Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Adobe admits RIGGING the anti-blur demonstration!!

Reply
Thread Tools

Adobe admits RIGGING the anti-blur demonstration!!

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2011
Does this mean the de-blur device is as lousy and useless as their
noise reduction?
BTW, whatever happened to that image "tampering detection" add-on they
talked about a year ago?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11...eclarifies.asp



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2011
On 18/10/2011 23:39, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-10-18 15:11:32 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> Does this mean the de-blur device is as lousy and useless as their
>> noise reduction?
>> BTW, whatever happened to that image "tampering detection" add-on they
>> talked about a year ago?
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11...eclarifies.asp

>
> OK! Let's take a look at what you didn't read.
>
> "The first two images we showed - the crowd scene and the image of the
> poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of
> Kevin Lynch was synthetically blured from a sharp image taken from the
> web."
>
> So that means that the demo with regard to the "crowd scene" & the
> "poster" was not "RIGGING" however the Kevin Lynch image was synthesized.
>
> Keep trying. You sure love to stir the pot, don't you Rich?
>
> Here is their update without Rich filtering:
>
> "UPDATE: For those who are curious – some additional background on the
> images used during the recent MAX demo of our “deblur” technology. The
> first two images we showed – the crowd scene and the image of the
> poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of
> Kevin Lynch was synthetically blurred from a sharp image taken from the
> web. What do we mean by synthetic blur? A synthetic blur was created by
> extracting the camera shake information from another real blurry image
> and applying it to the Kevin Lynch image to create a realistic
> simulation. This kind of blur is created with our research tool. Because
> the camera shake data is real, it is much more complicated than anything
> we can simulate using Photoshop’s blur capabilities. When this new image
> was loaded as a JPEG into the deblur plug-in, the software has no idea
> it was synthetically generated. This is common practice in research and
> we used the Kevin example because we wanted it to be entertaining and
> relevant to the audience – Kevin being the star of the Adobe MAX
> conference!
> For more information and examples on the common practice of synthetic
> blurring being used as part of research in this area, check out:
> http://grail.cs.washington.edu/proje...lts/index.html
>
> http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/p...robust_deblur/
> http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~le...EtalCVPR09.pdf "


It is fair enough to use synthetic blur (and synthetic noise for that
matter) *provided* that you make it clear *and* show the results of
applying your new algorithm to that synthetic test data to compute a
deconvolved image. The reconstruction can then be compared against the
known perfect target image - this is standard practice.

It is *CHEATING* to show the synthetic blurred image as "Before" and the
original perfect master image as "After" which is what they did!

I know US advertising standards are lax but this takes the biscuit!!

I don't often agree with Rich but in this instance I will make an
exception - Adobe were playing fast and loose with the facts here.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2011
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:38:59 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>Martin Brown wrote:
>>>
>>> "UPDATE: For those who are curious some additional background on the
>>> images used during the recent MAX demo of our deblur technology. The
>>> first two images we showed the crowd scene and the image of the
>>> poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of
>>> Kevin Lynch was synthetically blurred from a sharp image taken from the
>>> web. What do we mean by synthetic blur? A synthetic blur was created by
>>> extracting the camera shake information from another real blurry image
>>> and applying it to the Kevin Lynch image to create a realistic
>>> simulation. This kind of blur is created with our research tool. Because
>>> the camera shake data is real, it is much more complicated than anything
>>> we can simulate using Photoshops blur capabilities. When this new image
>>> was loaded as a JPEG into the deblur plug-in, the software has no idea
>>> it was synthetically generated. This is common practice in research and
>>> we used the Kevin example because we wanted it to be entertaining and
>>> relevant to the audience Kevin being the star of the Adobe MAX
>>> conference!
>>> For more information and examples on the common practice of synthetic
>>> blurring being used as part of research in this area, check out:
>>> http://grail.cs.washington.edu/proje...lts/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/p...robust_deblur/
>>> http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~le...EtalCVPR09.pdf
>>> "

>>
>> It is fair enough to use synthetic blur (and synthetic noise for that
>> matter) *provided* that you make it clear *and* show the results of
>> applying your new algorithm to that synthetic test data to compute a
>> deconvolved image. The reconstruction can then be compared against the
>> known perfect target image - this is standard practice.
>>
>> It is *CHEATING* to show the synthetic blurred image as "Before" and the
>> original perfect master image as "After" which is what they did!

>
>That's not how I read it; I read it that of the 3 "before" images,
>2 had camera shake applied with a camera (!!), and the last
>had camera shake (deduced from a separate image) applied
>to it via software.
>
>I kinda' hope that all the "after" images were made
>from the "before" images, and see nothing to the contrary
>in the text.


The issue I have with it is that in the synthesized case they applied
blur data their software extracted from another image, so the blurring
was thereby limited to modes that their software was able to handle.

Now it would be somewhat interesting if the resulting "after" image
showed that it removed not just the synthetic blur but also some from
the source image, which would be a bit like handling a bad optical
copy of a print, or some such case with more than one blur source.
Otherwise it just shows that it can remove what it can remove, so we
learn nothing.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YZvnq.6805$(E-Mail Removed)...
>Adobe were playing fast and loose with the facts here.


Gee how unusual!
(not!)

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2011
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 09:33:42 +0100, bugbear
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>John A. wrote:
>
>> The issue I have with it is that in the synthesized case they applied
>> blur data their software extracted from another image, so the blurring
>> was thereby limited to modes that their software was able to handle.

>
>A good and subtle point.
>
>(are you on the right newsgroup?!)


I just came in for the cheese sampler tray. I stayed for the
insightful political & philosophical discourse.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epson admits that using their tanks will void your warranty! Miss Perspicacia Tick Computer Support 18 05-11-2005 06:19 PM
OT: AOL Admits 40% of Subscribers Don't Have Computers Dragon MCSE 21 11-18-2004 02:21 AM
RE: Microsof Admits FLAW DONT CLICK THE LINK Eric R. Clark Computer Support 1 02-12-2004 01:17 AM
Microsoft admits "critical" flaw Voodoo Computer Support 5 02-11-2004 12:06 PM



Advertisments