3 ms·
Isn't this a case where entropy shows it isn't possible? Once you degrade the quality/quantity of the information, you can't get it back. You can find a clever
by dutchflyboy 17y ago
Isn't this a case where entropy shows it isn't possible? Once you degrade the quality/quantity of the information, you can't get it back. You can find a clever way to hide what you did, but this doesn't add information, you're just interpolating. This isn't bad however, as we normally don't use all data we could (do you look at your pictures with 400% zoom factor?), and a rescaled image can highlight some detail you would have missed.
By the way, those bazillion dollars aren't wasted, because if you take the image, don't throw away pixels, but do as if it were a bigger image which had lost pixels, you can get something useful out of it.
- ars 17y ago> Isn't this a case where entropy shows it isn't possible? Most real world pictures are not random. So you can guess what it looks like from areas near it.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoMore precisely, the entropy of real world pictures is considerably lower than the entropy of all pictures (the vast majority of pictures are static).
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- iskander 17y agoThis is more of a case where you aren't actually using all the information-bearing capacity of your pixels but are actually sampling from a much lower dimensional manifold. This isn't just interpolation and information need not be lost.