Possible new feature for next Photoshop

It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
future Photoshop release.
http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop...y-pics-forever

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011101020474736716-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
future Photoshop release.
http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop...y-pics-forever

I love this : "Keep in mind that this won't fix your out of focus images..."
then says "...no more ruined personal photos".

Given that as many photo's are often ruined by being out of focus, or
commonly focused on the wrong spot with many people not knowing how to use
autofocus properly, I'd say the latter claim is fanciful unless they can get
another filter to fix all those out of focus shots too!

Trevor.

On 2011-10-10 23:42:12 -0700, "Trevor" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011101020474736716-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
future Photoshop release.
http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop...y-pics-forever

I love this : "Keep in mind that this won't fix your out of focus images..."
then says "...no more ruined personal photos".

Given that as many photo's are often ruined by being out of focus, or
commonly focused on the wrong spot with many people not knowing how to use
autofocus properly, I'd say the latter claim is fanciful unless they can get
another filter to fix all those out of focus shots too!

Trevor.

More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,

Savageduck

More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Seems far too good to be true. Was the original image RAW or JPEG?

Cheers,
David

On 2011-10-17 00:20:08 -0700, "David J Taylor"
said:

More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Seems far too good to be true. Was the original image RAW or JPEG?

Cheers,
David

Who the Hell knows?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011101700335750073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-10-17 00:20:08 -0700, "David J Taylor"
said:

More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Seems far too good to be true. Was the original image RAW or JPEG?

Cheers,
David

Who the Hell knows?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

It could be important. In the blurred image there are areas where there
appears to be insufficient information to extract the detail shown. A RAW
image taken at low ISO would have more brightness levels, and may
therefore show more blurred detail when the contrast range is severely
expanded, but an 8-bit JPEG image would not have those fine brightness
levels.

The technique may require a very "clean" RAW input image, to work well.

Also note that the original blur appears to be in a uniform direction
across the image, possibly with a period without blur as well. No twist
to the blur, and no deviation from a straight line.

I welcome a blur reduction facility in the program, but wonder how useful
it will be to real-world blurred images such as I might produce!

Cheers,
David

On 17/10/2011 08:20, David J Taylor wrote:
More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Seems far too good to be true. Was the original image RAW or JPEG?

Cheers,
David

Even if it was 16 bit raw data it looks far too good to be true and most
probably is - this looks much more like marketing's idea of what it
might do rather than the effect of deblurring on a real image.

Blurring is easy but the inverse is notoriously difficult - more so if
the blurring function itself is unknown.

The recovered image does not show any of the characteristic artefacts of
state-of-the-art deconvolution methods (blind or otherwise).

(examine point sources against dark areas or vice-versa)

eg. Spotlight top left above pink & turquoise dresses
Black dots on building in middle distance/lights on right hand wall.

It is unkind to pixel peep like this, but extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/10/2011 08:20, David J Taylor wrote:
More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Seems far too good to be true. Was the original image RAW or JPEG?

Cheers,
David

Even if it was 16 bit raw data it looks far too good to be true and most
probably is - this looks much more like marketing's idea of what it
might do rather than the effect of deblurring on a real image.

Blurring is easy but the inverse is notoriously difficult - more so if
the blurring function itself is unknown.

The recovered image does not show any of the characteristic artefacts of
state-of-the-art deconvolution methods (blind or otherwise).

(examine point sources against dark areas or vice-versa)

eg. Spotlight top left above pink & turquoise dresses
Black dots on building in middle distance/lights on right hand wall.

It is unkind to pixel peep like this, but extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.

If these were (say) samples that had been synthetically motion blurred
you might gets results this good.

IIRC motion blur is fully reversible.

BugBear

Even if it was 16 bit raw data it looks far too good to be true and most
probably is - this looks much more like marketing's idea of what it
might do rather than the effect of deblurring on a real image.

Blurring is easy but the inverse is notoriously difficult - more so if
the blurring function itself is unknown.

The recovered image does not show any of the characteristic artefacts of
state-of-the-art deconvolution methods (blind or otherwise).

(examine point sources against dark areas or vice-versa)

eg. Spotlight top left above pink & turquoise dresses
Black dots on building in middle distance/lights on right hand wall.

It is unkind to pixel peep like this, but extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Thanks for your input, Martin. My personal impression was that the
blurred image was produced from a sharp original. It doesn't match with
my experience at all. You may well be right about it being simply to show
what image blurring looks like, rather than an honest example of the
program's capabilities. Marketing half-truths.

I think that anyone buying the software and expecting results like those
will be rather disappointed, putting it mildly!

Cheers,
David

On 2011-10-17 06:02:33 -0700, Martin Brown
said:

On 17/10/2011 08:20, David J Taylor wrote:
More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Seems far too good to be true. Was the original image RAW or JPEG?

Cheers,
David

Even if it was 16 bit raw data it looks far too good to be true and
most probably is - this looks much more like marketing's idea of what
it might do rather than the effect of deblurring on a real image.

Blurring is easy but the inverse is notoriously difficult - more so if
the blurring function itself is unknown.

The recovered image does not show any of the characteristic artefacts
of state-of-the-art deconvolution methods (blind or otherwise).

(examine point sources against dark areas or vice-versa)

eg. Spotlight top left above pink & turquoise dresses
Black dots on building in middle distance/lights on right hand wall.

It is unkind to pixel peep like this, but extraordinary claims require
extraordinary proof.

Just so the image I linked to and the comments made are not taken out
of context, here is what appeared in the photoshop.com blog. What
cannot be denied is the sensationalized promotional purpose of this
release to the public.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...neak-peek.html



--
Regards,

Savageduck