With regard to refocusing software... wouldn't optical be better?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by no_one_cares@whatbusterthinks.com, Jun 25, 2011.

  1. Guest

    If you have a print from an out of focus image, and you use
    optics to refocus it, wouldn't that work much better than any software
    algorithm?
    , Jun 25, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Irwell Guest

    On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 19:14:00 -0400,
    wrote:

    > If you have a print from an out of focus image, and you use
    > optics to refocus it, wouldn't that work much better than any software
    > algorithm?


    Take it with you to the optician when you go
    for an eye exam.

    Which is better, A or B?
    Irwell, Jun 25, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Nervous Nick Guest

    On Jun 24, 6:14 pm, wrote:
    >         If you have a print from an out of focus image, and you use
    > optics to refocus it, wouldn't that work much better than any software
    > algorithm?


    c) Not enough information
    Nervous Nick, Jun 25, 2011
    #3
  4. Ray Fischer Guest

    <> wrote:
    > If you have a print from an out of focus image, and you use
    >optics to refocus it,


    Heh? How does that work?

    > wouldn't that work much better than any software
    >algorithm?


    A magic wand would work as well.

    --
    Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
    | The new GOP ideal
    Ray Fischer, Jun 25, 2011
    #4
  5. On Jun 24, 6:14 pm, wrote:
    >         If you have a print from an out of focus image, and you use
    > optics to refocus it, wouldn't that work much better than any software
    > algorithm?


    No; nobody has ever found a way to do that with optics,
    so that's not an option.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jun 28, 2011
    #5
  6. Guest

    On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:56:48 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    <> wrote:

    >On Jun 24, 6:14 pm, wrote:
    >>         If you have a print from an out of focus image, and you use
    >> optics to refocus it, wouldn't that work much better than any software
    >> algorithm?

    >
    >No; nobody has ever found a way to do that with optics,
    >so that's not an option.


    "Deconvolution" software can supposedly get out of focus
    images back to some degree.

    There's also the new "Lytro" camera where you can change the
    focus after the fact.

    What I'm talking about is the fact that if you take an out of
    focus pic, all the information is still there, isn't it?

    Shouldn't it be possible to look at an out of focus print
    through optics, and then adapt the optical arrangement such that the
    print comes into focus?

    What am I missing here?

    If I am missing something, I'm sure SavageDuck will know what
    it is... or perhaps Charles Hardwidge.
    , Jun 30, 2011
    #6
  7. tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:02:33 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >>>>         If you have a print from an out of focus image, and you use
    >>>> optics to refocus it, wouldn't that work much better than any software
    >>>> algorithm?
    >>>
    >>> No; nobody has ever found a way to do that with optics,
    >>> so that's not an option.

    >>
    >> "Deconvolution" software can supposedly get out of focus
    >> images back to some degree.

    >
    >Supposedly.


    It's like buying a dozen donuts, having one fall out on the way home,
    and then trying to find a sack that will replace missing donuts.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jun 30, 2011
    #7
  8. PeterN Guest

    On 6/30/2011 3:12 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:02:33 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>>>> If you have a print from an out of focus image, and you use
    >>>>> optics to refocus it, wouldn't that work much better than any software
    >>>>> algorithm?
    >>>>
    >>>> No; nobody has ever found a way to do that with optics,
    >>>> so that's not an option.
    >>>
    >>> "Deconvolution" software can supposedly get out of focus
    >>> images back to some degree.

    >>
    >> Supposedly.

    >
    > It's like buying a dozen donuts, having one fall out on the way home,
    > and then trying to find a sack that will replace missing donuts.
    >
    >



    If you take 1/11 of each of the remaining dreadnoughts and paste the
    parts with edible glue, you will have a dozen. However obviously,
    something will be lacking.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Jul 1, 2011
    #8
  9. Guest

    On Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:02:33 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2011-06-30 10:24:03 -0700, said:
    >
    >> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:56:48 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Jun 24, 6:14 pm, wrote:
    >>>>         If you have a print from an out of focus image, and you use
    >>>> optics to refocus it, wouldn't that work much better than any software
    >>>> algorithm?
    >>>
    >>> No; nobody has ever found a way to do that with optics,
    >>> so that's not an option.

    >>
    >> "Deconvolution" software can supposedly get out of focus
    >> images back to some degree.

    >
    >Supposedly.
    >
    >>
    >> There's also the new "Lytro" camera where you can change the
    >> focus after the fact.

    >
    >As I have said before, the Lytro system has a way to go before becoming
    >available to the consumer.
    >>
    >> What I'm talking about is the fact that if you take an out of
    >> focus pic, all the information is still there, isn't it?

    >
    >No.
    >You need good information to start with. The Lytro apparently should
    >capture the full range of information available, current cameras and
    >technology does not.
    >Unless you are referring to all that out of focus information. That is
    >all there, all the information required for a sharp, in focus image was
    >never captured, it is lost, and gone forever once you have captured
    >that image out of focus on film or digitally.
    >
    >You cannot restore what you never had.
    >
    >>
    >> Shouldn't it be possible to look at an out of focus print
    >> through optics, and then adapt the optical arrangement such that the
    >> print comes into focus?
    >>
    >> What am I missing here?

    >See above.
    >What you are missing is all the information required to provide image
    >detail needed to bring that print into focus.
    >
    >TV & movie forensic photography, bringing that face into focus to
    >reveal identity of an individual, or the numbers on a blurry license
    >plate, cleared up to show the registration, is theoretically feasible,
    >but for the most part remains show biz mythology.
    >>
    >> If I am missing something, I'm sure SavageDuck will know what
    >> it is...

    >
    >Well, I tried. ;-)
    >
    >> or perhaps Charles Hardwidge.

    >
    >Maybe he has an answer you will be happy with.


    Nope, I'm happy with your answer. I *wish* you were wrong, but
    according to everything I've read you're right.
    , Jul 21, 2011
    #9
    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. Sallu
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    341
    Sallu
    Jan 3, 2006
  2. KennyG
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    458
  3. Goth Loser

    What exactly is the US strategy with regard to IED's?

    Goth Loser, Jun 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    123
    Views:
    1,757
    Iain Laskey
    Jun 14, 2005
  4. PhotoMan

    In regard to 'Weird Search Results'

    PhotoMan, Nov 15, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    470
    PhotoMan
    Nov 15, 2007
  5. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    589
    philo
    Dec 8, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page