111–120 of 130 posts
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.
All first-look demos like this are staged/faked whatever, why would you think otherwise?
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.
I think it would be unreasonable to claim that it is fake anyway, since relevant research has been public for some time. If there's an amount of trickery involved, it's in the parameter files he loaded (they might be nontrivial/nonautomatic to produce).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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've gotten some rather amazing results with InFocus myself, but it does take a lot of tweaking of sliders and so on. It was mostly recovering irreplaceable stuff, otherwise it wouldn't have been worth the bother. (Taking better pictures is always the better option when you have it.) I do prefer the output of a mild application to unsharp masking for photos that aren't actually blurry, though. And, of course, running…
When I tried InFocus, I used them on some shots where I blew the focus at wider apertures (now that I'm using a camera with better high ISO performance, that kind of defocus is rarely an issue, because I have the luxury of stopping down), and I couldn't get adequate results and I wasn't willing to spend a lot of time tweaking sliders.
I am totally with you on the idea of taking better pictures though. The more you can reduce your effort in post with technique, the better. A lot of stuff is unfixable in post.
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…
Here are the actual research papers for this video:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/sparis/#publi2011
- Blur kernel estimation using the Radon Transform http://people.csail.mit.edu/sparis/publi/2011/cvpr_radon/Cho...
- Modeling and Removing Spatially-Varying Optical Blur http://people.csail.mit.edu/sparis/publi/2011/iccp_blur/Kee_...
----------------------------------------------------
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?…
The early Hubble images were fixed, maybe there's something around for those? ( http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1992ASPC...25..226K ) What an awful URL.
Sorry for OT, was just happy to see the coincidental link to a Hubble photograph.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it would be unreasonable to claim that it is fake anyway, since relevant research has been public for some time. If there's an amount of trickery involved, it's in the parameter files he loaded (they might be nontrivial/nonautomatic to produce).
Again, I'm not questioning the demo, I'm asking why the video has so many very strange traits.
Imagemagick can already use this "algorithm". See "fourier transform" applications such as: http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/fourier_transforms/fo... )
Deconvolution is easy. The main difficulty is estimating the blur kernel in a so-called "blind" manner. That's the advance being shown off by Adobe.