VidPro Strikes Again! - Page 30

frodo · #**291** 10-20-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccsledge

Wow these Rachel Bilson pics should turn out good... someone please help!

Here are my first try. I am a newbie at this so be nice. Just tweaking the light and contrast a bit. I guess someone with more experience could do even more.

benbod79 · #**292** 10-20-2006, 08:42 PM

I wonder if anyone can do something with this pic??

hobnob · #**293** 10-21-2006, 10:53 AM

Can anyone do anything with this? posted in another thread on here

Timwaterloo · #**294** 10-25-2006, 08:56 AM

I have a question for the professionals here. Using the program Exifer, I was able by using the thumbnail function to see a blurred pic unblurred. By saving it, I have completely different thumbnail size, from 5kb tu 25kb. Of course the bigger thumbnail are better to see the girls face.
Is there any possibility to see them all in a big version?
Or is there any tools to make them bigger?
Tahnks for you help

quack27 · #**295** 10-25-2006, 03:06 PM

hott girl I know

vidpro · #**296** 10-25-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timwaterloo

I have a question for the professionals here. Using the program Exifer, I was able by using the thumbnail function to see a blurred pic unblurred. By saving it, I have completely different thumbnail size, from 5kb tu 25kb. Of course the bigger thumbnail are better to see the girls face.
Is there any possibility to see them all in a big version?
Or is there any tools to make them bigger?
Tahnks for you help

Wow, I don't have an answer for you for getting them all in a big version. However, if you post the photos, along with the large, unblurred thumbnail, I can probably make a decent full-sized version for you.

0o9i8u7y · #**297** 10-25-2006, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bustypics

If anyone has some time, maybe give this one a try? I've added fill-light to the picture on my own, and it appears that she's not wearing anything under the shorts... but, I can't get it to look right with my limited resources.

Unfortunately, damn our eyes.

We have great dynamic range in our own eyes, yet we find it hard to see the different steps between the dark blacks on a uniform colour scale chart.

This is why JPEG quantization (the lossy part of lossy compression) compresses the dark areas.

This is also why LCD's and DVD's and digital TV is a bad idea, because we loose all that black space :-( and you get blocky artifacts (edges that aren't really there)

So if you up the contrast on this image, the part you want to see just looks like a pop-art painting, all squares and shit.

sucks.

Humans: don't let the black hole of colour fidelity kill your image detail. keep your damn images well lit, and in the mid ranges, so later, we can tweak them :-)

0o9i8u7y · #**298** 10-25-2006, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 0o9i8u7y

This is also why LCD's and DVD's and digital TV is a bad idea, because we loose all that black space :-( and you get blocky artifacts (edges that aren't really there)

For a good idea, check out LASER tv's (and projectors). Massively extended gamut (possible number of physically reproducible colours... people don't realise that on the web, on tv, on print, we only see a fraction of the full colour diversity we could see. For instance, no monitor or LCD can show TRUE Cyan. Freaky.)

Timwaterloo · #**299** 10-26-2006, 09:53 AM

Thanks Vidpro, but I cannot post it here, think I am the only one who has the pic and she knows it too. Only could mail it to you in private

lufecmo · #**300** 10-26-2006, 11:59 AM

please vidpro can you fix this pictures??

The Following User Says Thank You to lufecmo For This Useful Post:
roy rodgers