Another reason for saving the highest raw scan for the future.
see the article at Tom's Hardware
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050315_203333.html
I'm always very suspicious when I see "Intel" and "new" in the same
sentence... ;o)
That sort of thing has been available for decades. For example, to
decode license plates and other forensic use. Or, more recently, to
clean up the latest DVD version of StarWars, where subsequent images
were utilized to produce a composite "better than the original".
In spite of Intel's touchy protestations, the problem is the same as
upsampling. The process "invents" pixels it "thinks should be there".
It may use a more reliable source (multiple - slightly misaligned -
images rather than neighboring pixels) but, in the end, it's still a
guess. As Scotty would say: "Ye canny brek the laws of physics..." ;o)
So even though the end result may "look good" in the final analysis
it's still an "artist's rendition", as the phrase goes...
In any case, that process doesn't do much good if you only have a
single image which is what most of us end up with.
However, what I do agree with 100% is to both raw scan and keep that
digital negative!
Don.
