White House roof edited in USGS photos

Mxsmanic wrote:

Super-resolution techniques use "purely optical imaging".

It depends on what you mean by purely optical.

Your equivocations strengthen my hypothesis that you _are_ just
talking out of your ass.

In a previous article, Mxsmanic said:
Steve Andrew writes:
Hmmmm... interesting. If not optical, then what alternatives are there,
apart from radar?.

Digital image processing.

Can you provide any links that might expand on this ?

No.

"Harry Potter and the Digital Image Processor."


--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Ben Franklin

Kibo informs me that (Paul Tomblin) stated
that:

In a previous article, Mxsmanic said:
Steve Andrew writes:
Hmmmm... interesting. If not optical, then what alternatives are there,
apart from radar?.

Digital image processing.

Can you provide any links that might expand on this ?

No.

"Harry Potter and the Digital Image Processor."

Hi Paul,

Before you waste too much time discussing anything technical with
MxManiac, bear in mind that he's one of RPD's resident trolls. Check out
this link for a post I wrote about his unique 'debating' techniques:
http://www.google.com.au/groups?safe=images&as_umsgid=%3Cl2ia40peu1b5tjpc4c %3E&lr=&hl=en

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Miguel Cruz writes:

How high is the aircraft, what sort of radioactive material, what amount of
explosive, and what are the wind conditions?

Those are the questions one must ask before shooting it down.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Paul Cooper writes:

The atmosphere most certainly is not predictable and stable on the
metre length scales required. It is a turbulent fluid, which varies
across the width of a large telescope, and in seconds.

A second is a long time, and a metre is a long distance.

We're not
talking about weather systems, here, we're talking about the minor
turbulence that makes stars twinkle.

I know.

Astronomical telescopes (with
mirror systems weighing tons) can compensate for it, using techniques
such as artificial stars coupled with serious computing. It wouldn't
be practical in space.

See the GPS to learn more about what is practical in space.

If you know what kind of motion your target is in, you don't need a
spy satellite!

Satellites have other purposes.

Finally, the best results from super-resolution work give you an
improvement in effective pixel size that is (generously) half the
pixel size of the input. Worth while for scientific motionless
targets, but hardly useful for intelligence.

I guess that's up to the consumer of intelligence.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Miguel Cruz writes:

And how does that get you from 10cm resolution to 0.5cm resolution?

By recovering or emphasizing information that isn't immediately obvious,
like all digital image processing. Of course, you also add as much
information as you can to the initial input.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Steve Andrew writes:

You still need data to process - Is this data derived from an optical
source?

Mostly.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Paul Cooper writes:

The laws we're talking about aren't limited to lenses and focal planes
either. Any system that lets electromagnetic waves in is limited by
the Rayleigh criterion.

Any system is limited by the speed of light, too. So?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

writes:

Your equivocations strengthen my hypothesis that you _are_ just
talking out of your ass.

Good.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

On 9 May 2004 04:49:53 -0700, (Charles Packer)
wrote:

I was using www.terraserver.microsoft.com to look at
aerial photographs of Washington and noticed that the USGS has
obscured the roofs of the White House and the two government
buildings to the east and west by overlaying them digitally
with featureless, though tastefully tinted, rectangles. Possibly
they're trying to conceal the location of the missile launcher
recently put in place, which a newspaper photo showed to be on
the roof of the Treasury Department building east of the White
House. I used a screen snapshot to capture the USGS image
and have put it on my Web site, temporarily at
http://cpacker.org/awh.jpg

I don't know how familiar with Washington the typical interested
viewer of this will be, so let me know if I should identify
the structures in question with arrows. I'm planning to include
this image in a forthcoming Web page about Washington's
barricades.

If you want a less adulterated view of the White House roof go to
http://visitingdc.com/s_white_house_picture.htm. The white house
web site has a nice map that identifies the buildings
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/tours/map.html.
--
John Duncan Yoyo
------------------------------o)
Brought to you by the Binks for Senate campaign comittee.
Coruscant is far, far away from wesa on Naboo.