Talk:Super-resolution

message: Hello,
Does that Image really display superresolution? As I understood it, super-resolution was when the image was able to identify features smaller than the diameter (radius?) of the Airy disc used for imaging. I thought super-resolution required physical analyses such as time-reversal for active signals or negative refractive index metamaterials. Either that or deconvolution techniques such as the Lucy-Richardson algorithm. It seems to me that the image is merely displaying supersampling or something akin to this, and thus doesn't belong here. Please comment, as I am unsure about this to some extent. User A1 07:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Futhermore papers by people such as John Pendry and others in this area may help us here User A1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by User A1 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the IEEE paper in the article, I understand where my confusion comes along. There are two types of super-resolution in the literature. One where the CCD is considered to be the limiting factor for resolution, and as such multiple images can be used to provide an increased resolution estimate, the other is where you have diffraction limiting behaviour, which is a different kettle of fish entirely.... I will try to improve my understanding here and see what i can do to improve the article. User A1 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image as superresolution 

message: why there isn't a list of programs capable of doing superresolution (dunno what to call this, "doing super resolution" doesn't sounds right for me, dunno for sure) linked from this article?--TiagoTiago (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The EL is full of such cruft. Please don't add any more; WP is not a directory. --Adoniscik(t, c) 15:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Examples are good. You know, like on 99% of the other articles on Wikipedia about software features. Also, I have no idea what the EL is. I Googled it, but there was nothing about lists of software.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.49.222.163 (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  no "list of programs that do superresolution" or somthing? 

message: It wasn't a mistake, it was intentional. The current "reference" section is longer than the article, and is not being used to support statements in the article as is policy at WP:CITE. If I wanted a list of super resolution articles I would simply run a search at a journal search engine. Readers are in no way benefitting by having a dozen papers thrown in their face. User A1 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think to the contrary that related works should not be removed without justification, as they are of real value to the reader in their selection and organisation. Saying "they could just search for them" is not an argument (such an argument would exclude essentially all content at Wikipedia). I do think they should be divided between "Related works" and "References" actually used to support article statements, which I've done. You seem to be treating the papers as some kind of advertising, which I'm sure wasn't the intention. I also don't understand your purpose in removing links to papers. Dcoetzee 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Citations 

message: For UserA1:
If the Irvine Sensors Corporation / Wright Patterson Air Force Base systems math is a bit complex, try this basic method.  First take a multiple frame slightly-moving-camera image sequence, from a non-nyquist limited CCD sensor - which is a Prerequisite.  Use least squares displacement search to stack the frames on top of each other with these "saccadic" movements, to place them within one pixel displacement of the first frame.  Then take X and Y differential gradiant functions dot producted with eigen-estimates of the X and Y dispalcement based on the image context function, for each frame against the first image, in order to estimate each frame's sub-pixel displacment measurement to the first frame.  The sub-pixel motions of the stacked frames, can then be used to interleave the low resolution baseband images onto a high resolution image map of 2, 3, or 4 times the resolution of the original CCDs.  Then you can fill in the blanks with interpolations, for any remaining empty cells of the oversampled high resolution image map.  Then you can use an inverse point spread function estimate for the CCD pixels, to adjust the point spread functions of the pixels, using FFT image processing.  Noise will be enhanced by performing this inverse PSF correlation operation, but it will approximate a microscan algorithm resolution enhancement.  If you want to improve performance against noise in the inverse Pixel-PSF filter, try the Weiner Method Link that you called "Useless".  LoneRubberDragon (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microscan II 

message: The example image of super-resolution says: 
:The right half shows the image (at native resolution) that results when the software combines nine images together and performs 2x superresolution.
But would not 2X super-resolution require only 4 images? Or to put it another way, is not the information content of 9 images equal to 3X (squared) of 1 image?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.6.86.1 (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 9 images for only 2x super-resolution? 

message: The unhyphenated form superresolution, used even at the beginning of the subject  McCutchen C. J. opt. Soc. Am. 57:1190, 1967 , seems now to have superseded the less-often used super-resolution -- see Optics Info Base.  I propose that the redirect be not from superresolution to super-resolution but the other way.  If the abbreviation SR is used in the rest of the entry, there should be no problem.Gwestheimer 16:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Entry from Super-resolution to Superresolution?