|
dreed
|
 |
« on: April 07, 2012, 12:33:02 AM » |
 Reply
|
In the past, images that I'd captured but where blurred due to camera motion were deleted with prejudice.
But after seeing the demonstration by the folks from Adobe labs about how they could correct an image that was blurred due to camera motion, I'm reconsidering the wisdom of this as it would seem that some images are not beyond saving like I thought they were. Sometimes circumstances are such that I get very few without some kind of motion blur - this can be because it was just too windy, I couldn't hold the camera still enough or something else.
The problem is that such images are had to review and or evaluate for "keeping".
But needless to say, I need to re-evaluate what gets archived/kept vs deleted.
Has Adobe's demonstration of blur from camera motion influenced the keep vs delete equation for anyone else?
Or are others just putting that in the "yeah, maybe sometime in the future but I'll believe it when I see it" and ignoring it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kirk Gittings
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2012, 12:45:06 AM » |
Reply
|
I thought that demo was actually a hoax. No?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dreed
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2012, 01:00:33 AM » |
Reply
|
No, it wasn't a hoax but it was "prepared."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Justan
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2012, 09:37:20 AM » |
Reply
|
Where is the demo?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justan
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2012, 10:27:36 AM » |
Reply
|
Thanks for the link! Pretty cool advance in sharpening technology – it sure goes beyond using a high pass filter!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2012, 11:10:06 AM » |
Reply
|
No, it wasn't a hoax but it was "prepared."
Well, we have not seen it in real action yet. The "prepared" part (or "hoax") is meant to mean the following: Adobe took a perfectly sharp photo, blurred it, and then used it as an example of a camera-induced blur. Of course, it was not that difficult to "retrace the steps" back to a perfectly sharp photo. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Justan
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2012, 11:57:40 AM » |
Reply
|
^ That would certainly be the easiest way to make the presentation, but on the other hand, they might be actually developing a combination of technologies to do this kind of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Kirk Gittings
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 07, 2012, 12:29:44 PM » |
Reply
|
Well, we have not seen it in real action yet.
The "prepared" part (or "hoax") is meant to mean the following: Adobe took a perfectly sharp photo, blurred it, and then used it as an example of a camera-induced blur. Of course, it was not that difficult to "retrace the steps" back to a perfectly sharp photo.
So was the resharpened image actually created with their technology or was it just the original sharp image "presented" as what their new technology might do ideally. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 07, 2012, 02:21:58 PM » |
Reply
|
...they might be actually developing a combination of technologies to do this kind of thing.
I believe they are, but apparently they have not succeeded yet. It does not seem to be a part of PS6, but might be ready for PS7 (just my speculation). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Blagojevic
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2012, 02:26:06 PM » |
Reply
|
So was the resharpened image actually created with their technology or was it just the original sharp image "presented" as what their new technology might do ideally.
I do not know. It would be certainly easier to create a program that "retraces steps," than a program that de-blurres a genuinely (i.e., in-camera) blurred image. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dreed
|
|
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2012, 05:37:05 AM » |
Reply
|
I do not know. It would be certainly easier to create a program that "retraces steps," than a program that de-blurres a genuinely (i.e., in-camera) blurred image.
From the video, it would appear that there are various inputs into whatever equation they were using in that demo that when set correctly aid the algorithm that performs the blur detection and de-blur - for every image that he corrects, he loads a special input file. But to get back to what I was asking about, if computer software is heading in this direction, do you keep images around that you've blurred because the camera moved in the hope that they do deliver software that can remove the blur? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Justan
|
|
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2012, 09:56:44 AM » |
Reply
|
I believe they are, but apparently they have not succeeded yet. It does not seem to be a part of PS6, but might be ready for PS7 (just my speculation).
Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Justan
|
|
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2012, 09:58:56 AM » |
Reply
|
But to get back to what I was asking about, if computer software is heading in this direction, do you keep images around that you've blurred because the camera moved in the hope that they do deliver software that can remove the blur?
I keep everything. Technology moves along and makes some things doable that were only kind-of-possible a few years ago. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
