Photoshop Unblur!

[Analog]

Before... and after? Adobe demonstrated a photoshop filter that removes blur after a shot, so shaky-handed photographers can 'go back in time'. The algorithm calculates how fast your hands were moving, then compensates for the blur

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...g-unblur-feature-Photoshop.html#ixzz1aVKZftSn
​

 

[IronWing]

So it's a sobriety filter.

 

[Drako]

Unpossible!

 

[edro]

Witchcraft

I understand the premise, but I cannot comprehend how it works.
What if the photo is simply out of focus and not a result of a shaky camera?

 

[Ns1]

crazy

 

[BudAshes]

I thought this was for japanese porn

 

[IronWing]

Witchcraft

I understand the premise, but I cannot comprehend how it works.
What if the photo is simply out of focus and not a result of a shaky camera?

To me, the sample above appears to be out of focus or even a blur/soften filter, not camera shake.

 

[Ns1]

I thought this was for japanese porn

the program you are looking for is called Unmosaic

 

[IronWing]

the program you are looking for is called Unmosaic

Is that the one that takes the original nine pics of girls and makes one woman?

 

[her209]

Enhance. Zoom. Enhance. Zoom.

 

[IcePickFreak]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2197696
I mean it is on the first page in OT and all.

 

[Jodell88]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2197696
I mean it is on the first page in OT and all.

I can't blame the OP for that. A better thread title would have avoided it.

 

[Analog]

I can't blame the OP for that. A better thread title would have avoided it.

a.k.a. Fuzzy Logic??? D:

 

[LordMorpheus]

Witchcraft

I understand the premise, but I cannot comprehend how it works.
What if the photo is simply out of focus and not a result of a shaky camera?

The algorithm estimates the blur kernel (basically what the image would look like if you had taken a picture of a single point light source) which gives you an idea of how the camera was moving. Using the kernel they can then come up with their best guess as to what the original image should have looked like - there is no "correct" answer as it's a poorly posed problem.

For an out-of-focus image, you can find the blur kernel but it'll just be a blob, not a track like a shaky-camera blurred image, and you won't be able to use the kernel to sharpen the image.

 

[hanoverphist]

Witchcraft

I understand the premise, but I cannot comprehend how it works.
What if the photo is simply out of focus and not a result of a shaky camera?

motion blur and plain blur are two different things, so id venture a guess that if you had a prog that could do this, it could differentiate between them.

and im of the same feeling, how does it know what to unblur?

 

[Eli]

The algorithm estimates the blur kernel (basically what the image would look like if you had taken a picture of a single point light source) which gives you an idea of how the camera was moving. Using the kernel they can then come up with their best guess as to what the original image should have looked like - there is no "correct" answer as it's a poorly posed problem.

For an out-of-focus image, you can find the blur kernel but it'll just be a blob, not a track like a shaky-camera blurred image, and you won't be able to use the kernel to sharpen the image.

Well that's funny, because the picture in the OP definitely isn't motion blur.

 

[purbeast0]

that truly is awesome if it is true and works as well as the 2 photos shown in the demo.

 

[LTC8K6]

that truly is awesome if it is true and works as well as the 2 photos shown in the demo.

My guess is, that image was blurred with PS and then unblurred with PS.

 

[spidey07]

That's it. I'm calling shenanigans. I call shenanigans on anything being able to do what is shown in those two images if the original is the blurred one.

 

[purbeast0]

To me, the sample above appears to be out of focus or even a blur/soften filter, not camera shake.

while i'm not saying this is truly unblurring that first image to the 2nd one, i've definitely taken pics that look blurry like that first one that were due to camera shakyness or lighting or some other factor.

 

[purbeast0]

That's it. I'm calling shenanigans. I call shenanigans on anything being able to do what is shown in those two images if the original is the blurred one.

the detail that is in the wood and the middle of the flowers looks like it's been "CSI"ed. it just looks like they got WAY more detail out of it than was in the "original" (blurred) photo.

 

[her209]

Did anyone click the link? Was that Dwight Shrute? The video was too blurry.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The "original photo" isn't an example of motion blur; it's the "after photo" with a PhotoShop blur filter used on it. Motion blur makes things look as though they are in motion, not out of focus... So, yeah, I call bullshit on that.

 

[zinfamous]

Did anyone click the link? Was that Dwight Shrute? The video was too blurry.

yes, it was Dwight Shrute.

Is it just me, or is that the most annoying set-up for a conference? seems so damn...intentionally hip. I wanted to barf.

 

[silverpig]

My guess is, that image was blurred with PS and then unblurred with PS.

More like just blurred with PS.

Also: they just stole this from CSI. They've had it for years.