Adobe admits RIGGING the anti-blur demonstration!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Oct 18, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Oct 18, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 18/10/2011 23:39, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-10-18 15:11:32 -0700, RichA <> 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/1110/11101813adobeclarifies.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/projects/mdf_deblurring/synth_results/index.html
    >
    > http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/projects/robust_deblur/
    > http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~levina/papers/deconvLevinEtalCVPR09.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
     
    Martin Brown, Oct 19, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    John A. Guest

    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 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/projects/mdf_deblurring/synth_results/index.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/projects/robust_deblur/
    >>> http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~levina/papers/deconvLevinEtalCVPR09.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.
     
    John A., Oct 19, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Trevor Guest

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


    Gee how unusual!
    (not!)

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 20, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    John A. Guest

    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. ;)
     
    John A., Oct 20, 2011
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Kevin Miller

    Please help with photo demonstration...

    Kevin Miller, Sep 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    293
    Marvin Margoshes
    Sep 15, 2003
  2. George Preddy

    Perfect SD9 color, a graphic demonstration (pics)

    George Preddy, Dec 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    54
    Views:
    1,047
    George Preddy
    Jan 20, 2004
  3. Tippi

    Fuji Anti-Blur

    Tippi, Jul 14, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    871
    Tippi
    Jul 17, 2006
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Blur tutorial extra part, How Much Blur?

    Wayne J. Cosshall, Feb 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    398
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Feb 16, 2007
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    778
Loading...

Share This Page