Unmasked surface of Tempel 1

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tontoko, Oct 31, 2006.

  1. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    tontoko, Oct 31, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. It is interesting, but I wonder how useful it would be for the use it
    was put to. The enhanced photo would appear to provide misleading
    information and in some ways I would be lead to believe some things that
    were wrong based on it.

    Joseph E. Meehan

    "tontoko" <> wrote in message
    > In the following URL:
    > http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2995
    > the left is the original image of Tempel 1 taken by the Deep Impact
    > probe, the middle is its de-convoluted image (made by the software
    > Focus Corrector), and the right is another original image taken at the
    > position closer to the surface.
    > For detail of software Focus Corrector, visit:
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 31, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Perhaps we should make allowances for what appears to be a non-English
    background, but even so.. Mr Tontoko's site claims, amongst other
    "..ever had the experience abandoning a photo due to out of focus?...
    Now this software .. can revive such photo with sharp focus!"
    "..the method described here surely converge to the focused image."

    At *no point* does Mr Tontoko admit that deconvolution can at best give
    you an approximation of the original image, that it has very severe
    limitations for most images, and, IIUC, to do it properly you need to
    feed in information about lens characteristics. Even on astronomical
    images, where it is commonly used on relatively simple high contrast
    scenes, it introduces artefacts. In other words, it is not any sort of
    magic solution to o-o-f problems.

    I'm afraid I find those samples very unconvincing, with obvious
    'noise', exaggerated edge halos, and detail that is either clearly
    false, or impossible to verify as 'real'. What about offering some
    real world examples, Mr T?

    Other people who promote and use similar software, like Richardson Lucy
    algorithms and 'Maximum Entropy' do not make quite such glowing claims
    - here is a more typical example of the results you can expect on a
    non-astronomical image:


    Note in particular the 'quality' of Image 4, that they say is "very
    close to the reference Image". It's a mild improvement, but hardly
    'close'. Note also that it *can* work quite well on a small contrasty
    point, like the star...

    I'll happily concede that deconvolution can 'recover' some detail that
    sharpening will not, that's not the issue. The problem is that it
    invariably introduces false detail as well. IMO, that detail looks
    awful and unreal. YMMV.

    I also note Mr Tontoko refers to a 'citation':
    >Thanks to Dr. T. V. Flandern, some results obtained from this software were
    >introduced in the journal: Meta Research Bulletin (Vol. 14, No. 3. website:

    However, when you visit that site and look for the information,
    presumably here?:
    ...there is no '3', nor any reference to the software, and you would
    have to pay to buy the bulletins to find out what was said...

    For anyone interested in this topic, may I suggest a visit here:
    (Freeware deconvolution software - does other stuff as well, tried it
    about a year ago and it worked ok but had some memory problems on large
    images, don't know if that has been fixed)

    ...and here for some fairly dramatic examples of the results from other
    commercial software:

    To paraphrase another person's comments from an older thread -
    sometimes it is more important to define/locate fine details (amongst
    *false* detail), than it is to create a better looking image. In other
    words, astronomers and CSI-number-plate-hunters may have a use for it,
    but for the rest of us?

    I'm interested in hearing other opinions, though.. Maybe Roger? (O;
    , Nov 1, 2006
  4. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    As you've indicated, I must admit in some cases Focus Corrector does
    not re-focus the image authentically. Especially when the original
    image is coarse, it seems to appear relatively much artifacts.

    >..there is no '3', nor any reference to the software, and you would
    >have to pay to buy the bulletins to find out what was said...

    Sorry, for you must purchase the issue in order to see the picture
    processed by Focus Corrector.

    >What about offering some
    >real world examples, Mr T?

    I'll try to find any earthly photos to apply this software.
    tontoko, Nov 2, 2006
    1. Advertisements

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. tontoko

    Unmasked Supernova 1987A

    tontoko, Oct 31, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Oct 31, 2006
  2. tontoko

    Unmasked Centaurus

    tontoko, Nov 6, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
  3. tontoko

    Unmasked HH34

    tontoko, Dec 3, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Dec 3, 2006
  4. tontoko

    Unmasked Prometheus

    tontoko, Dec 6, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    John Turco
    Dec 11, 2006
  5. tontoko

    Unmasked Tempel 1

    tontoko, Dec 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Dec 10, 2006

Share This Page