Talk:Super-resolution imaging

Hyphen or not

The unhyphenated form superresolution, used even at the beginning of the subject , seems now to have superseded the less-often used super-resolution -- see Optics Info Base. I propose that the redirect be not from superresolution to super-resolution but the other way. If the abbreviation SR is used in the rest of the entry, there should be no problem.Gwestheimer 16:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying for an entry that gives an overall layout of the subject and conveys the essential concepts, I have opted for a separate page entitled "Superresolution" rather than shoehorning the material into the current more technically-oriented page "Super-resolution." This involves undoing the re-direct from "Superresolution" to "Super-resolution" and inserting into each of these pages a reference to the other under "See also."
Gwestheimer 18:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwestheimer (talk • contribs)

That was a terrible idea. There is no reason why we can't have both the technical and the non-technical in the same article. And then to have the only difference be the hyphen is even worse. I'm recombining the pages. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Ego White Tray, to the contrary, that was my original intent, except that I found the job of integrating the two entries and dealing with the tags and the many self-serving references too daunting. But I will now have a go at it. So Wiki-constabulary, please hold off tagging for a week or two.Gwestheimer 22:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwestheimer (talk • contribs)

More on which techniques for which applications

Which techniques are used on aerial photography or on satellite imagery or for optical astronomy ? Is multi-frame SR the main technique ? Are there SR techniques specific to enhancing video ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The 2nd sentence of the intro is long, and perhaps too complicated for the intro ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Question on introduction

Are MRI and Computed Tomography really examples of radar/sonar applications? - Evariste1832 (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggested addition on training datasets for deep learning SR

Hello Editors,

I noticed the tag on this article requesting updates on progress with machine learning and super-resolution. My colleagues and I recently published a data descriptor that addresses a key part of this progress: the creation of benchmark training data. Due to my conflict of interest as an author, I am proposing the edit here for your review. I suggest adding the following paragraph to the "Research" section:

A significant challenge in developing deep learning models for super-resolution is the availability of suitable training data, which requires perfectly aligned high- and low-resolution images of the same subject. While this is often done by synthetically downsampling a high-resolution image, benchmark datasets of experimentally-acquired multi-resolution data are being created to provide more realistic training scenarios. For example, a multi-resolution synchrotron X-ray computed tomography dataset of a zeolite particle has been made public to help benchmark and develop super-resolution algorithms for scientific imaging applications.

This addition provides a concrete, cited example of current research efforts that directly support the neural network-based approaches mentioned in the section. Thank you. Jazzymonster2025 (talk) 10:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

References