Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Software to check if images are blurred

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Software to check if images are blurred

 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2012
"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...

In article <jrvck6$1t8$(E-Mail Removed)>, David J Taylor says...
> Please be careful with your quoting - I (David J Taylor) didn't write that
> it was slow


The problem comes from the way your newsreader software quotes the text.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

I don't think so, but if that is the case, it's tough.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2012
It is your news client that is *totally* screwed up and not my quoting!

Everything you post is put into the previous posters signature block see
above. Any correctly conforming news or email client strips it off.

I didn't notice until I saw th next post down.
==
Regards,
Martin Brown
======================================

Folks,

I will avoid including the unedited signature blocks in future. I find the
integration of Mail, RSS and Usenet in one client best suits my way of
working, and I have not found better software than Windows Live Mail so far.
I'm open to suggestions of better software, though.

Martin, noted as to why you misquoted me.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Martin Brown
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2012
On 22/06/2012 08:10, David J Taylor wrote:
> It is your news client that is *totally* screwed up and not my quoting!
>
> Everything you post is put into the previous posters signature block see
> above. Any correctly conforming news or email client strips it off.
>
> I didn't notice until I saw th next post down.
> ==
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
> ======================================
>
> Folks,
>
> I will avoid including the unedited signature blocks in future. I find
> the integration of Mail, RSS and Usenet in one client best suits my way
> of working, and I have not found better software than Windows Live Mail
> so far. I'm open to suggestions of better software, though.
>
> Martin, noted as to why you misquoted me.


It seems to be a serious fault in Windows Brain Dead Mail program Usenet
is littered with posts where replies are in the signature block of the
previous poster. Trust Mickeysoft cowboys to ignore the RFCs.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2012
It seems to be a serious fault in Windows Brain Dead Mail program Usenet
is littered with posts where replies are in the signature block of the
previous poster. Trust Mickeysoft cowboys to ignore the RFCs.

Regards,
Martin Brown
=====================================

In some areas, Microsoft support for RFCs has improved over the years.
What's particularly annoying is that this was not a problem in WLM 2009,
just in the more recent 2011 release. Why break working code? As I said,
if I could find a better client I would, but I have tried using separate
e-mail, RSS and Usenet clients, and it simply doesn't suit my way of
working. I'll keep the situation under review.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > false. nothing is perfect, including autofocus systems.

>
> Nothing is perfect, but Nikon sure gets close.


true, but that means some images will not be in focus

> > unless it decides to track a subject other than the one you want.

>
> You can always try to follow focus by hand.


true, but that means some images will not be in focus

> > tripods are often prohibited or not practical.

>
> So is photography, but that doesn't mean that you should never take pictures.


true, but that means some images will not be in focus
 
Reply With Quote
 
R. Kennedy McEwen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, R. Kennedy McEwen
>says...
>> I still contend that if you need any sort of aid to weed out blurred
>> images then, quite simply, you have taken more shots than you are
>> capable of managing and the solution is a filter behind both the camera
>> and your eye.

>
>You are missing the point. The point is to save some time when screening
>out the blurred images.


You are missing the point. The point is that any time saved after
launching and running such an application means that you should have
made better use of the processor you were born with to filter the images
at shooting time in the first place.
--
Kennedy

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2012
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:18:24 +0200, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, R. Kennedy McEwen
>says...
>> I still contend that if you need any sort of aid to weed out blurred
>> images then, quite simply, you have taken more shots than you are
>> capable of managing and the solution is a filter behind both the camera
>> and your eye.

>
>You are missing the point. The point is to save some time when screening
>out the blurred images.


I think it's you that is missing the point. If you shoot 4,000
images, and a significant number of them are blurred, there's
something wrong with your ability to know what settings to use.

It would be possible to have a large number of blurred images if your
shots were mostly twilight or low-light shots where the subject was
moving, and you were trying for a combination of shutter speed and
exposure at a low ISO to avoid noise, but you shouldn't have that kind
of problem in normal shooting.

It would be entirely possible to have a large number of shots out of
4,000 that would be discardable shots, but not just because of blur.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-22-2012
On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:11:34 +0200, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
>says...
>> I think it's you that is missing the point. If you shoot 4,000
>> images, and a significant number of them are blurred, there's
>> something wrong with your ability to know what settings to use.

>
>You are assuming that a large percentage of shots are blurred.
>That is not the case - only a small percentage are blurred.
>
>> It would be possible to have a large number of blurred images if your
>> shots were mostly twilight or low-light shots where the subject was
>> moving, and you were trying for a combination of shutter speed and
>> exposure at a low ISO to avoid noise, but you shouldn't have that kind
>> of problem in normal shooting.

>
>Once again, only a small percentage of the shots are blurred. But these
>need to be sorted out and if there was a software which could
>automatically identify those, I would save time.


I really don't understand you, then. My assumption is that you look
at all of your images. If only a few of them are blurred, a software
run-through for deletion of blurred photos is not going to save you
much time at all.

Such a program would only be really useful if it cut down your 4,000
images to view to 3,000 or so.

Also, there are some images where motion blur is a *good* thing. The
program wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a photograph
of a deliberately blurred image of a speeding race car and a
photograph of a unusable blurred image of a parked car.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2012
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:01:13 +0200, Alfred Molon
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
>says...
>> I really don't understand you, then. My assumption is that you look
>> at all of your images.

>
>Checking if an image is properly focused involves viewing it at 100% on
>a screen and possibly moving the image section being displayed around,
>because with a standard size monitor at 100% only a (small) section of
>an image is displayed. 24MP monitors either do not exist or are beyond
>my budget. This sharpness check is quite cumbersome.
>
>Instead looking at one image involves simply looking at it, downsized on
>a computer screen. A quick simple process. It might even be sufficient
>to look at groups of four images at a time.
>
>> If only a few of them are blurred, a software
>> run-through for deletion of blurred photos is not going to save you
>> much time at all.

>
>It's going to save a huge amount of time (see above). Checking whether
>an image is sharp takes much more time than just quickly looking at an
>image.


If it would make it easier for you, then I hope there's a solution.
Frankly, though, I still don't understand the problem.

My first run-through of all of my images is in FastStone. I have
Lightroom, but I prefer FastStone for many applications. A RAW image
that comes out of the camera at 3900 px x 2613 px displays on my
monitor at 11 1/8" x 7 1/2" inches. That's sufficiently large for me
to judge if it's a keeper or a tosser. An obviously blurred image
would go at that point.

I tag the losers, sort for tags, and discard the losers. In the case
of duplicates (I often shoot continuous), FastStone has a Compare
Images feature that brings both to the screen.

When I'm down to the keepers, I open them in Photoshop's RAW image
processor, make any adjustments necessary, and then bring them into
Photoshop. If there's any doubt there, I can enlarge to 100% and move
around to check details.

It'd be a rare thing to miss sufficient blur in an 11 1/8" x 7 1/2"
screen view to make the photo unusable. What I might pick up at 100%
is something in the far background that is blurred, but that wouldn't
necessarily make the photo unusable.

I guess it depends on what the subject matter is.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-23-2012
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, tony cooper
> says...
>> I think it's you that is missing the point. If you shoot 4,000
>> images, and a significant number of them are blurred, there's
>> something wrong with your ability to know what settings to use.


> You are assuming that a large percentage of shots are blurred.
> That is not the case - only a small percentage are blurred.


>> It would be possible to have a large number of blurred images if your
>> shots were mostly twilight or low-light shots where the subject was
>> moving, and you were trying for a combination of shutter speed and
>> exposure at a low ISO to avoid noise, but you shouldn't have that kind
>> of problem in normal shooting.


> Once again, only a small percentage of the shots are blurred. But these
> need to be sorted out and if there was a software which could
> automatically identify those, I would save time.
> --


What about those shots where background (or foreground) is sharply
focused instead of the subject you intended? What about those high ISO
shots which have incredibly detailed "sharp" noise?

--
Chris Malcolm
 
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
Re: Software to check if images are blurred Martin Brown Digital Photography 4 06-29-2012 01:35 PM
F8-28 minimum speed and blurred images Franco Giovannini Digital Photography 1 05-15-2004 02:05 AM
Minolta 7i Blurred images Stu Digital Photography 10 11-26-2003 04:21 AM
Re: Canon EOS D-10 images blurred n Digital Photography 0 07-10-2003 06:00 PM
Re: Canon EOS D-10 images blurred n Digital Photography 0 07-10-2003 05:59 PM



Advertisments