig. Good subject matter in that it contains lots of colours and guaranteed round contours along with the potential for rectilinear "contours". Again; X marks the general area-of-inspection (in the 2nd image).

http://www.free-slideshow.com/rain_drops.shtml

I think it safe to suggest we're not seeing any great propensity toward rectilinearization of data i.e. "what you see is what you got" .. faithful rendering on all fronts except perhaps tone. The adjustment of which is of forensic utility as the eye is more contrast-sensitive to certain color combinations - than others.

Yepp.