101–110 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rainn Wilson is actually a really smart guy. He was playing the classic stupid guy being wowed by a genius card, it was an actor's way of complimenting him.
Anti-intellectualism aside, they still interrupted an amazing talk without adding any value. An actor's way of dominating the stage even when it's not your turn. A bit rude and unnecessary.
Let me load the specially constructed set of parameters specific to this image so that when I do the next step you get a really clear image. That was a little too hand-wavy. I'm a little dubious until I see what went into that phase.
To an extent, this is already available -- for example in the Topaz Labs InFocus Photoshop plugin. There are some params to play with that make it easier to find the blur trajectory when the blur is motion-related (although if you leave it in "figure it out for yourself" mode, it gets it right often enough). InFocus (the current version) will only do linear trajectories, though -- it can't handle curves as well as th…
I suspect people will have to manage their expectations with this Adobe plugin/feature as well.
What they should do is partner with a DSLR maker and put this in the firmware of the camera itself. Imagine one button blur correction. That'd be amazing.
I don't think DSLRs have the processing power needed to unblur the images. It took several seconds to unblur a section of an image. It'd probably be faster to upload the image to a cloud processor and have it unblur it for you.
It might be more efficient to just teach people how to use their cameras so that they can minimize unwanted blurring.
So, 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.
How is this different from what FocusMagic http://www.focusmagic.com/ has been offering for over a decade?
The Adobe approach, on the other hand, handles complex (non-linear) motion blur and does so in a so-called "blind" way.
If you are wondering how they might be doing it, here is one approach that I saw in a computer vision class (no idea if they are doing anything similar to this) (slides: http://cs.nyu.edu/~fergus/presentations/fergus_deblurring.pd... (~60 MB ppt) paper: http://cs.nyu.edu/~fergus/papers/deblur_fergus.pdf (~10 MB pdf) ) The basic idea is that you have an unknown original image and it is convolved with an unknown blurri…
I assume the RedLaser barcode app uses something similar from captured video frames combined with data from the accelerometer, no?
Imagemagick can already use this "algorithm". See "fourier transform" applications such as: http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/fourier_transforms/fo... )
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To an extent, this is already available -- for example in the Topaz Labs InFocus Photoshop plugin. There are some params to play with that make it easier to find the blur trajectory when the blur is motion-related (although if you leave it in "figure it out for yourself" mode, it gets it right often enough). InFocus (the current version) will only do linear trajectories, though -- it can't handle curves as well as th…
Yeah, I tried the Topaz InFocus plugin after it got a bit of buzz from the TWIP podcast. It wasn't quite as magical as the demo images on the site made it seem, and I ended up not buying it (Topaz's Denoise plugin, OTOH, is quite incredible). I suspect people will have to manage their expectations with this Adobe plugin/feature as well.
I sort of expect Adobe to do better -- they've got a lot more resources to work on the problem. Maybe I'll finally find a reason to upgrade from CS3.
So, 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.
You do realize that the video is not from Adobe, but just from visitors of the conference?