Posted by
Frederic V. Hessman on
URL: http://imagej.273.s1.nabble.com/Method-to-get-zoomed-in-or-zoomed-out-AWT-image-from-and-ImagePlus-or-ImageWindow-tp3688583p3688588.html
Some older CCD cameras used detectors that were not squares (in
digital spectroscopy, for instance, one doesn't really care), but
since imaging is now driven by digital photography, most pixels are
indeed squares. In astronomy, where the "World Coordinate System"
behind the pixels is often of interest, there are very elaborate means
for calibrating pixel versus physical space, even to the point of all-
sky pixelisation (HEALPix). In astronomical photometry, depending
upon whether one wants to conserve surface brightness or total number
of photons, the question of how to interpolate or resample is a tricky
one indeed.
Rick
On 14 Apr 2010, at 16:08, Bill Mohler wrote:
> Dscho-
>
> I've addressed my original problem by using ImageProcessor.resize().
>
> But I'm stuck mentally on your argument about the squares. What's
> the alternative? Circles? I thought that the pixels in our cameras
> were actually squares. Are they a different shape, either
> physically or functionally? Does anyone do math to account for
> their actual shape? Maybe in astronomy?
>
> Very interested in the details of what's correct, even if my own
> imaging never reaches the precision needing this sort of rigor.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Michael Schmid wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 13 Apr 2010, at 18:21, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> For zooming in, I am not aware of an appropriate upsampling
>>>> plugin, but I am sure there is one.
>>>>
>>> For zooming in (enlarging), simply use Image>Adjust Size
>>> (ij.plugin.Resizer) with Bilinear (faster) or Bicubic (better)
>>> interpolation.
>>>
>>
>> Only if you ignore my comment about pixels not being little
>> squares, of course.
>>
>> Ciao,
>> Dscho
>>
>>