Adobe admits RIGGING the anti-blur demonstration!!

On 2011-10-18 15:11:32 -0700, RichA said:

Does this mean the de-blur device is as lousy and useless as their
noise reduction?
BTW, whatever happened to that image "tampering detection" add-on they
talked about a year ago?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11...eclarifies.asp

OK! Let's take a look at what you didn't read.

"The first two images we showed - the crowd scene and the image of the
poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of
Kevin Lynch was synthetically blured from a sharp image taken from the
web."

So that means that the demo with regard to the "crowd scene" & the
"poster" was not "RIGGING" however the Kevin Lynch image was
synthesized.

Keep trying. You sure love to stir the pot, don't you Rich?

Here is their update without Rich filtering:

"UPDATE: For those who are curious – some additional background on the
images used during the recent MAX demo of our “deblur� technology. The
first two images we showed – the crowd scene and the image of the
poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of
Kevin Lynch was synthetically blurred from a sharp image taken from the
web. What do we mean by synthetic blur? A synthetic blur was created by
extracting the camera shake information from another real blurry image
and applying it to the Kevin Lynch image to create a realistic
simulation. This kind of blur is created with our research tool.
Because the camera shake data is real, it is much more complicated than
anything we can simulate using Photoshop’s blur capabilities. When this
new image was loaded as a JPEG into the deblur plug-in, the software
has no idea it was synthetically generated. This is common practice in
research and we used the Kevin example because we wanted it to be
entertaining and relevant to the audience – Kevin being the star of the
Adobe MAX conference!
For more information and examples on the common practice of synthetic
blurring being used as part of research in this area, check out:
http://grail.cs.washington.edu/proje...lts/index.html
http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/p...robust_deblur/
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~le...EtalCVPR09.pdf "
--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote in
news:201110181539498930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2011-10-18 15:11:32 -0700, RichA said:

Does this mean the de-blur device is as lousy and useless as their
noise reduction?
BTW, whatever happened to that image "tampering detection" add-on
they talked about a year ago?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11...eclarifies.asp

OK! Let's take a look at what you didn't read.

"The first two images we showed - the crowd scene and the image of the
poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of
Kevin Lynch was synthetically blured from a sharp image taken from the
web."

So that means that the demo with regard to the "crowd scene" & the
"poster" was not "RIGGING" however the Kevin Lynch image was
synthesized.

Keep trying. You sure love to stir the pot, don't you Rich?

Here is their update without Rich filtering:

"UPDATE: For those who are curious – some additional background on
the images used during the recent MAX demo of our “deblur�
technology. The first two images we showed – the crowd scene and the
image of the poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake.
The image of Kevin Lynch was synthetically blurred from a sharp image
taken from the web. What do we mean by synthetic blur? A synthetic
blur was created by extracting the camera shake information from
another real blurry image and applying it to the Kevin Lynch image to
create a realistic simulation. This kind of blur is created with our
research tool. Because the camera shake data is real, it is much more
complicated than anything we can simulate using Photoshop’s blur
capabilities. When this new image was loaded as a JPEG into the deblur
plug-in, the software has no idea it was synthetically generated. This
is common practice in research and we used the Kevin example because
we wanted it to be entertaining and relevant to the audience – Kevin
being the star of the Adobe MAX conference!
For more information and examples on the common practice of synthetic
blurring being used as part of research in this area, check out:
http://grail.cs.washington.edu/proje...nth_results/in
dex.html http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/p...robust_deblur/
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~le...inEtalCVPR09.p
df "

I see they take scientific precision cues from the IPCC.

On 18/10/2011 23:39, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-10-18 15:11:32 -0700, RichA said:

Does this mean the de-blur device is as lousy and useless as their
noise reduction?
BTW, whatever happened to that image "tampering detection" add-on they
talked about a year ago?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11...eclarifies.asp

OK! Let's take a look at what you didn't read.

"The first two images we showed - the crowd scene and the image of the
poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of
Kevin Lynch was synthetically blured from a sharp image taken from the
web."

So that means that the demo with regard to the "crowd scene" & the
"poster" was not "RIGGING" however the Kevin Lynch image was synthesized.

Keep trying. You sure love to stir the pot, don't you Rich?

Here is their update without Rich filtering:

"UPDATE: For those who are curious – some additional background on the
images used during the recent MAX demo of our “deblur� technology. The
first two images we showed – the crowd scene and the image of the
poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of
Kevin Lynch was synthetically blurred from a sharp image taken from the
web. What do we mean by synthetic blur? A synthetic blur was created by
extracting the camera shake information from another real blurry image
and applying it to the Kevin Lynch image to create a realistic
simulation. This kind of blur is created with our research tool. Because
the camera shake data is real, it is much more complicated than anything
we can simulate using Photoshop’s blur capabilities. When this new image
was loaded as a JPEG into the deblur plug-in, the software has no idea
it was synthetically generated. This is common practice in research and
we used the Kevin example because we wanted it to be entertaining and
relevant to the audience – Kevin being the star of the Adobe MAX
conference!
For more information and examples on the common practice of synthetic
blurring being used as part of research in this area, check out:
http://grail.cs.washington.edu/proje...lts/index.html

http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/p...robust_deblur/
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~le...EtalCVPR09.pdf "

It is fair enough to use synthetic blur (and synthetic noise for that
matter) *provided* that you make it clear *and* show the results of
applying your new algorithm to that synthetic test data to compute a
deconvolved image. The reconstruction can then be compared against the
known perfect target image - this is standard practice.

It is *CHEATING* to show the synthetic blurred image as "Before" and the
original perfect master image as "After" which is what they did!

I know US advertising standards are lax but this takes the biscuit!!

I don't often agree with Rich but in this instance I will make an
exception - Adobe were playing fast and loose with the facts here.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:

"UPDATE: For those who are curious – some additional background on the
images used during the recent MAX demo of our “deblur� technology. The
first two images we showed – the crowd scene and the image of the
poster, were examples of motion blur from camera shake. The image of
Kevin Lynch was synthetically blurred from a sharp image taken from the
web. What do we mean by synthetic blur? A synthetic blur was created by
extracting the camera shake information from another real blurry image
and applying it to the Kevin Lynch image to create a realistic
simulation. This kind of blur is created with our research tool. Because
the camera shake data is real, it is much more complicated than anything
we can simulate using Photoshop’s blur capabilities. When this new image
was loaded as a JPEG into the deblur plug-in, the software has no idea
it was synthetically generated. This is common practice in research and
we used the Kevin example because we wanted it to be entertaining and
relevant to the audience – Kevin being the star of the Adobe MAX
conference!
For more information and examples on the common practice of synthetic
blurring being used as part of research in this area, check out:
http://grail.cs.washington.edu/proje...lts/index.html


http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/p...robust_deblur/
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~le...EtalCVPR09.pdf
"

It is fair enough to use synthetic blur (and synthetic noise for that
matter) *provided* that you make it clear *and* show the results of
applying your new algorithm to that synthetic test data to compute a
deconvolved image. The reconstruction can then be compared against the
known perfect target image - this is standard practice.

It is *CHEATING* to show the synthetic blurred image as "Before" and the
original perfect master image as "After" which is what they did!

That's not how I read it; I read it that of the 3 "before" images,
2 had camera shake applied with a camera (!!), and the last
had camera shake (deduced from a separate image) applied
to it via software.

I kinda' hope that all the "after" images were made
from the "before" images, and see nothing to the contrary
in the text.

BugBear

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Adobe were playing fast and loose with the facts here.

Gee how unusual!
(not!)

Trevor.

John A. wrote:

The issue I have with it is that in the synthesized case they applied
blur data their software extracted from another image, so the blurring
was thereby limited to modes that their software was able to handle.

A good and subtle point.

(are you on the right newsgroup?!)

BugBear