Adobe MAX 2011 - Photoshop Image Deblurring sneak - Wow!

[Fine_Art]

This is a bigger mis-representation of the situation than Adobe's "cheat".  According to Adobe, the first two images were real camera shake.  The third image was simulated camera shake, but the reconstruction program was not given the simulation PSF.

And you believe everything you are told. Look at the link to the plaza shot above, it is from Adobe's own blog site. Look at the legs of the people walking around. They are sharp. There was no slow shutter speed causing shake. Even looking at the shake it looks unnatural. When a photographer takes the shot it is usually close to stable, then the button press causes a dip plus rotation clockwise or the photographer decides to move to track something mid shot. There is an acceleration. The blur shown looks like it was generated by a constant continuous pattern. There is no acceleration. No rotation.

If you refuse to believe the actual picture from the demo it is because you want to believe something like this is real.

A coverup is not in Adobe's interests. It is better to blame the presenter for pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with no authorization. Can him, then buy one of the small companies making this specialty software.

[Detail Man]

In a seemingly crafty (but nevertheless transparent) corporate side-step, Adobe Inc. has evidently decided to try to "deflect the heat" generated by the controversies surrounding their recent posted video featuring public claims made by employee Jue Wang while in the employ of Adobe at:

http://tv.adobe.com/watch/max-2011-sneak-peeks/max-2011-sneak-peek-image-deblurring/

and at the Adobe Inc. blog web-page authored by Adobe employee Cari Gushiken, published at:

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2011/10/behind-all-the-buzz-deblur-sneak-peek.html

... by instead referring interested parties to a web-site operated and maintained by Jue Wang himself (while he remains in the employ of Adobe Inc, and is acting on Adobe's behalf, anyway).
.

Jue Wang's Adobe Employee Profile can be found at:

http://www.adobe.com/technology/people/seattle/wang.html?PID=2159997

Wang's web-site maintained for profit on behalf of Adobe Incorporated is here:

http://juew.org/deblurFamousPhoto.html

... where one will find the publishing of an entirely different set of images represented by Adobe Inc. to be processed by a prototype "de-blur" algorithm. Suddenly, Adobe's story has changed ...
 
The resulting images posted are marginal, noisy, not useful, and not representative of results that are even remotely close to what the (alleged by Adobe to be) legitimate "*Plaza.png*" depicts:

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/files/2011/10/Plaza.png
.

Despite the fact that the "*sarah-dog.png*" image published by Adobe at:

http://www.adobe.com/technology/people/seattle/wang.html?PID=2159997

... with the direct link to the image being here:

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/files/2011/10/sarah-dog.png

... shows absolutely no visible signs of there existing any difference whatsoever between what has been claimed by Adobe to be a "before/after" representation of the original Android cell-phone recorded image, a new and clearly entirely different image showing some visible results of some sort of processing, and containing visible image-noise/artifacts (without any explanations or admissions to the obvious differences by Wang himself) is presented here on behalf of Adobe, Inc:

http://juew.org/blur/2010-12-22_16-43-14_520_out.jpg

... published Oct 23 2011, and appearing to have actually been processed in some manner relative to:

http://juew.org/blur/2010-12-22_16-43-14_520.jpg

In well-managed and ethical companies, the engineering department is not forced by the marketing department to make known to be false public representations regarding the the status and operational efficacy of in-development prototype products. My condolences to Mr. Jue Wang.

After evidently experiencing pressure by his employer to turn their desire to "sell a sizzle from a yet uncooked steak" to the public, Mr. Wang has been reduced to jeopardizing his personal professional reputation as an evident condition of employment with Adobe, Inc., and (furthermore) evidently been pressured into maintaining a web-site in his personal name that ends up publishing a (much more accurate and realistic) "whimper" following Adobe's "big bang", stating:

"We agree that the algorithm does not always work well, and this is the case it fails right now."

[BernardLanguillier]

Talk about a meaningless story totally blown out of proportion. Really, who cares whether an Adobe prototype works or not?

I'd have more problems with claims related to an actual product being sold, but even then we all know that marketing tends to show a product under its most favorable angle.

Then it is our responsibility as buyers to check the claims of software vendors. Trials are typically available for that very purpose.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Tim Lookingbill]

Wonder why all the links "Detail Man" posted have been severely changed with some getting the "404 File not found" associated with Jue Wang's blog images.

Well, I guess there is no such thing as bad press.

I agree with Bernard. It's much ado about nothing from a controversial aspect.

Do you think someone as smart and educated as Jue Wang would jeopardize his career over this? Come on!

Frankly I'm quite impressed with Jue Wang's results with the images he did fix with his algorithms he posted in his blog. He clearly shows the possibilities and potential behind his work. It's not a total misrepresentation.

Need more Dwight, please!

[Geraldo Garcia]

Wonder why all the links "Detail Man" posted have been severely changed with some getting the "404 File not found" associated with Jue Wang's blog images.

The links are working, just remove the semi-colon at the end and they will work just fine. That is a quite common mistake induced by the "autolink" feature on some forums, everytime a link does not work, check for that.

Regards.

[Detail Man]

Say, is there any way to set up this LL Forum viewing system so that (in addition to seeing bombastic posts, which is inevitable), I don't have to stare at ["disturbing imagery"] in the "avatars", as well? TIA!

PS - The links to the URLs in my original post are (now) all working fine. Sorry about that! If one's video does not seem to be working, it just might be time to visit those "hallowed halls of Adobe" in order to get the latest Plug-ins for one's browser ...

[Tim Lookingbill]

Say, is there any way to set up this LL Forum viewing system so that (in addition to seeing bombastic posts, which is inevitable), I don't have to stare at "ugly mugs" in the "avatars", as well? TIA!

Why don't you grow some manners, shitbird?

[Tim Lookingbill]

Geraldo,

The links are working now.

But still the ones with the AdobeTV video are just showing a white box.

[Detail Man]

... that is, when applied at the level of "raw" image-data prior to de-mosaicing and prior to NR (which helps to attenuate some of the DD artifacts that inevitably result). DxO Optics Pro 6.x "Lens Softness" corrections can be impressive, indeed. Note that DD is not the only component of the DxO "Lens Softness" corrections:

http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/optics_geometry_corrections/lens_softness

I have created some comparison examples for viewing. Best to download them and line them up to compare them in an image-viewer (as the DPR display-system downwardly re-samples these images, thus distorting the results).
.

A comparison between two approaches to the business of "sharpening" in order to enhance "image acuity": DxO Lens Softness corrections followed by mild Unsharp Masking; OR Lightroom 3.4 Sharpening (which uses USM and Deconvolution Deblurring):

(1) DxO 6.6 (without Lens Softness corrections) > LR 3.5 Sharpening (Equal Parts USM + Deconvolution Deblurring: Radius=0.5; Strength=100%; Detail=50; Masking=3) > XnView 1.982 (Loss-less JPEG); or

(2) DxO 6.6 (with Lens Softness corrections) > Sagelight 3.1 Sharpening [16-bit USM: Radius=0.5; Strength=100%, (non-linear) Threshold=10] > XnView 1.982 (Loss-less JPEG).

Notes:

In the process of sharpening the 16-bit TIF output image-file resulting from DxO RW2 processing, Lightroom 3.5 was used only as a (USM + DD) sharpening tool. The LR 3.5 "Masking" (linear threshold control) was set to 3/100 (around 5 EV, or "stops", below maximum level). All other LR 3.5 functions were either set to Zero (0), or disabled completely.

In the process of sharpening the 16-bit TIF output image-file resulting from DxO RW2 processing, Sagelight 3.1 was used only as a (16-bit USM) sharpening tool. The SL 3.1 "Threshold" (an exponentially scaled threshold control) was set to 10/100 (estimated to be around 5 EV, or "stops", below maximum level). No other SL 3.1 functions were used.

XnView 1.982 was used in both case to convert the 16-bit TIF results to an 8-bit loss-less JPG (using no Chroma Sub-sampling, and with Quality Factor = 100%).

Below are working links to example images that show the result of applying those two approaches (at 3272x2454 original crop size):

DxO (without Lens Softness corrections) > Lightroom (USM+DD Sharpening):
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/download/1476868

DxO (with Lens Softness corrections) > Sagelight (USM Sharpening):
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/download/1476869
.

So, do things get any better at a reduced (1600x1200) pixel-size? ...

A comparison between two approaches to the business of "sharpening" in order to enhance "image acuity": DxO Lens Softness corrections followed by mild Unsharp Masking; OR Lightroom 3.4 Sharpening (which uses USM and Deconvolution Deblurring):

(1) DxO 6.6 (without Lens Softness corrections) > Artizen 2.86 (16-bit Lanczos-3 re-sampling to a 1600x1200 pixel-size) > LR 3.5 Sharpening (Equal Parts USM + Deconvolution Deblurring: Radius=0.5; Strength=100%; Detail=50; Masking=3) > XnView 1.982 (Loss-less JPEG); or

(2) DxO 6.6 (with Lens Softness corrections) > Artizen 2.86 (16-bit Lanczos-3 re-sampling to a 1600x1200 pixel-size) > Sagelight 3.1 Sharpening [16-bit USM: Radius=0.5; Strength=100%, (non-linear) Threshold=10] > XnView 1.982 (Loss-less JPEG).

Notes:

In the process of sharpening the 16-bit TIF output image-file resulting from DxO RW2 processing, Lightroom 3.5 was used only as a (USM + DD) sharpening tool. The LR 3.5 "Masking" (linear threshold control) was set to 3/100 (around 5 EV, or "stops", below maximum level). All other LR 3.5 functions were either set to Zero (0), or disabled completely.

In the process of sharpening the 16-bit TIF output image-file resulting from DxO RW2 processing, Sagelight 3.1 was used only as a (16-bit USM) sharpening tool. The SL 3.1 "Threshold" (an exponentially scaled threshold control) was set to 10/100 (estimated to be around 5 EV, or "stops", below maximum level). No other SL 3.1 functions were used.

XnView 1.982 was used in both case to convert the 16-bit TIF results to an 8-bit loss-less JPG (using no Chroma Sub-sampling, and with Quality Factor = 100%).

Below is the result of applying those two approaches (at a 1600x1200 pixel size):

DxO (without Lens Softness corrections) > Lightroom (USM+DD Sharpening):
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/download/1476933

DxO (with Lens Softness corrections) > Sagelight (USM Sharpening):
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4464732135/download/1476934
.

(All methods of applying) DD to images suffer from the possibility of significant artifacts (if/when the number of re-circulations in the Deconvolution-processes is increased). (I think) that the idea of being able to apply DD processes after the fact, and "willy nilly" on random images is a dubious pipe-dream at best [whether or not some algorithm has attempted to "guess" the total system Point Spread Function (PSF)]. See:

In practice, finding the true PSF is impossible, and usually an approximation of it is used, theoretically calculated or based on some experimental estimation by using known probes. Real optics may also have different PSFs at different focal and spatial locations, and the PSF may be non-linear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution#Optics_and_other_imaging

Various people appear to be reading all kinds of fantasy-applications in to this Adobe "toy" still being tinkered-upon by "Santa's Elves". Such thoughts say more about their naivete (probably a big plus for Adobe's marketing department?) than it does about what is really going on, and what is possible. Adobe has proven that all that a marketeer has to accomplish is to "fool some of the people all of the time", and (in the situation of a high enough volume of sales), "Fat City" is not that hard to (for a time, anyway) find.

BTW - Jue Wang is clearly a highly technically competent individual. Please understand that I harbor no ill-will towards Mr. Wang himself. (However), the way that Adobe Inc. has handled this public relations "FUBAR" is unfortunate, indeed. Those who have actually worked within a design/development engineering environment (as have I) will likely understand exactly what I am talking about ...  
.

Some Deconvolution Deblurring links for the genuinely curious to follow:

Here is the Richardson-Lucy deconvolution approach arising out of the Hubble Space Telescope:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1994ASPC...61..296
.

Some (freeware) command-line executable files (the example-images for which look pretty slick):

http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/projects/motion_deblurring/index.html
 
Here's a paper that is co-authored by Jue Wang of Adobe Systems you might like:

http://cg.postech.ac.kr/research/deconv_outliers/

There are a number of things already in existence as (GUI) plug-ins and stand-alone applications that you might dig:

The Refocus (freeware) plug-in for GIMP (Wiener Filtering deconvolution; a real POS).

FocusMagic (not sure if it's Wiener Filtering or Richardson-Lucy; a few people still like using it).

InFocus (looks slicker than FocusMagic; more current from the standpoint of development).

RAW Therapee (freeware) Richardson-Lucy Deconvolution Deblurring (4 controllable parameters). The 4.x releases are much improved from the (still buggy with Windows OSs) Versions 3.x. RT 4.x has what is (in my viewpoint) a better user-interface than DxO, LR3.x /CR 6.x, or Silkypix (SE or Pro 4.x versions).

(And my personal favorite), DxO Optics Pro 6.x "Lens Softness" corrections which incorporates Deconvolution Deblurring along with other elements (for RAW/JPG processing of supported camera/lens combinations). The DxO (RAW-mode) Optical Corrections Modules work the best. The DxO (JPG-mode) Optical Corrections Modules are impressive (but do not benefit from the originally mentioned ability to perform the DD processes at the "raw" image-data level, prior to de-mosaicing, and prior to any NR applied in processing).


 
 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think its considered a bad practice in science to first convolve (blur) an image with an artificial kernel, add some noise and later deconvolve (deblur) it with the known kernel.  If the kernel is not known, but estimated from the image, it would be called "blind deconvolution". Much of the research is based on similar experiments.

So what Adobe did was something based on scientific approach, but that may have not been fully appreciated by the public.

My humble view may be, that it is beneficial for the photographic community that Adobe and others develop usable tools for blind deconvolution. Sometimes we fail on something in taking pictures and it's nice if the failed picture can saved/restored. More often than not it is not possible to reshoot.

Adobe is doing marketing, and they of course promise a bit more than what the technology can deliver. They find examples that work and that make impression.

Finally, I wouldn't judge anything based on a "you tube" quality presentation.

Best regards
Erik

Talk about a meaningless story totally blown out of proportion. Really, who cares whether an Adobe prototype works or not?

I'd have more problems with claims related to an actual product being sold, but even then we all know that marketing tends to show a product under its most favorable angle.

Then it is our responsibility as buyers to check the claims of software vendors. Trials are typically available for that very purpose.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Detail Man]

Hi Erik Kaffehr,

I was wondering if you might possibly further explain your thoughts expressed (quoted below in italics). If you don't want to, don't sweat it!

I don't think its considered a bad practice in science to first convolve (blur) an image with an artificial kernel, add some noise and later deconvolve (deblur) it with the known kernel.

What would be the significance and utility of simply convolving and then de-convolving using the same Point Spread Function (PSF)? Other than adding some noise, you seem to be describing performing a convolution process simply followed by then subsequently performing the inverse convolution process. If one wanted to determine the relative noise-immunity of a de-convolution process, then taking such an action does seem to make sense.

However, my own (possibly limited) understanding is that a relevant problem with deconvolution deblurring processes seems to be the artifacts that the processes themselves create. This artifacting does (as I understand it) increase when processing an input with a poor Signal/Noise Ratio (SNR). Is it your understanding that, given an (albeit theoretical only) infinite SNR image-data source, that there would exist no resulting artifacts from a deconvolution deblurring process?

If the kernel is not known, but estimated from the image, it would be called "blind deconvolution". Much of the research is based on similar experiments.

Yes. Cases where the Point Spread Function (PSF) is unknown or unknowable (and various attempts may be made to in some manner estimate the PSF).

So what Adobe did was something based on scientific approach, but that may have not been fully appreciated by the public.

Indeed, blind deconvolution techniques are more common than deconvolution techniques where the PSF is previously known or characterized.

My humble view may be, that it is beneficial for the photographic community that Adobe and others develop usable tools for blind deconvolution. Sometimes we fail on something in taking pictures and it's nice if the failed picture can saved/restored. More often than not it is not possible to reshoot.

It's not clear to me that any person on the planet would argue with your sentiment expressed. What seems more interesting are the practical limitations of the use of deconvolution processes to address optical system de-focusing phenomena and motion-blur. Any (actual) "scientist" speculating about the practical likelihood of the actual successful implementation of such schemes would be subject to "review" (by "peers", as well as by others) in the course of such "scientific approaches" being explored. But Adobe, from their proprietary perch, is not offering anything remotely resembling such a process ...

Adobe is doing marketing, and they of course promise a bit more than what the technology can deliver. They find examples that work and that make impression.

Well, the term "marketing" seems to (one might hope) have a separate meaning than the phrase "deceptive marketing". Courts of Law (who take a "scientific" and "evidence-based" approach) surely do. If these concepts have become fused within our consumer-culture, what does that say about the sensibility of accepting promises by commercial entities that no person actually expects to be truthful and accurate?

Finally, I wouldn't judge anything based on a "you tube" quality presentation.

I take it that you use the term "quality" in a generalized sense above (as it relates to a certain "lack of believability" of anything that appears in that medium)? If so, is it true that corporations that intend to market products for monetary gain may be expected to suspend ethical practices (including an expectation of accuracy and truthfulness) as a result of using such a suspect medium as "YouTube"?

If you use the term "quality" in relation to the actual optical resolution of the presentation, we do not need to rely on hazy glimpses of video shot of presentation-screens published by Adobe on "YouTube". We have Adobe's previously published "Plaza.png" at:

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/files/2011/10/Plaza.png

When you yourself have a look at the images (now) posted at:

http://juew.org/deblurFamousPhoto.html

... and the general lack of efficacy, as well as the visibly low Signal/Noise Ratio (SNR), of the de-blurring processes demonstrated, have you (as I have) "scratched your head" and wondered exactly why it would be that none of the examples (now) posted at the link directly above appear to come anywhere even close to the seemingly miraculous quality (and relatively high output SNR as compared to all of the other examples published) that is displayed in Adobe's publishing of the "Plaza.png" "before/after" image?

My interest here surrounds the more straightforward and immediate questions relating to a "scientific method", such as "where's the beef?", and "where is the evidence?". Is not that "just the stuff" that the "men in white coats" think about in the hallowed halls that constitute the "cathedrals of science and industry" that seem to have (somehow) earned such an automatic sense of (knee-jerk) deference among members of "the public" these days?

And (from a sociological standpoint) is this modern "techno-tribalism" - where individuals experience an emotional brand-loyalty that is divorced from logic to corporations that they pay money to (and not the other way around) - at all wise and healthy (and a "scientifically sound") trend? Should we elect to "suspend our rational disbelief" merely on the emotional basis that our persona's identification with a corporation (i.e., Apple. Adobe, etc.) may happen to give us a sense of existential meaning, belonging, and a competency imbued from without (on the sole basis of product "consumption" via the liquidation of "disposable income")?

Such questions may not prove to be answered by coherent answers from "the public". But it seems (to me) that the day when nobody either asks such questions, or is capable of answering them, may well be day when the "consumer state" becomes little but the indentured servants of a modern techno-feudalism in the willing servitude of corporate monoliths, where a once "eternal vigilance" has since devolved into a "blissful indifference" ...

Regards, and "top of the mornin' to ya'", kind sir.


PS - I have been perusing some of the links provided at the end of your post, including your personal web-site, and your articles. Some interesting materials, indeed. You clearly are a knowledgeable and thoughtful fellow, and I look forward to the possibility of learning from you and your interesting mind. I can see that the brevity of your post on this thread does not reveal your extensive amount of thought and consideration regarding some of these issues surrounding photography, and I am not in any way underestimating your intellect by raising some questions in my post above about your thoughts on this particular matter of Adobe's recent publicizing of information concerning their developmental work in the area of deconvolution deblurring tools.
 

  

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi DetailMan,

First I may need to state that I'm not really involved with image processing, also many thanks for your comments on my writing.

The points I wanted to make are essentially that:

1) I got the impression that it is a very common practice to test algorithms using known PSF to convolve and deconvolve test images in presence of noise or disturbance. I have a book called Digital Image Processing by Gonzales and Woods, and the type of experiment I mention is used throughout the book. On the other hand, the use of this methodology is probably not well known for the public. So when it is discovered that some of the images were artificially degraded the public regards it to be cheating, while for the developers it is "Standard Operating Procedure".

2) In my view deconvolution is not a substitute for exacting work. I see several areas however where it can be quite useful. One such area is of course the rescue of images with technical problems. I don't expect wonders from deconvolution but some times very good results can be achieved. Also, deconvolution may be useful to restore OLP filtered images or enhance images suffering from diffraction. This page of my own testing indicates some possibilities: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/49-dof-in-digital-pictures?start=2

3) Adobe did not give a product presentation, just a sneak peek into their research. But even in a product presentation they would normally demonstrate cases where the method works and avoid cases where it does. I guess that it is Standard Operating Procedure for most industries.

Finally, I'm essentially underhelmed with almost any presentation on U-tube. We work with very high quality media, while digital video at best (full HD) corresponds to two megapixels.

I hope that this explanation is elaborate enough.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik Kaffehr,

I was wondering if you might possibly further explain your thoughts expressed (quoted below in italics). If you don't want to, don't sweat it!

I don't think its considered a bad practice in science to first convolve (blur) an image with an artificial kernel, add some noise and later deconvolve (deblur) it with the known kernel.

What would be the significance and utility of simply convolving and then de-convolving using the same Point Spread Function (PSF)? Other than adding some noise, you seem to be describing performing a convolution process simply followed by then subsequently performing the inverse convolution process. If one wanted to determine the relative noise-immunity of a de-convolution process, then taking such an action does seem to make sense.

However, my own (possibly limited) understanding is that a relevant problem with deconvolution deblurring processes seems to be the artifacts that the processes themselves create. This artifacting does (as I understand it) increase when processing an input with a poor Signal/Noise Ratio (SNR). Is it your understanding that, given an (albeit theoretical only) infinite SNR image-data source, that there would exist no resulting artifacts from a deconvolution deblurring process?

If the kernel is not known, but estimated from the image, it would be called "blind deconvolution". Much of the research is based on similar experiments.

Yes. Cases where the Point Spread Function (PSF) is unknown or unknowable (and various attempts may be made to in some manner estimate the PSF).

So what Adobe did was something based on scientific approach, but that may have not been fully appreciated by the public.

Indeed, blind deconvolution techniques are more common than deconvolution techniques where the PSF is previously known or characterized.

My humble view may be, that it is beneficial for the photographic community that Adobe and others develop usable tools for blind deconvolution. Sometimes we fail on something in taking pictures and it's nice if the failed picture can saved/restored. More often than not it is not possible to reshoot.

It's not clear to me that any person on the planet would argue with your sentiment expressed. What seems more interesting are the practical limitations of the use of deconvolution processes to address optical system de-focusing phenomena and motion-blur. Any (actual) "scientist" speculating about the practical likelihood of the actual successful implementation of such schemes would be subject to "review" (by "peers", as well as by others) in the course of such "scientific approaches" being explored. But Adobe, from their proprietary perch, is not offering anything remotely resembling such a process ...

Adobe is doing marketing, and they of course promise a bit more than what the technology can deliver. They find examples that work and that make impression.

Well, the term "marketing" seems to (one might hope) have a separate meaning than the phrase "deceptive marketing". Courts of Law (who take a "scientific" and "evidence-based" approach) surely do. If these concepts have become fused within our consumer-culture, what does that say about the sensibility of accepting promises by commercial entities that no person actually expects to be truthful and accurate?

Finally, I wouldn't judge anything based on a "you tube" quality presentation.

I take it that you use the term "quality" in a generalized sense above (as it relates to a certain "lack of believability" of anything that appears in that medium)? If so, is it true that corporations that intend to market products for monetary gain may be expected to suspend ethical practices (including an expectation of accuracy and truthfulness) as a result of using such a suspect medium as "YouTube"?

If you use the term "quality" in relation to the actual optical resolution of the presentation, we do not need to rely on hazy glimpses of video shot of presentation-screens published by Adobe on "YouTube". We have Adobe's previously published "Plaza.png" at:

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/files/2011/10/Plaza.png

When you yourself have a look at the images (now) posted at:

http://juew.org/deblurFamousPhoto.html

... and the general lack of efficacy, as well as the visibly low Signal/Noise Ratio (SNR), of the de-blurring processes demonstrated, have you (as I have) "scratched your head" and wondered exactly why it would be that none of the examples (now) posted at the link directly above appear to come anywhere even close to the seemingly miraculous quality (and relatively high output SNR as compared to all of the other examples published) that is displayed in Adobe's publishing of the "Plaza.png" "before/after" image?

My interest here surrounds the more straightforward and immediate questions relating to a "scientific method", such as "where's the beef?", and "where is the evidence?". Is not that "just the stuff" that the "men in white coats" think about in the hallowed halls that constitute the "cathedrals of science and industry" that seem to have (somehow) earned such an automatic sense of (knee-jerk) deference among members of "the public" these days?

And (from a sociological standpoint) is this modern "techno-tribalism" - where individuals experience an emotional brand-loyalty that is divorced from logic to corporations that they pay money to (and not the other way around) - at all wise and healthy (and a "scientifically sound") trend? Should we elect to "suspend our rational disbelief" merely on the emotional basis that our persona's identification with a corporation (i.e., Apple. Adobe, etc.) may happen to give us a sense of existential meaning, belonging, and a competency imbued from without (on the sole basis of product "consumption" via the liquidation of "disposable income")?

Such questions may not prove to be answered by coherent answers from "the public". But it seems (to me) that the day when nobody either asks such questions, or is capable of answering them, may well be day when the "consumer state" becomes little but the indentured servants of a modern techno-feudalism in the willing servitude of corporate monoliths, where a once "eternal vigilance" has since devolved into a "blissful indifference" ...

Regards, and "top of the mornin' to ya'", kind sir.


PS - I have been perusing some of the links provided at the end of your post, including your personal web-site, and your articles. Some interesting materials, indeed. You clearly are a knowledgeable and thoughtful fellow, and I look forward to the possibility of learning from you and your interesting mind. I can see that the brevity of your post on this thread does not reveal your extensive amount of thought and consideration regarding some of these issues surrounding photography, and I am not in any way underestimating your intellect by raising some questions in my post above about your thoughts on this particular matter of Adobe's recent publicizing of information concerning their developmental work in the area of deconvolution deblurring tools.