Photoshop "plug-in" prototype that fixes blurry images after the fact on your computer!
The magic happens around the 2:00 mark.
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/max-2011-sneak-peeks/max-2011-sneak-peek-image-deblurring/
Fixing Blurry Images (Is VR obsolete?)
(27 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Wow... I want this!
Posted 1 year ago # -
It would be cool, but I think most people would still like clear images to start with. No one wants to have to fix every image due to sloppy technique.
Looks neat, but I wonder how well it really does work.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wow this is really something thanks for passing this on Niko. This was the one thing I could not fix in my images, that and excessive heavy noise from my old D300 days. Heavy blur and noise usually meant straight into the garbage can for me. D700 fixed the noise problem years ago for me, and now I'll give this plugin a look for the occasional blurry image.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This reminds me of my golfing days when the $99 videos could fix any golf swing, but that 99 bucks would only make me more lazy on the tee box and my drives would go further into the cow pasture along the fairway.
Photography is no different than golf (in my opinion), no gizmo is going to make you a better photographer. The only thing in both cases that will improve your performance is discipline. The best part about discipline is it's absolutely free.
Saying that, I invested $4.99 into an accessory like this 2 years ago and I swear by it. It's called gaffers tape, put a 1/2 inch of it over your VR switch to keep it from coming "on" and it'll be the best thing you ever did!
Anyways, just saying what works for me and I know I'm not a good photographer (yet). But if I ever become a good photographer it won't be from some $99 gizmo but from discipline and a 5 buck roll of gaffers tape.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ Why stop at VR? If you really want to have discipline then turn off AF and put gaffers tape over that too.
I think this deblurring thing is awesome. Hopefully they'll have it in the next Photoshop. It seems to be very memory intensive though. You'll need a beefy computer to run it. Even the computer Jue Wang was using in the presentation had a hard time running it. Imagine how slow it would run on a 36mp photo! I wonder if it only works with camera shake and not motion blur.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think he was saying he keeps it taped to off, SS.
Niko, thanks for the link. That is absolutely amazing stuff. How many times have you had someone ask you if you can correct an image because it's "out of focus?" I think it won't replace VR, but they should get this in camera ASAP. I'm interested to know if you can use any point spread function for the kernel. You could conceivably take your point spread function from a point of light that's out of focus in the background and reconstruct whatever is out of focus by that same amount (it would ruin anything in focus, but that's what layers are for, right?).
You know it's only a matter of time. The Sony NEX does something similar with multiple short-exposure shots, but this de-blurring algorithm will be a lot more resource-hungry than a cross-correlation algorithm to line up a few exposures. But especially if you helped the algorithm that finds the point spread function by using the camera's gyros to map how the camera was shaking during exposure, it seems like it would be possible. It might take a few minutes to process a single photo, though. NR Forum should file patent for that in-camera process right now. Do we have funds for things like that, admin? ;-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
heck, the pentagon has been doing this since 1987 (No Way Out with Kevin Costner). Seriously though, I wonder if this is why n*wegg just had a big discount on PS CS5 the other day. Now I can pay the difference I saved on the upgrade.
Posted 1 year ago # -
jonnyapple said:
I think he was saying he keeps it taped to off, SS.That's why I said he should tape AF off too if he wants to be really disciplined
Bland said:
It's called gaffers tape, put a 1/2 inch of it over your VR switch to keep it from coming "on" and it'll be the best thing you ever did!...if I ever become a good photographer it won't be from some $99 gizmo but from discipline and a 5 buck roll of gaffers tape.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Really. I would rather start with a better image (using IQ) rather than relying on software to create a blur free picture. While I have no reason to doubt that the software works, I just don't see getting a better image from less accurate data.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I took this as being more along the lines of a recovery feature, not something that you would use to process all of your photos because you are a really bad photographer. Certainly not something that you would want to rely on (and not something that would make anyone a better photographer). I'm sure if you nailed the shot in the first place, it would turn out much better... but there is the occasional screwed up shot that might be able to be saved by software like this that would have been thrown out otherwise.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago #
-
i was thinking about this before and I thought of csi, you know the scenes where the chinese guy clicks the button and the case is magically solved.
I bet this tech has been used for years already. it was most likely first used by the good old USA govt to work out how to kill as many people as possible, then used by police to catch bad guys, and is only now finding it's way to us.
what is the military using now? i bet it's better than this. maybe they have an infra red one that converts to clear colour images or something, i bet that would be something they'de like.
Posted 1 year ago # -
VelocityStop said:
I took this as being more along the lines of a recovery feature, not something that you would use to process all of your photos because you are a really bad photographer. Certainly not something that you would want to rely on (and not something that would make anyone a better photographer). I'm sure if you nailed the shot in the first place, it would turn out much better... but there is the occasional screwed up shot that might be able to be saved by software like this that would have been thrown out otherwise.I was going to add the same comment yesterday. I don't think it is to be used always...and who wants an added step to do while editing?
Posted 1 year ago # -
tcole1983 said:
I don't think it is to be used always...and who wants an added step to do while editing?Yeah... I can think of a few of my shots where I'd have liked this kind of feature (LOL), and I suspect that this is a filter or plug in that we'd want on specific shots only, not as a part of the regular work flow.
As others say, improve the IQ and stop shaking first and this will be needed less, but nice anyway for those 'few' where the wind blew hard.
Last week I did a great shot of someone about 60 yards away from me with a 200mm zoom on a windy day. I can just see blur with it at about 12x16" but reduce the print quality to a regular newspaper or web picture level and while most on here would see the fault, I doubt that 99% of the viewing public would.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Abhinav said:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15543694@N06/5117266025
lol
This is in one of the referenced blogs. I found it very interesting:
http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~leojia/projects/robust_deblur/
(admin: that is *not* a commercial link, and if you can leave it, I am sure many here will find it of value).
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ lets see how is it :)
I've tried topaz infocus and its just ok .
Posted 1 year ago # -
Abhinav said:
^ lets see how is it :)I've tried topaz infocus and its just ok .
I guess I don't have the right kind of 'blur' in my shots that it ever does enough before digital artifacts show themselves. I would agree that "just ok" (emphasis on 'just') when it works, is about a good summary.
EDIT: But I really do like Topaz denoise 5 - now THAT is a plugin that does it for me. :-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Abhinav, I don't understand what that photo has to do with this topic or why you find it so funny?
Posted 1 year ago # -
"synthetic blur" really! that's the best they come up with after getting caught with their boo boo.
A company like adobe is expected to make full disclosure beforehand not after getting caught. All it takes is one brief sentence "This image was sharp and perfect before applying synthetic blur to test our model"
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
NikoDoby said:
@Abhinav, I don't understand what that photo has to do with this topic or why you find it so funny?Its the third picture, which they fixed it using deblur .
In reality it seems they took the sharp picture from flickr (posted above )and in PS they added BLUR in to it .[adobe pretended as if they fixed the bad picture]
Topaz Denoise is my Fav plugin to . Its awesome to say the least :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
That is going all over the web. It is not as big of a deal as some are making it. Below is their comment on the 3rd photo.
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! http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2011/10/behind-all-the-buzz-deblur-sneak-peek.html
I think it is amazing.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I like it too, I hope they let me upgrade....but wait I do not need it, my pictures are always in focus.
/OT alert on/
With regards to third picture Abhinav refers to: It's called "Reverse Engineering" a cheap trick, the chinese do it all the time. Remember that Stealth Helo that went down on OBL raid in pakistan, the duplicitous pakistani's let the chinese have a good look at it for 21 days before letting us ship it back home. Wont surprise me if both of this crook countries come up with a jointly manufactured stealth helo, and sell it to likes of North Korea and Iran.
/OT alert off/
Thanks! now I feel better.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
