Re: Software to check if images are blurred

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 20, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 19, 12:44 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > Is there a software tool which can check if images are blurred? I'd like
    > to avoid checking images one by one.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site


    Don't see anything like it, but if you apply this and it helps,
    perhaps the image was blurred? I know, it won't automatically scan
    images and let you know, which is something we could all use.

    http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/fix-blurred-photos-free-software.htm
    RichA, Jun 20, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>, Alfred Molon
    <> writes
    >
    >Well, I just returned from a trip to Poland and Czechia with 4000 photos
    >and would like to sort out the not sharp ones. Doing it manually, i.e.
    >examining all images at 100% takes a lot of time


    If you aren't going to look at them all then why did you shoot 4000
    images in the first place? Wotcha gonna do if they are all sharp? ;-)
    And many a prize photo has been blurred.

    Even if half of them are blurred then its going to take a lot of time to
    look at the remaining 2000. And if more than half are blurred you
    should be asking why, not how to avoid viewing them.

    Never understood the "machine gun" approach to photography, but asking
    for automation to reject your failures adds a whole new level to "point
    and shoot".
    --
    Kennedy
    R. Kennedy McEwen, Jun 21, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. > http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/fix-blurred-photos-free-software.htm

    However this deblur utility looks interesting. How well does it perform?
    BTW, 5-10 minutes for a 10MP photo is slow.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ================================

    http://www.zen147963.zen.co.uk/Unshake/

    It's not "deblur" it's "unshake", so perhaps more a tool for removing camera
    shake than for correcting out-of-focus images. It's written in Java, and
    may not take advantage of all the special instructions in today's processors
    which can speed up image processing. I've used an earlier version for just
    one or two photos where it did show some improvement in sharpness, at the
    inevitable expense of increased noise level. I see the current version may
    include a faster Linux version written in C.

    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 21, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 21/06/2012 07:41, David J Taylor wrote:
    >> http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/fix-blurred-photos-free-software.htm
    >>

    >
    > However this deblur utility looks interesting. How well does it perform?
    > BTW, 5-10 minutes for a 10MP photo is slow.


    Be fair. It is in Java and although a native code version would be 10x
    faster it would still take a minute or so per image.

    Deconvolution is a difficult and ill conditioned inverse problem and all
    the iterative methods take quite some time to execute. The time taken is
    usually sufficient that it is only worth applying these methods to
    images that are extremely important/irreplacable or are pushing the
    physical hardware limits or astronomical telescopes.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Jun 21, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 20/06/2012 20:57, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<c73ed414-59a3-4b6c-8c32-
    > >, RichA says...
    >> Don't see anything like it, but if you apply this and it helps,
    >> perhaps the image was blurred? I know, it won't automatically scan
    >> images and let you know, which is something we could all use.
    >>
    >> http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/fix-blurred-photos-free-software.htm

    >
    > Well, I just returned from a trip to Poland and Czechia with 4000 photos
    > and would like to sort out the not sharp ones. Doing it manually, i.e.
    > examining all images at 100% takes a lot of time, which is why such a
    > tool would come in handy.


    Your best bet is to sort the images by size. It won't be perfect as
    there may be a few technically good pictures with high compressibility
    but there will be almost no out of focus images at the top of the size
    range.

    If you are shooting raw then you are out of luck as they will all be
    pretty much the same size. Though you could zip them to figure out a
    crude ranking according to info content.
    >
    > However this deblur utility looks interesting. How well does it perform?
    > BTW, 5-10 minutes for a 10MP photo is slow.


    About par for the coure using Java. A compiled code version might be an
    order of magnitude faster but that is all. Deconvolution is a *very*
    hard problem and fraught with difficulties. It is very easy to lose
    information but much more difficult to get it back again afterwards.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Jun 21, 2012
    #5
  6. "Martin Brown" wrote in message news:62AEr.25$...

    On 21/06/2012 07:41, David J Taylor wrote:
    >> http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/fix-blurred-photos-free-software.htm
    >>

    >
    > However this deblur utility looks interesting. How well does it perform?
    > BTW, 5-10 minutes for a 10MP photo is slow.


    Be fair. It is in Java and although a native code version would be 10x
    faster it would still take a minute or so per image.
    []
    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    ==================================


    Please be careful with your quoting - I (David J Taylor) didn't write that
    it was slow (although since I have been upgraded to Windows Live Mail 2011
    many correct formatting conventions have fallen by the wayside!). Is the
    native C application for Linux any faster?

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Jun 21, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 21/06/2012 15:55, David J Taylor wrote:
    > "Martin Brown" wrote in message news:62AEr.25$...
    >
    > On 21/06/2012 07:41, David J Taylor wrote:
    >>> http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/fix-blurred-photos-free-software.htm
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> However this deblur utility looks interesting. How well does it perform?
    >> BTW, 5-10 minutes for a 10MP photo is slow.

    >
    > Be fair. It is in Java and although a native code version would be 10x
    > faster it would still take a minute or so per image.
    > []


    [forced manual quotation to get around totally broken posting]
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Martin Brown
    > ==================================
    >
    >
    > Please be careful with your quoting - I (David J Taylor) didn't write that it was slow (although since I have been upgraded to Windows Live Mail 2011 many correct formatting conventions have fallen by the wayside!). Is the native C application for Linux any faster?
    >
    > Cheers,
    > David



    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
    Martin Brown, Jun 21, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > Sometimes I might be at the end of a long zoom and will shoot 2-3 images
    > > hoping that one will be shartp.

    >
    > Use a Nikon AF-S zoom with a proper Nikon autofocus system, and all of the
    > images will be sharp.


    false. nothing is perfect, including autofocus systems.

    > Set the autofocus to continuous mode and the images will
    > be sharp even if the subject is racing towards you.


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

    > > Or I might shoot at 1/5s handheld,
    > > relying on IS, and again I'll take several shots of the same subject,
    > > hoping a sharp one will be among them.

    >
    > Use a tripod and you won't need IS.


    tripods are often prohibited or not practical.
    nospam, Jun 21, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/21/2012 2:24 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article<>, R. Kennedy McEwen
    > says...
    >> Never understood the "machine gun" approach to photography, but asking
    >> for automation to reject your failures adds a whole new level to "point
    >> and shoot".

    >
    > ???
    >
    > Sometimes I might be at the end of a long zoom and will shoot 2-3 images
    > hoping that one will be shartp. Or I might shoot at 1/5s handheld,
    > relying on IS, and again I'll take several shots of the same subject,
    > hoping a sharp one will be among them.
    >
    > As to the 4000 images, if you visited the places I visited you would
    > understand why I took so many shots. I spent two weeks travelling to
    > Dresden, southern Poland and the Czech republic.



    Your approach is certainly rational. And I can understand why you would
    like automation, I think the best approach is your eye. there are many
    images that will be enhanced if some areas are OOF.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Jun 21, 2012
    #9
  10. In article <>, Alfred Molon
    <> writes
    >
    >As to the 4000 images, if you visited the places I visited you would
    >understand why I took so many shots. I spent two weeks travelling to
    >Dresden, southern Poland and the Czech republic.


    Wrong argument.

    I just spent 4 weeks travelling around the US West, from the Californian
    coast to Utah's canyonlands with various resorts in between, including
    the astronomical events of a solar eclipse and a transit of Venus. I
    certainly took more than 4000 shots, but not so many that I need a
    software aid to weed out the very small number of blurred images that
    occurred for whatever the reason, including some which were deliberately
    blurred.

    Then again, I grew up in the manual exposure, manual focus, film era
    when every shot was carefully considered for composure, exposure, value
    and worth. If its worth doing at all then its worth doing right. Just
    because you can shoot something doesn't mean you have to - life is too
    short!

    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. End of.
    --
    Kennedy
    R. Kennedy McEwen, Jun 21, 2012
    #10
  11. "Alfred Molon" wrote in message
    news:...

    In article <jrvck6$1t8$>, 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
    David J Taylor, Jun 22, 2012
    #11
  12. 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
    David J Taylor, Jun 22, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    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
    Martin Brown, Jun 22, 2012
    #13
  14. 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
    David J Taylor, Jun 22, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> 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
    nospam, Jun 22, 2012
    #15
  16. In article <>, Alfred Molon
    <> writes
    >In article <>, 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
    R. Kennedy McEwen, Jun 22, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 08:18:24 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, 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
    tony cooper, Jun 22, 2012
    #17
  18. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:11:34 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, 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
    tony cooper, Jun 22, 2012
    #18
  19. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 00:01:13 +0200, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, 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
    tony cooper, Jun 23, 2012
    #19
  20. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, 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
    Chris Malcolm, Jun 23, 2012
    #20
    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. n

    Re: Canon EOS D-10 images blurred

    n, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    862
  2. n

    Re: Canon EOS D-10 images blurred

    n, Jul 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    767
  3. Stu

    Minolta 7i Blurred images

    Stu, Nov 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    641
    Mike Fields
    Nov 26, 2003
  4. Franco Giovannini

    F8-28 minimum speed and blurred images

    Franco Giovannini, May 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    345
    stewy
    May 15, 2004
  5. Martin Brown

    Re: Software to check if images are blurred

    Martin Brown, Jun 20, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    435
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jun 29, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page