Software correction of out of focus pictures?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SS, Mar 21, 2006.

  1. SS

    SS Guest

    Is there any software that can correct (to whatever degree) out of focus
    pictures or is this impossible? I have tried Focus magic but not that
    impressed. I don't know if there is any very clever maths that can work out
    what the picture would have been like or if 'clever' focussing software
    merely presents an 'illusion' of correction.
     
    SS, Mar 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SS bedacht in news:ihZTf.24278$:

    > Is there any software that can correct (to whatever degree) out of
    > focus pictures or is this impossible? I have tried Focus magic but not
    > that impressed. I don't know if there is any very clever maths that
    > can work out what the picture would have been like or if 'clever'
    > focussing software merely presents an 'illusion' of correction.
    >
    >


    Although I haven't been in a position to compare different software
    packages, I am reasonably happy with FocusFixer from Fixer Labs
    (http://www.fixerlabs.com/New_Website/pages/focusfixer.htm), a Photoshop
    plugin.
    It can do a good job with certain photos, but it can't perform miracles.

    JL
     
    Justus Lipsius, Mar 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Today Justus Lipsius commented courteously on the subject at
    hand

    > SS bedacht in
    > news:ihZTf.24278$:
    >
    >> Is there any software that can correct (to whatever
    >> degree) out of focus pictures or is this impossible? I
    >> have tried Focus magic but not that impressed. I don't
    >> know if there is any very clever maths that can work out
    >> what the picture would have been like or if 'clever'
    >> focussing software merely presents an 'illusion' of
    >> correction.

    >
    > Although I haven't been in a position to compare different
    > software packages, I am reasonably happy with FocusFixer
    > from Fixer Labs
    > (http://www.fixerlabs.com/New_Website/pages/focusfixer.htm),
    > a Photoshop plugin.
    > It can do a good job with certain photos, but it can't
    > perform miracles.
    >

    I haven't tried this particular product, but I agree with you in
    principle. If the image is out-of-focus, it is out-of-focus.
    Period, end of discussion. Everything else is aimed at creating
    the illusion of in-focus, detailed, sharp images from ones that
    aren't perfect in the first place. As you observe, they can't
    perform miracles and their results vary according to how bad the
    problem is and what the user's definition of "improved" might
    be.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford
     
    All Things Mopar, Mar 21, 2006
    #3
  4. "SS" <> writes:

    > Is there any software that can correct (to whatever degree) out of focus
    > pictures or is this impossible? I have tried Focus magic but not that
    > impressed. I don't know if there is any very clever maths that can work out
    > what the picture would have been like or if 'clever' focussing software
    > merely presents an 'illusion' of correction.


    Focus Magic is the best I know of. Starting from a normal picture of
    normal resolution, it's an impossible problem; Focus Magic does more
    than most software can.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 21, 2006
    #4
  5. "All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns978DA5628F915ReplyID@216.196.97.131...
    SNIP
    > I haven't tried this particular product, but I agree with you
    > in principle. If the image is out-of-focus, it is out-of-focus.
    > Period, end of discussion.


    That is not correct. With similar techniques as were used to restore
    Hubble Space Station's initial imagery, it is also possible to restore
    some of the OOF information.

    The result will not be perfect, because the truely lost information
    will generate artifacts during the restoration process. It is also
    important to have a good model for the de-focus. Some so-called
    "blind" deconvolution algorithms estimate the blur function, other
    methods require prior input of the model to be used.

    This is an example of a deliberately Gaussian blur, Radius 2.0)
    blurred image, before and after restoration:
    <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/2027_ACR33_GB2.png>
    <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/2027_ACR33_GB2_IPRL.png>

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 22, 2006
    #5
  6. SS wrote:
    > Is there any software that can correct (to whatever degree) out of focus
    > pictures or is this impossible? I have tried Focus magic but not that
    > impressed. I don't know if there is any very clever maths that can work out
    > what the picture would have been like or if 'clever' focussing software
    > merely presents an 'illusion' of correction.


    you can not only fix the focus,
    but it will also catch / fix the subject
    who had just stepped out of the frame!

    really magic!!

    >
    >
     
    bob crownfield, Mar 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Today Bart van der Wolf commented courteously on the subject
    at hand

    > "All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns978DA5628F915ReplyID@216.196.97.131...
    > SNIP
    >> I haven't tried this particular product, but I agree with
    >> you in principle. If the image is out-of-focus, it is
    >> out-of-focus. Period, end of discussion.

    >
    > That is not correct. With similar techniques as were used
    > to restore Hubble Space Station's initial imagery, it is
    > also possible to restore some of the OOF information.


    With all due respect to someone I don't know, my first
    reaction to your contradiction of my simple statement is,
    well, horseshit.

    What did it cost to fix Hubble, several /billion/ dollars?
    And, they did /not/ fix the out-of-focus images /after/ they'd
    been downloaded to earth, those are toast (yes, they tried and
    tried and tried, but never succeeded to any measurable
    degree).

    NASA engineers and astronomers colaborated to add software to
    Hubble and some electronics (as I recall, but I'm no Hubble
    expert) to compensate - not correct - the incorrect mirror
    curvature grind to allow /new/ images to be in-focus, and then
    through some pretty sophisticated - read: extremely expensive
    mathematical techniques. And, the space inside Hubble the
    astronaut had to work in was so tight and the chance to
    irreparably damage the telescope was so high that nobody
    really knew in advance if Hubble could or could not be fixed.

    What we're talking about here isn't NASA stuff, it is simple
    "I blew the focus lock on my digital - how can I fix it now?"
    stuff.

    > The result will not be perfect, because the truely lost
    > information will generate artifacts during the restoration
    > process. It is also important to have a good model for the
    > de-focus. Some so-called "blind" deconvolution algorithms
    > estimate the blur function, other methods require prior
    > input of the model to be used.


    What kind of techno babble is this? Somebody who blows
    vacation picture(s) are supposed to use "other methods require
    prior input of the model to be used", whatever that means. I'm
    supposed to know in advance exactly how I blew it, so the
    software knows how to begin? If I'm misunderstanding you, I
    apologize but I fail to see how someone can predict the way(s)
    to blow a focus.

    > This is an example of a deliberately Gaussian blur, Radius
    > 2.0) blurred image, before and after restoration:
    > <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/2027_ACR33_GB2.png>
    > <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/2027_ACR33_GB2_IPRL.png>
    >

    What you did here was what I previously said - you created the
    /illusion/ of in-focus, and along with it, some really nasty
    defects in the background looking like some weird cross
    between noise and JPEG artifacts. You even said in the
    paragraph above that the "restoration" process creates those
    artifacts!

    I suppose if somebody had some "once in a lifetime" photos
    they blew, they could spend whatever time it takes tweaking
    them through various means fair and foul and "save" it, but
    there simply is no substitute for doing it right the first
    time.

    I could show you plenty of examples of my own "work" where I
    blew the AF lock for one reason or another and used ordinary
    PSP 9 techniques to make it /look/ a little more in-focus, but
    it is still what it is - out-of-focus.

    There's another theoretical vs. practical debate that goes on
    occasionally involving whether one can or cannot do a large
    scale enlargement of a digital image. I don't mean 1 1/2X
    linear, I mean 4X+, meaning 16X+ pixel resolution area. As
    with re-focusing out-of-focus images, the sophisticated math
    behind these algorithms, of which Genuine Fractals is an early
    but well known example, produces the illusion of enlargement
    without blocking or pixelation or artifacts usually assocated
    with large scale resizing up. But, even expensive enlargement
    software requires /lots/ of user input to get it right, and
    /always/ results in compromising one part of the image to get
    another to look OK. Naturally, people concentrate on the main
    subject and let the foreground and background go to hell in a
    similar fashion to what happened to your heart-against-the-
    foliage re-focus example.

    Before you or someone else decides to take me on about this,
    please keep this in mind: I am a pragmatist, not a
    theorotician. I am also not an elitest. I deal in reality. I
    understand the various subjects being discussed in this thread
    in principle, some better than others. But, I spend very
    little time when making a buying decision or anything else on
    what the lab tests show or what a PhD in mathematics has
    "proven". I rely on what I can actually see. Two sayings come
    to mind here - "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" and
    "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like.

    Do whatever floats your boat and I'll do the same. And, you
    have a good evening, hear?! <grin>

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
    Ford
     
    All Things Mopar, Mar 22, 2006
    #7
  8. Today bob crownfield commented courteously on the subject at
    hand

    > SS wrote:
    >> Is there any software that can correct (to whatever
    >> degree) out of focus pictures or is this impossible? I
    >> have tried Focus magic but not that impressed. I don't
    >> know if there is any very clever maths that can work out
    >> what the picture would have been like or if 'clever'
    >> focussing software merely presents an 'illusion' of
    >> correction.

    >
    > you can not only fix the focus,
    > but it will also catch / fix the subject
    > who had just stepped out of the frame!


    I could really use this when I cut somebody's head off! <grin>

    > really magic!!


    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford
     
    All Things Mopar, Mar 22, 2006
    #8
  9. SS

    D-Mac Guest

    All Things Mopar wrote:
    >> What you did here was what I previously said - you created the
    >> /illusion/ of in-focus, and along with it, some really nasty
    >> defects in the background looking like some weird cross
    >> between noise and JPEG artifacts. You even said in the
    >> paragraph above that the "restoration" process creates those
    >> artifacts!
    >>


    I'm fed up with contradictions about image manipulation but I can't help
    pointing out to you - whoever you are - that a little knowledge is
    dangerous. You do not comprehend how an advanced process can sharpen an out
    of focus image. If you did, you would not be so quick to get up the nose of
    Bart.

    Sharpness is a perceived thing. I resharpen out of focus and slightly motion
    blurred images by recognizing the perception and actually blurring a lot of
    the image even more than the amount I correct. The result is an image which
    is perceived to be sharp(er).

    The process is used by NASA although their routine is a little different to
    mine. I convert edges to vector and blur the bitmap, re-applying the vector
    after it has been narrowed. This produces the perception of sharpness due to
    the fuzz from the edges being gone and the fill detail being smudged.

    Although Photoshop has all the tools for doing this, you might not get the
    results I do. Go ahead and try it. Even if you stuff it up (as you no doubt
    will in PS) you will learn that it is indeed possible.
    --
    www.photosbydouglas.com
    www.weprint2canvas.com
    If you really must write,use my
    name at an above domain.
     
    D-Mac, Mar 22, 2006
    #9
  10. All Things Mopar wrote:

    > Today Bart van der Wolf commented courteously on the subject
    > at hand
    >
    >>"All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
    >>news:Xns978DA5628F915ReplyID@216.196.97.131...
    >>SNIP
    >>
    >>>I haven't tried this particular product, but I agree with
    >>>you in principle. If the image is out-of-focus, it is
    >>>out-of-focus. Period, end of discussion.

    >>
    >>That is not correct. With similar techniques as were used
    >>to restore Hubble Space Station's initial imagery, it is
    >>also possible to restore some of the OOF information.

    >
    > With all due respect to someone I don't know, my first
    > reaction to your contradiction of my simple statement is,
    > well, horseshit.


    Bart is correct. The technology to improve focus is called image
    deconvolution, or image restoration and has been a topic
    of research for decades, well before the Hubble problem.
    One of the more successful algorithms is Richardson-Lucy
    Image Restoration. Photoshop's tools, like unsharp mask
    do not actually sharpen, they only change accutance.
    A combination of edge detection and unsharp masking, a method
    developed by Bob Atkinson, can come close to equal it however
    (I'll be adding this to my web page sometime; test done by
    Bill Hilton).

    See:
    Image Restoration
    Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1

    Image Restoration Using the Damped Richardson-Lucy Method
    http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/irw/proceedings/whiter_damped.dir/whiter_damped.html

    There is no RL pluggin for Photoshop that I am aware of.
    Bart and I both use an image processing program called ImagesPlus
    which has this and other image restoration algorithms.

    Basically, the concept is this: consider a blurred image, e.g.
    due to focus, or motion. Adjacent pixels have image information
    of other pixels. Using a model of the blur, the software
    estimates the contribution of the blur to each pixel and
    moves that signal back to adjacent pixels. It is an iterative
    process and takes a lot of computation, but can work very well.
    But there is no free lunch. The process increases noise, and
    can cause ringing artifacts if done to extreme, and/or if the
    blur model doesn't match the image.

    In my own experiments, it seems there is roughly an even trade
    in noise versus resolution. My digital workflow now includes
    RL restoration on any image I intend to print large. I routinely
    double the pixel count in each dimension and produce very sharp
    large prints (e.g. 16x24 inches) from 8-megapixel images.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 22, 2006
    #10
  11. >Today Bart van der Wolf commented courteously on the subject
    >> That is not correct. With similar techniques as were used
    >> to restore Hubble Space Station's initial imagery, it is
    >> also possible to restore some of the OOF information.


    All Things Mopar <> writes:
    >With all due respect to someone I don't know, my first
    >reaction to your contradiction of my simple statement is,
    >well, horseshit.


    Maybe, but you're wrong. Try searching for "deconvolution".

    >What did it cost to fix Hubble, several /billion/ dollars?
    >And, they did /not/ fix the out-of-focus images /after/ they'd
    >been downloaded to earth, those are toast (yes, they tried and
    >tried and tried, but never succeeded to any measurable
    >degree).


    They did succeed in sharpening many images in the several years before
    the Hubble optics were fixed. The Hubble was unable to shoot images of
    dim stars, one thing it was originally designed for, because the light
    was spread over so many pixels. But bright objects could be imaged and
    the defocus largely corrected, because they knew the telescope's blur
    function so well.

    And yes it cost a lot to fix Hubble, but that was a hardware fix. One
    camera module was replaced by a very complicated mirror assembly that
    corrected the error in the primary mirror. That doesn't mean the software
    sharpening of the blurred images cost this much.

    >NASA engineers and astronomers colaborated to add software to
    >Hubble and some electronics (as I recall, but I'm no Hubble
    >expert) to compensate - not correct - the incorrect mirror
    >curvature grind to allow /new/ images to be in-focus, and then
    >through some pretty sophisticated - read: extremely expensive
    >mathematical techniques.


    You're just making this up, aren't you?

    No, the correction device was hardware only. Once installed, the
    telescope delivered sharp images to the various sensors without any
    postprocessing needed. As I understand it, the added optics were
    arranged to image the primary mirror onto a special correction mirror.
    Because of this, all the light that reflected from a particular point on
    the primary mirror was re-gathered at a single point on the correction
    mirror. That allowed the error in the primary mirror to be corrected by
    a complementary correction in the new mirror. All the light from a
    single star was focused on a tiny spot a few pixels in size, as
    designed.

    >And, the space inside Hubble the
    >astronaut had to work in was so tight and the chance to
    >irreparably damage the telescope was so high that nobody
    >really knew in advance if Hubble could or could not be fixed.


    Really, what's this got to do with software sharpening?

    >> The result will not be perfect, because the truely lost
    >> information will generate artifacts during the restoration
    >> process. It is also important to have a good model for the
    >> de-focus. Some so-called "blind" deconvolution algorithms
    >> estimate the blur function, other methods require prior
    >> input of the model to be used.


    >What kind of techno babble is this?


    It makes perfect sense if you'd bother to do any kind of search for
    deconvolution methods.

    >I'm
    >supposed to know in advance exactly how I blew it, so the
    >software knows how to begin? If I'm misunderstanding you, I
    >apologize but I fail to see how someone can predict the way(s)
    >to blow a focus.


    It could be as simple as having a bright point source in the image (the
    reflection of the sun off a small metal ball, for example) which allows
    estimating exactly what the blur function looks like. If you know what
    the blur did to the image, you can invert it (with the caveats that Bart
    mentioned).

    As you point out, all this may not be worthwhile in most cases in
    general photography. But you as much as called Bart a liar, while at
    the same time mangling much of what you said about Hubble.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Mar 22, 2006
    #11
  12. SS

    ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:59:54 -0600, All Things Mopar wrote:

    Today All Things Mopar once again showed his inability to comment
    courteously on the subject at hand:

    >> That is not correct. With similar techniques as were used
    >> to restore Hubble Space Station's initial imagery, it is
    >> also possible to restore some of the OOF information.

    >
    > With all due respect to someone I don't know, my first
    > reaction to your contradiction of my simple statement is,
    > well, horseshit.


    With all due respect, you've once again shown yourself to be a
    horse's ass. There are a number of people here that know far more
    than you about many areas of photography, and Bart is one of them.
    But you wouldn't know that, as you seem to value typing much more
    highly than reading and comprehension.


    > Before you or someone else decides to take me on about this,
    > please keep this in mind: I am a pragmatist, not a
    > theorotician. I am also not an elitest. I deal in reality.


    Your reality is often the purest fantasy.


    > Two sayings come to mind here - "the proof of the pudding is in the
    > eating" and "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like.


    You've evidently developed a taste for lip-smackin BS.


    > Do whatever floats your boat and I'll do the same. And, you
    > have a good evening, hear?! <grin>


    And I'll leave you to smile as your boat floats down that well
    known river immortalized by the Fugs. <grin and bear it>
     
    ASAAR, Mar 22, 2006
    #12
  13. Today D-Mac commented courteously on the subject at hand

    > All Things Mopar wrote:
    >>> What you did here was what I previously said - you
    >>> created the /illusion/ of in-focus, and along with it,
    >>> some really nasty defects in the background looking like
    >>> some weird cross between noise and JPEG artifacts. You
    >>> even said in the paragraph above that the "restoration"
    >>> process creates those artifacts!
    >>>

    >
    > I'm fed up with contradictions about image manipulation but
    > I can't help pointing out to you - whoever you are - that a
    > little knowledge is dangerous. You do not comprehend how an
    > advanced process can sharpen an out of focus image. If you
    > did, you would not be so quick to get up the nose of Bart.
    >
    > Sharpness is a perceived thing. I resharpen out of focus
    > and slightly motion blurred images by recognizing the
    > perception and actually blurring a lot of the image even
    > more than the amount I correct. The result is an image
    > which is perceived to be sharp(er).


    No shit?! Thanks for an elitetist, legend-in-their-own-mind,
    "expert" putting a dumb-ass old engineer in their place. You
    get some sort of jollies debating theoretical horseshit and
    taking on people for no good reason? Why not try helping
    people in a /practical/ way to fix their problems instead of
    making yourself look smart and the other guy look stupid?

    > The process is used by NASA although their routine is a
    > little different to mine. I convert edges to vector and
    > blur the bitmap, re-applying the vector after it has been
    > narrowed. This produces the perception of sharpness due to
    > the fuzz from the edges being gone and the fill detail
    > being smudged.
    >
    > Although Photoshop has all the tools for doing this, you
    > might not get the results I do. Go ahead and try it. Even
    > if you stuff it up (as you no doubt will in PS) you will
    > learn that it is indeed possible.


    No shit?! I didn't know that, either. 'Course, you're probably
    bright enough - you know everything about everything - to
    recognize sarcasm when you see it...

    Look, there is more than simple Gaussian blur, /perceived/
    sharpnness and detail here. Take your elitist ideas and re-re-
    re-re-review the concepts, early adoption, and later
    standardization of COF (Circles Of Confusion) as relates to
    the eye's ability to resolve fine detail then come back and
    talk about the mathematics behind creating an illusion of
    sharpness across /all/ of the photo, including mathematically
    correct DOF through COF in front of and behind the point
    focused and explain in concrete terms an old fool can
    understand just exactly how you take a piece of mush out-of-
    focus image and make it look like the camera-photographer
    combo did their job right the first time.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
    Ford
     
    All Things Mopar, Mar 22, 2006
    #13
  14. Today Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) commented
    courteously on the subject at hand

    > All Things Mopar wrote:
    >
    >> Today Bart van der Wolf commented courteously on the
    >> subject at hand
    >>
    >>>"All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:Xns978DA5628F915ReplyID@216.196.97.131... SNIP
    >>>
    >>>>I haven't tried this particular product, but I agree with
    >>>>you in principle. If the image is out-of-focus, it is
    >>>>out-of-focus. Period, end of discussion.
    >>>
    >>>That is not correct. With similar techniques as were used
    >>>to restore Hubble Space Station's initial imagery, it is
    >>>also possible to restore some of the OOF information.

    >>
    >> With all due respect to someone I don't know, my first
    >> reaction to your contradiction of my simple statement is,
    >> well, horseshit.

    >
    > Bart is correct. The technology to improve focus is called
    > image deconvolution, or image restoration and has been a
    > topic of research for decades, well before the Hubble
    > problem. One of the more successful algorithms is
    > Richardson-Lucy Image Restoration. Photoshop's tools, like
    > unsharp mask do not actually sharpen, they only change
    > accutance. A combination of edge detection and unsharp
    > masking, a method developed by Bob Atkinson, can come close
    > to equal it however (I'll be adding this to my web page
    > sometime; test done by Bill Hilton).


    Bart is /theoretically/ correct. Go back and re-read my last
    paragraphy. I don't give a tinker's damn about what can be
    done in a lab with hours of effort using expensive software.

    The issue being discussed was how to save a badly out-of-focus
    image and not what the NASA people did or what esoteric
    software can do under carefully controlled conditions on
    special case problems.

    Photography used to be both art and science, but more art from
    which the "science" was built around. Today, particularly in
    this NG, debates like this almost immediately lose their
    relavance to the original innocent request for help into an
    elitist theoretical debate. If that's what you want to do,
    fine by me.

    > See:
    > Image Restoration
    > Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1
    >
    > Image Restoration Using the Damped Richardson-Lucy Method
    > http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/irw/proceedings/whiter_d
    > amped.dir/whiter_damped.html
    >
    > There is no RL pluggin for Photoshop that I am aware of.
    > Bart and I both use an image processing program called
    > ImagesPlus which has this and other image restoration
    > algorithms.
    >
    > Basically, the concept is this: consider a blurred image,
    > e.g. due to focus, or motion. Adjacent pixels have image
    > information of other pixels. Using a model of the blur,
    > the software estimates the contribution of the blur to each
    > pixel and moves that signal back to adjacent pixels. It is
    > an iterative process and takes a lot of computation, but
    > can work very well. But there is no free lunch. The
    > process increases noise, and can cause ringing artifacts if
    > done to extreme, and/or if the blur model doesn't match the
    > image.
    >
    > In my own experiments, it seems there is roughly an even
    > trade in noise versus resolution. My digital workflow now
    > includes RL restoration on any image I intend to print
    > large. I routinely double the pixel count in each
    > dimension and produce very sharp large prints (e.g. 16x24
    > inches) from 8-megapixel images.
    >

    Do you do this for real or for an intellectual exercise?
    Again, you admit to what I already said - fixing an OOF image
    is a compromise between noise and sharpness, and almost always
    results in greatly increased artifacts. Actually, the
    artifacts and noise were already there, they were simply
    exacerrbated by the attempted sharpness/detail illusory
    process.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
    Ford
     
    All Things Mopar, Mar 22, 2006
    #14
  15. Today Dave Martindale commented courteously on the subject at
    hand

    >>Today Bart van der Wolf commented courteously on the
    >>subject
    >>> That is not correct. With similar techniques as were used
    >>> to restore Hubble Space Station's initial imagery, it is
    >>> also possible to restore some of the OOF information.

    >
    > All Things Mopar <> writes:
    >>With all due respect to someone I don't know, my first
    >>reaction to your contradiction of my simple statement is,
    >>well, horseshit.

    >
    > Maybe, but you're wrong. Try searching for
    > "deconvolution".
    >
    >>What did it cost to fix Hubble, several /billion/ dollars?
    >>And, they did /not/ fix the out-of-focus images /after/
    >>they'd been downloaded to earth, those are toast (yes, they
    >>tried and tried and tried, but never succeeded to any
    >>measurable degree).

    >
    > They did succeed in sharpening many images in the several
    > years before the Hubble optics were fixed. The Hubble was
    > unable to shoot images of dim stars, one thing it was
    > originally designed for, because the light was spread over
    > so many pixels. But bright objects could be imaged and the
    > defocus largely corrected, because they knew the
    > telescope's blur function so well.


    Again, I say "horseshit". If they succeeded so well, why did
    NASA spend /years/ and countless /millions/ of dollars and
    mount a very specialized shuttle mission to correct the
    Hubble's underlying problem if they could simply correct it's
    blurry images using a technique as simple as deconvolution?

    You theoretical elitists have to understand an indisputable
    fact: pixels cannot be created where there are none. When
    looking closely at the pixel map of a sharp, detailed, in-
    focus image vs. a blurry, obviously out-of-focus image, the
    pixels defining the fine detail are simply not there and no
    amount of hand waving and black magic can bring them back. All
    that can be done is various mathematically valid ways to trick
    the human eye into /thinking/ the image is sharper.

    > And yes it cost a lot to fix Hubble, but that was a
    > hardware fix. One camera module was replaced by a very
    > complicated mirror assembly that corrected the error in the
    > primary mirror. That doesn't mean the software sharpening
    > of the blurred images cost this much.
    >
    >>NASA engineers and astronomers colaborated to add software
    >>to Hubble and some electronics (as I recall, but I'm no
    >>Hubble expert) to compensate - not correct - the incorrect
    >>mirror curvature grind to allow /new/ images to be
    >>in-focus, and then through some pretty sophisticated -
    >>read: extremely expensive mathematical techniques.

    >
    > You're just making this up, aren't you?
    >
    > No, the correction device was hardware only. Once
    > installed, the telescope delivered sharp images to the
    > various sensors without any postprocessing needed. As I
    > understand it, the added optics were arranged to image the
    > primary mirror onto a special correction mirror. Because of
    > this, all the light that reflected from a particular point
    > on the primary mirror was re-gathered at a single point on
    > the correction mirror. That allowed the error in the
    > primary mirror to be corrected by a complementary
    > correction in the new mirror. All the light from a single
    > star was focused on a tiny spot a few pixels in size, as
    > designed.
    >
    >>And, the space inside Hubble the
    >>astronaut had to work in was so tight and the chance to
    >>irreparably damage the telescope was so high that nobody
    >>really knew in advance if Hubble could or could not be
    >>fixed.

    >
    > Really, what's this got to do with software sharpening?
    >
    >>> The result will not be perfect, because the truely lost
    >>> information will generate artifacts during the
    >>> restoration process. It is also important to have a good
    >>> model for the de-focus. Some so-called "blind"
    >>> deconvolution algorithms estimate the blur function,
    >>> other methods require prior input of the model to be
    >>> used.

    >
    >>What kind of techno babble is this?

    >
    > It makes perfect sense if you'd bother to do any kind of
    > search for deconvolution methods.


    I know what deconvolution is but my statement stands: how can
    a person blowing their vacation pictures predict just how it
    was done so they can give the correct model to the software?
    Further, how much does it cost, how is it used, how long per
    image does it take to optimize results, and what nasty side-
    effects are created?

    >>I'm
    >>supposed to know in advance exactly how I blew it, so the
    >>software knows how to begin? If I'm misunderstanding you, I
    >>apologize but I fail to see how someone can predict the
    >>way(s) to blow a focus.

    >
    > It could be as simple as having a bright point source in
    > the image (the reflection of the sun off a small metal
    > ball, for example) which allows estimating exactly what the
    > blur function looks like. If you know what the blur did to
    > the image, you can invert it (with the caveats that Bart
    > mentioned).


    I seriously doubt that a few spots of glare across an
    otherwise bland expanse of pixels typical of a blurry image
    are enough for even sophisticated software to latch onto and
    figure out how to reconstruct hundreds of thousands - or
    millions - of missing pixels.

    > As you point out, all this may not be worthwhile in most
    > cases in general photography. But you as much as called
    > Bart a liar, while at the same time mangling much of what
    > you said about Hubble.
    >

    I never used the word "liar" but if you want to interpret my
    comments that way, that's your privelige. I also said I'm no
    Hubble expert, so I'd hardly call what I said "mangling" it.
    And, your 1st statement, where you agree with my thesis, says
    it all: these techniques are /not/ for the general case, so
    have no general use whatsoever to real-world photographers
    trying to save their European vacation pictures or pictures of
    their daughters wedding.

    You elitists need to get out of the basements where the
    computer wonks live and come up and smell the fresh air where
    normal people live and discuss /in practical terms/ how to use
    these esoteric techniques in a reasonable inexensive, time-
    efficient, least side-effect way on /real/ photo image
    situations across a large spectrum of subjects and lighting
    conditions. Until/unless you can do that, when I smell
    unadulterated crap, I'll yell "horseshit".

    Bye!

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
    Ford
     
    All Things Mopar, Mar 22, 2006
    #15
  16. Today ASAAR commented courteously on the subject at hand

    > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 20:59:54 -0600, All Things Mopar wrote:
    >
    > Today All Things Mopar once again showed his inability to
    > comment courteously on the subject at hand:
    >
    >>> That is not correct. With similar techniques as were used
    >>> to restore Hubble Space Station's initial imagery, it is
    >>> also possible to restore some of the OOF information.

    >>
    >> With all due respect to someone I don't know, my first
    >> reaction to your contradiction of my simple statement is,
    >> well, horseshit.

    >
    > With all due respect, you've once again shown yourself to
    > be a
    > horse's ass. There are a number of people here that know
    > far more than you about many areas of photography, and Bart
    > is one of them. But you wouldn't know that, as you seem to
    > value typing much more highly than reading and
    > comprehension.
    >


    Well, you've got this right, I /am/ a horse's ass. But, at
    least, I provide /practical/ information, whereas you simply
    exist to lurk and lay in wait to pounce on someone you don't
    like. What exactly have you contributed to this thread except
    to insult me personally?

    I'm aware that people here know more about photography than
    me; that isn't hard to do. But, if they cannot transmit their
    knowledge to people asking for help, their knowledge is
    useless. As for you, I doubt you know anything at all except
    that you're skilled at putting people down.

    As to typing, reading, and comprehension, yes, I practice
    Mavis Beacon so I can type drivel at high rates of speed. And,
    what would you know about my reading and comprehension
    abilities? Why don't /you/ enlighten me and the others? Oh,
    you can't do that, as you're nothing but a bullshit artist
    with delusions of grandeur.

    >> Before you or someone else decides to take me on about
    >> this, please keep this in mind: I am a pragmatist, not a
    >> theorotician. I am also not an elitest. I deal in reality.

    >
    > Your reality is often the purest fantasy.


    That is your interpretation. It is wrong, but you can live in
    your own version of reality or fantasy if that is your
    choosing. People who actually have their feet planted in the
    real world would be able to quantiatitively pick apart your
    logic - if there were any. You never actually provide
    information, as I said above, you just spew insults using
    conclusions based on incorrect and unfounded assumptions.
    >
    >> Two sayings come to mind here - "the proof of the pudding
    >> is in the eating" and "I don't know anything about art,
    >> but I know what I like.

    >
    > You've evidently developed a taste for lip-smackin BS.


    No, but I like smacking trolls like you. Here's another saying
    for you to chew on when you go back under the bridge with the
    other trolls to sleep during the day - "I don't feed trolls, I
    feed /ON? trolls".
    >
    >> Do whatever floats your boat and I'll do the same. And,
    >> you have a good evening, hear?! <grin>

    >
    > And I'll leave you to smile as your boat floats down that
    > well
    > known river immortalized by the Fugs. <grin and bear it>
    >

    Smile or frown, don't make never mind to me. If you want to
    debate this or any other subject you and I have tangled on at
    some factual, intelligent level, I'd be happy to debate it
    with you. However, I have yet to see you say anything factual
    or useful on /any/ subject, so I see no purpose to listening
    to or talking to you again.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry
    Ford
     
    All Things Mopar, Mar 22, 2006
    #16
  17. All Things Mopar wrote:
    > Today Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) commented
    > courteously on the subject at hand
    >
    >
    >>All Things Mopar wrote:
    >>>With all due respect to someone I don't know, my first
    >>>reaction to your contradiction of my simple statement is,
    >>>well, horseshit.

    >>
    >>Bart is correct. The technology to improve focus is called
    >>image deconvolution, or image restoration and has been a
    >>topic of research for decades, well before the Hubble
    >>problem.


    > Bart is /theoretically/ correct. Go back and re-read my last
    > paragraphy. I don't give a tinker's damn about what can be
    > done in a lab with hours of effort using expensive software.


    No, Bart is actually correct. The software is not expensive, in
    fact you can get it for free if you want. Commercial software
    that does it is more than 3 times less expensive than photoshop.

    > The issue being discussed was how to save a badly out-of-focus
    > image and not what the NASA people did or what esoteric
    > software can do under carefully controlled conditions on
    > special case problems.


    And I'm not talking about what "NASA people" did. Image restoration
    methods are being used by hundreds if not thousands of
    terrestrial photographers and astrophotographers every day.

    > Photography used to be both art and science, but more art from
    > which the "science" was built around. Today, particularly in
    > this NG, debates like this almost immediately lose their
    > relavance to the original innocent request for help into an
    > elitist theoretical debate. If that's what you want to do,
    > fine by me.


    The only debate here is knowledgeable people have pointed out
    that this technology exists and works well, and you seem
    to argue that it doesn't exist except in theory in a lab.
    Try reading the links. If you want links to many images
    by many people who do this routinely, I can supply some.
    There really are some awesome results coming out
    of the technology.

    >>See:
    >> Image Restoration
    >> Using Adaptive Richardson-Lucy Iteration
    >> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/image-restoration1
    >>
    >>Image Restoration Using the Damped Richardson-Lucy Method
    >>http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/irw/proceedings/whiter_d
    >>amped.dir/whiter_damped.html


    > Do you do this for real or for an intellectual exercise?
    > Again, you admit to what I already said - fixing an OOF image
    > is a compromise between noise and sharpness, and almost always
    > results in greatly increased artifacts. Actually, the
    > artifacts and noise were already there, they were simply
    > exacerrbated by the attempted sharpness/detail illusory
    > process.


    Again, the technology is real and being used by
    many photographers. Yes, I do this for real.
    I have sold many photographs that have been processed
    with RL restoration. The same argument of greatly increased
    artifacts can be said of almost any tool, whether simple curves
    or levels, unsharp mask, of photoshop's newer
    smart sharpen (which again does not sharpen, only increases
    accutance). So like any tool, there is skill in using
    it to produce good results.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 22, 2006
    #17
  18. All Things Mopar wrote:

    > Today Dave Martindale commented courteously on the subject at
    > hand
    >
    >


    > Again, I say "horseshit". If they succeeded so well, why did
    > NASA spend /years/ and countless /millions/ of dollars and
    > mount a very specialized shuttle mission to correct the
    > Hubble's underlying problem if they could simply correct it's
    > blurry images using a technique as simple as deconvolution?


    It is very simple. Scientific investigations usually require high
    signal-to-noise ratios to measure specific properties.
    While the deconvolution of Hubble images improved spatial
    image quality, it did so at the expense of increased noise.
    Then a faint source was spread over many pixels and could be
    lost in the noise of the sensor. That noise also
    made some detections of faint signals next to bright
    objects impossible. The optical fix solved the problem well.

    > You theoretical elitists have to understand an indisputable
    > fact: pixels cannot be created where there are none. When
    > looking closely at the pixel map of a sharp, detailed, in-
    > focus image vs. a blurry, obviously out-of-focus image, the
    > pixels defining the fine detail are simply not there and no
    > amount of hand waving and black magic can bring them back. All
    > that can be done is various mathematically valid ways to trick
    > the human eye into /thinking/ the image is sharper.


    No. There is information there. The information is just
    spread over a number of pixels. It is not theoretical,
    and no hand waving and black magic is involved, unless
    you consider mathematics black magic; I don't.


    > I know what deconvolution is but my statement stands: how can
    > a person blowing their vacation pictures predict just how it
    > was done so they can give the correct model to the software?
    > Further, how much does it cost, how is it used, how long per
    > image does it take to optimize results, and what nasty side-
    > effects are created?


    If you read papers and web sites doing some simple google
    research, you can find the answers. I gave you two
    links, but you apparently didn't read them.


    > I seriously doubt that a few spots of glare across an
    > otherwise bland expanse of pixels typical of a blurry image
    > are enough for even sophisticated software to latch onto and
    > figure out how to reconstruct hundreds of thousands - or
    > millions - of missing pixels.


    The pixels are not missing; they are still the same ones
    in the original image, just the information is spread out
    over many pixels. You can examine fine detail, estimate the
    width of an edge and make a close approximation of the
    blur.


    > my thesis, says
    > it all: these techniques are /not/ for the general case, so
    > have no general use whatsoever to real-world photographers
    > trying to save their European vacation pictures or pictures of
    > their daughters wedding.


    This is like saying unsharp mask is not for real-world
    photographers. Simply because you don't know the technology
    doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't work.
    >
    > You elitists need to get out of the basements where the
    > computer wonks live and come up and smell the fresh air where
    > normal people live and discuss /in practical terms/ how to use
    > these esoteric techniques in a reasonable inexensive, time-
    > efficient, least side-effect way on /real/ photo image
    > situations across a large spectrum of subjects and lighting
    > conditions. Until/unless you can do that, when I smell
    > unadulterated crap, I'll yell "horseshit".


    I think you are the one being the elitist.
    Image restoration is being done, it can be done for free (software)
    or modest cost (<$200). Fast computers these days mean pretty
    fast results, but longer than unsharp mask (I don't have
    a very fast computer and still use it). I and others
    use the RL algorithms routinely and produce images
    that are sharper, and i make larger prints that sell.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 22, 2006
    #18
  19. SS

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:13:51 -0600, All Things Mopar
    <> wrote:

    >Again, I say "horseshit". If they succeeded so well, why did
    >NASA spend /years/ and countless /millions/ of dollars and
    >mount a very specialized shuttle mission to correct the
    >Hubble's underlying problem if they could simply correct it's
    >blurry images using a technique as simple as deconvolution?


    Hubble's underlying problem is with its main mirror, and it wasn't
    fixed. Instead, NASA installed corrective mirrors.
    Until those mirrors could be designed, made and installed,
    deconvolutiuon techniques were used (and very well, BTW) to get good
    images.
    Why use the mirrors? Because the software techniques weren't as good
    as the correctibe mirrors.
    This doesn't mean the software solution isn't good, but that it isn't
    as good as the hardware solution.
    But the deconvolution technique did work, and it continues to do so
    today.

    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Mar 22, 2006
    #19
  20. SS

    Guest

    One can "sharpen" a picture, but that is not the same as fixing a focus
    problem. A focus problem can be that only some objects in the scene
    are blurry, not the whole picture. This kind of problem is very hard
    to fix.

    Most routines that perport to fix a focus blur apply a sharpening
    filter to the whole image. This means that if there were parts of the
    image that WERE in focus already, they will be oversharpened.

    These filters work okay if the WHOLE image is blurry, but not if only
    part is out of focus.

    Oversharpening leads to noise and artifacts similar to JPEG artifacts.
     
    , Mar 22, 2006
    #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. Catherine Jo Morgan

    any manual focus cameras easy to focus?

    Catherine Jo Morgan, Nov 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    464
    Samuel Paik
    Nov 5, 2003
  2. JethroUK©

    Pan Focus vs Auto Focus

    JethroUK©, Aug 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    17,327
    JethroUK©
    Aug 11, 2004
  3. Hasan Diwan

    Fuji EXIF: Focus warning: "Out of focus"

    Hasan Diwan, Dec 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    393
    Ken Weitzel
    Dec 26, 2004
  4. Carl Miller

    Why "Focus and Recompose" causes back-focus issues

    Carl Miller, Mar 7, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    887
    Owamanga
    Mar 10, 2005
  5. Poldie

    dioptric correction of poor focus

    Poldie, Jun 21, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    532
Loading...

Share This Page