"Zooming out" brain teaser

[nickbatz]

This is a puzzle I've been trying to figure out for a while.

Check out the first picture, for example. If you look at it sized between a thumbnail and maybe 10"x13" (whatever it is), it looks fab - the kind of abstract photo I'd use parts of as the starting point for one of my pictures.

But (see next post)....

[nickbatz]

But there's all kinds of texture detail I want to get rid of when I make it bigger (in this case - sometimes I do want it).

I'd appreciate ideas from the brain trust about how to do that without just using the paintbrush (which would be tedious).

The pic here is what I mean - zoomed in it looks like something you don't want to get on your clothes. It is blurry, of course, but ignore that - the issue is that I want to maintain the airplane view perspective when making it bigger.

TIA

[nickbatz]

Another way of putting it: I want it to look like it does when zooming in the computer screen rather than the pixels.

So the answer is a screenshot... nah.

[thomaso]

39 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

But there's all kinds of texture detail I want to get rid of when I make it bigger

What details do you want to avoid in particular? Can you mark a few on an example?

41 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

The pic here is what I mean - zoomed in it looks like something you don't want to get on your clothes.

Not really clear. Your comparison is rather a description of an emotional phantasy / association than what we see in fact (a zoomed texture). Is the close up just zoomed, or was it upscaled & resampled by a software? Can you upload a detail in 100% view (pixel size)?

[nickbatz]

Notice that you don't see all the brown inside the white blotches in the first picture, but in the second the whole effect dissipates.

Obviously, doing anything other than zooming in wouldn't illustrate my point, would it? This isn't a composition, it's an example of a raw (not RAW) photo I posted to explain what I'm asking.

Really, it's absolutely fine if you don't know the answer. I don't either.

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, nickbatz said:

Notice that you don't see all the brown inside the white blotches in the first picture, but in the second the whole effect dissipates.

I still can't follow: You say first "you don't see", then you add "the effect dissipates". – In my understanding something I don't see can not dissipate. While it is technically 'normal' that a smaller image shows less details than its larger (closer, zoomed) view. As you may see a meadow as a green flat plain, whereas you will see single straws when you get closer, with darker, brownish areas (ground) between the green straws.

2 hours ago, nickbatz said:

I want it to look like it does when zooming in the computer screen rather than the pixels.

In my understanding "zooming in the computer screen" would mean to increase the pixels (both, the image pixels and the hardware pixels) – Are you talking about antialiasing which occurs in your second (zoomed) screenshot? Note, your first uploaded image (full view) has far less resolution than the second (zoomed), so we (the forum) can not see what you see when zooming into the full resolution image.

I see the almost same shriveled texture (of the 2nd image) also in the 1st image: near its left edge (on the white wall).

1 hour ago, nickbatz said:

it's absolutely fine if you don't know the answer. I don't either.

Can't tell if I know the answer. Currently I don't know the question.

[nickbatz]

I’m trying to figure out a way to block thomaso and RC-R. One day people will learn how rude it is saying “we need,” as if there’s a group that only they are members of and I’m not.

This is not a response to them: 
 

What I’m getting at is that there’s a difference between enlarging a small picture that doesn’t have (unwanted) detail and zooming in on a file that has the detail. 

[Old Bruce]

I really don't know for sure what you are after* but here are a couple of ideas:

Try the Median blur filter.

Try a Posterize adjustment.

 

* I think you are wanting the shapes and colours preserved but not the fine grain detail.

[thomaso]

3 hours ago, Old Bruce said:

* I think you are wanting the shapes and colours preserved but not the fine grain detail.

If yes, detail contrast also gets influenced by Luminance Noise Reduction only, for instance:

p.s.: once the contrast got reduced it may get increased in an additional step to re-emphasize major edges. Also the Clarity affects contrast in a similar way and can get used for both sharpening and unsharpening.

3 hours ago, nickbatz said:

I’m trying to figure out a way to block thomaso and RC-R. One day people will learn how rude it is saying “we need,”

You can block me in your forum options. While I don't see were I did "need" or request anything from you. To me it appears I tried to describe with words what I see in your images and what I assume or possibly misunderstood in your descriptions. No "do this or deliver that". And, R C-R did not text at all in this thread, right?

[nickbatz]

Okay, thanks.

[John Rostron]

Like others, I'm not too sure what the OP wants. However I would suggest using Resize Document with Resampling and trying the various rescaling algorithms.

John

[nickbatz]

13 minutes ago, John Rostron said:

Like others, I'm not too sure what the OP wants. However I would suggest using Resize Document with Resampling and trying the various rescaling algorithms.

John

I am sure what he wants, and unfortunately resizing the document with resampling isn't the answer. That's something I do automatically before I start working with pictures anyway.

However, that triggers a synapse: what happens if you resize without resampling? Will try and report back for those waiting with bated breath.

UPDATE: No, it just leaves it more pixellated.

In any case, there's no obvious way to explain it than to repeat what I wrote above: "What I’m getting at is that there’s a difference between enlarging a small picture that doesn’t have (unwanted) detail and zooming in on a file that has the detail."

If you look at that picture above, it looks great at the original size, but when you zoom in on the file you see all kinds of uglies. This is just one example of something I encounter quite a lot.

 

[thomaso]

28 minutes ago, John Rostron said:

However I would suggest using Resize Document with Resampling

If details are wanted to be reduced then down-sizing might be more interesting than up-sizing here. Nevertheless, any scaling / resizing affects the entire image in one same way and does not distinguish between small or large details with high or low contrast but just considers pixel "size" (resolution).

[nickbatz]

9 minutes ago, thomaso said:

Nevertheless, any scaling / resizing affects the entire image in one same way and does not distinguish between small or large details with high or low contrast but just considers pixel "size" (resolution).

That's what makes it a brain teaser.

If you were to take a picture of the picture (zoomed out as in the original, which is what you see in real life), the unwanted details wouldn't be there if you made it bigger - it would just be a bigger version of the picture without the details. In other words, it wouldn't enlarge what isn't there.

And in fact that may be an approach to try: scan or photograph the photograph.

[nickbatz]

There's a side issue: iPhone cameras can oversharpen images. There's no way to turn off the "computational photography" - which is amazing 95% of the time and wrong the other 5%.

I use a third-party app called Halide, but often I don't have time to fool around with it and just use the regular camera.

But that's just a tangent.

[Old Bruce]

Are you wanting something like these? All done with Median blur and then a masked area to show original area. I guess other blurs would also do something similar.

[thomaso]

8 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

That's what makes it a brain teaser.

If you were to take a picture of the picture (zoomed out as in the original, which is what you see in real life), the unwanted details wouldn't be there if you made it bigger - it would just be a bigger version of the picture without the details. In other words, it wouldn't enlarge what isn't there.

I think this is a misunderstanding which results from the fact that we (the human) are able to technically zoom-in but our biological eyes never can. ( I guess no animal can, right?). Accordingly it doesn't make much sense to expect a certain look when zooming in or to feel a zoomed view as right or wrong with a specific amount of details.

As mentioned before, just imagine a birds view on green grassland. Zooming in as photo is something fully different than zooming in in real life. The latter brings you closer to the single straws and finally to the brown ground, means to a fully different motive and reality – while the photo doesn't even know about the single straws and the ground but the pixel and resolution only.

So, for your goal you can simulate only – and just feel it look correct.

[nickbatz]

Not like that, no - although that's another effect that can be useful.

What I want is for it to look the same bigger as it does smaller.

[nickbatz]

Just now, thomaso said:

I think this is a misunderstanding which results from the fact that we (the human) are able to technically zoom-in but our biological eyes never can. ( I guess no animal can, right?). Accordingly it doesn't make much sense to expect a certain look when zooming in or to feel a zoomed view as right or wrong with a specific amount of details.

As mentioned before, just imagine a birds view on green grassland. Zooming in as photo is something fully different than zooming in in real life. The latter brings you closer to the single straws and finally to the brown ground, means to a fully different motive and reality – while the photo doesn't even know about the single straws and the ground but the pixel and resolution only.

So, for your goal you can simulate only – and just feel it look correct.

 

Yes. The eye is not the same as a camera, no question (analogy: the ear is very different from a microphone).

[nickbatz]

Emphasis: as I said, this photo is just a starting point for what I do.

After three minutes in Affinity Photo it won't look anything like that photograph (or for that matter like any photograph). I'm not just trying to edit it and print it out, in fact I'll only use parts of it.

[thomaso]

3 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

What I want is for it to look the same bigger as it does smaller.

There is no "look the same" in this case. Something larger will either show more details or will appear missing details. Thus it will require a visual idea (imagination) or ideally the ability to describe the wanted result in a way that it may get technically transferred. (like the terms 'pixel', 'resolution', 'colour value' or 'contrast' do.)

You might get closer to the wanted result if you create a new photo with a lot higher resolution. Then zooming would not cause any 'new' texture because upsizing and technical resampling would not be required.

Brain teaser comparison: Do these images show reality? Do they "look the same bigger as they do smaller"? Are these surfaces "real"? https://www.gettyimages.de/grafiken/elektronenmikroskop

[thomaso]

14 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

After three minutes in Affinity Photo it won't look anything like that photograph (or for that matter like any photograph). I'm not just trying to edit it and print it out, in fact I'll only use parts of it.

I thought so already, from the sample images in your other thread. But then it is even more useful to describe an expected result or wanted modification with unambiguous words, while a comparison like this…

On 4/7/2023 at 2:17 AM, nickbatz said:

looks like something you don't want to get on your clothes.

… did not help to describe or even define a wanted visual appearance. – I even guess that a finally satisfying result could also trigger this association, who knows? In the small image size your wall texture looks like mold, which is a similar, possibly unpleasent comparison and without a clear definition of its look.

[nickbatz]

Quote

There is no "look the same" in this case. Something larger will either show more details or will appear missing details.

It will appear missing details. The outlines of the shapes and general white-ish vs. background is the goal, and it's how the photo appears before you zoom in microscopically.

I do get what you're saying about zooming in on pixels, though.

Quote

You might get closer to the wanted result if you create a new photo with a lot higher resolution.

You're right. The iPhone 12 Pro Max camera res is 72 DPI in regular JPEG mode and I believe 90-something in ProRAW. Maybe they'll raise that in the 15, or better yet increase the optical zoom resolution. If so, that'll be a reason to upgrade.

Unfortunately a "real" DSLR camera with higher resolution wouldn't work for me, because I rely on having a very good camera with me in my pocket all the time - in other words I can't just go out and shoot pictures, because I'd be very unlikely to find useful things to photograph. Other than the issue in this thread, the quality of the photos is less important than it would be if I were taking "traditional" photos.

...on the other hand I would get plenty of use from a professional DLSR too, just not for art.

[nickbatz]

11 minutes ago, thomaso said:

But then it is even more useful to describe an expected result or wanted modification with unambiguous words, while a comparison like this…

 

Hopefully I've described it more clearly in subsequent posts?

The basic point is that enlarging what's not in the photo (leaving aside that it is in this example!) doesn't produce details that aren't in it. 

Also, sorry for getting annoyed at you. I suspect a subtle language issue, but maybe I'm wrong. (And given how basic my German is... )

[thomaso]

1 minute ago, nickbatz said:

The basic point is that enlarging what's not in the photo (leaving aside that it is in it!) doesn't produce details that aren't in it. 

Therefore, I would say that it is an impossible (paradoxical) goal or idea to solve this problem along a technical recipe ("brain teaser"). Instead it is a matter of visual phantasy and imagination first about the detailed texture you want to see versus the exact details you want to exclude. It is not a question of reality (as a photo might suggest) but a lot more of art and artificial, free creation.