Is this much different than the Lytro "focus later" camera? http://www.lytro.com/. I don't know much about imaging, but I've been drooling over the demos I've seen online.
Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
51–60 of 130 posts
Re: Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
#52The random anti-intellectual comments from the guys in the wheely chairs were extremely annoying and unfunny. This guy is there, showing something truly amazing, and they're all "What's an algorithm? Haha!". And they'll get away with it too.
He made a good point. The presenter might as well have said "it works by being a computer program."
It was a pretty funny way of asking for more details imho.
Re: Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
#53Been hoping for this for a while! The information is there , it’s just distorted. Great to see Adobe keep pushing this kind of photo editing magic forward. I bet the maths are crazy.
The information is not really there, because the phase is not captured by the sensor. All you have is the intensity of the light.
Re: Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
#54It's called blind deconvolution. Blind means that they have to first estimate the original convolution/blur kernel and in the second phase, apply the deconvolution. If there's acceleration sensor on the camera, you can use data from that for the blur kernel. It's nothing new really, but algorithms for it have advanced tremendously. For example, there's some results from 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqMW3OleLM4…
One key problem with deconvolution is it's very susceptible to noise. I'm guessing they developed a way to ramp up the coefficients so you see an increase in clarity while keeping the noise below visible levels. So much of image (and audio!) processing is about getting away with noise the person can't detect :) On a side note: does anybody know of workable deconvolution algorithms that vary the kernel over the image?…
Thats just a different kind of kernel applied to the whole image.
Re: Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
#55Is this much different than the Lytro "focus later" camera? http://www.lytro.com/ . I don't know much about imaging, but I've been drooling over the demos I've seen online.
Completely different. This is a way to remove motion blur. Lytro is a way to move some of the focusing elements from physical to computational.
Re: Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
#56It's called blind deconvolution. Blind means that they have to first estimate the original convolution/blur kernel and in the second phase, apply the deconvolution. If there's acceleration sensor on the camera, you can use data from that for the blur kernel. It's nothing new really, but algorithms for it have advanced tremendously. For example, there's some results from 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqMW3OleLM4…
Blind deconvolution is easier in the time domain, and for digital signals (because you know both the input and output can have only certain levels, thus constraining the problem). It's been used routinely in modems for years.
Re: Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
#57Wish they applied that algorithm on the video...
Re: Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was paid by the company to interject with quips during the demos, so any rudeness is understood by both parties. An awkward situation for all involved.
Being paid to be rude doesn't make it not rude.
He was paid to be rude to the people who were paying him to be rude? That might not make it not rude, but I can't imagine anything that would come closer.
Re: Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
#59So, why did the whole video look really fake? It seemed to bob around in a very predictable manner. When the first sharpening took effect, it panned and zoomed exactly in time with the appearance of the second image. I'm not claiming the demo is fake, I'm just wondering why the video looks so strange.
That plus the kinda fakey-looking screen made me think the whole thing was staged. Then again, if you were going to stage it, you could do a lot better than that camera motion without trying very hard.
Re: Photoshop 'unblur' leaves MAX audience gasping for air
#60It's called blind deconvolution. Blind means that they have to first estimate the original convolution/blur kernel and in the second phase, apply the deconvolution. If there's acceleration sensor on the camera, you can use data from that for the blur kernel. It's nothing new really, but algorithms for it have advanced tremendously. For example, there's some results from 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqMW3OleLM4…
Does this algorithm lend itself to video? Probably would take a massive cloud of systems to correct any highdef video signal, but it would be impressive for many applications (news broadcast, sports, or any live event, security, or remote robots) Granted to achieve performance on the order of near realtime dsp, it would require an impressive hardware system. Then again, when I can spend the price of a coffee and get…
One of the things I did during my stint at Sony was video stabilization for their desktop nonlinear video editing software. We were hoping to not only stabilize (which is a pretty straightforward thing to do these days) but also use the motion data to inform a deconvolution to clean up motion blurred frames. Alas, my project ran out of time and we ended up licensing a third party stabilizer.
But yes, most image processing techniques like this lend themselves to video. This is something I hope my startup will someday be able to integrate into our collaborative video editor...