2 ms·
That's exactly true. It worries me a lot that ESRI (who really should know better) is using the term "resolution" for this. This sort of superresolution is jus
by jofer 4y ago
That's exactly true. It worries me a lot that ESRI (who really should know better) is using the term "resolution" for this. This sort of superresolution is just interpolation. By definition, you're not adding more information density. It cannot increase resolution. It can increase edge response, but that's critically not resolution.
There are superresolution methods that _can_ increase resolution, but they're in the form of combining multiple captures closely spaced with each other that are slightly offset. "Drizzle" was the original method in astrophysics, and while that method is long gone, it is common to do in remote sensing imagery for many instrument types. Similarly pansharpening (which interpolates multispectral information using a higher resolution black and white image captured at the same time) can actually improve resolution and is commonly used.
This is not improving resolution in any way. Two objects that blur together into one will still appear as one object.
- LASR 4y agoThis is more like extrapolation rather than interpolation. Seems a bit scary to me if used without caveats.