Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Adobe shows off new 'undo photo blur' feature
http://www.physorg.com ^ | 13 OCT 2011 | Bob Yirka

Posted on 10/13/2011 11:59:03 AM PDT by Red Badger

(PhysOrg.com) -- Despite all the advances in digital photography, most people are still plagued by the problem of blurry photos, a problem compounded by the use of cameras embedded in cell phones due to their small size. Problems of blurring generally can be divided into two types. The first is problems with focusing, which can usually be avoided if the camera operator will simply wait for the automatic focusing feature of their camera to do its job. The second type is much more difficult to solve as it involves camera movement while the image is being shot. It’s this second problem that Adobe has been working on as part of its Photoshop imaging software package. And based on a video shot by someone identified only as peterelst who posted it on Youtube, a recent demo of a new feature, or "sneak" as Adobe calls it, seems to indicate that they have made significant progress.

The technology behind the new feature (that may or may not actually wind up in Photoshop according to company reps) involves an algorithm based on the idea of blind deconvolution, which is where an iterative process is used to facilitate a point spread function. The idea is to calculate the speed at which the camera was moving when the picture was snapped so as to undo its effects. Or in other words, it attempts to reconstruct what the camera lens would have seen but for the movement. This is in stark contrast to current de-blurring functions in Photoshop and other image editing software which analyze an image looking for lines that form edges and bolsters them to make them appear sharper. The results with the new technique, at least in the demo, appear to be quite dramatic.

With the new feature, the photo is first loaded onto the computer and into the Photoshop type app, then some predefined parameters are loaded that more clearly define what sort of image is to be looked at. The image is then analyzed and a grayscale thumbnail (blur kernel) is displayed which shows how the image was blurred. Next a restore feature is activated and the blurred image is replaced with the newly sharpened image.

Despite this bit of theatrics by Adobe and lots of gushing by mainstream media seemingly intent on describing the new technology as the end of blurry photos, things are not quite as rosy as all that. This is because if the new feature is indeed added to Photoshop, it will still be out of most people’s grasp due to the high price of the product. Very few are likely to shell out hundreds of dollars to just to clear up a few images taken haphazardly on their cell phones or even their cameras. What really needs to happen is for this technology to be implemented in cameras so operators will never know they blurred their image by jiggling their camera in the first place.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Technical
KEYWORDS: adobe; camera; focus; photoshop
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

VIDEO AT LINK............

1 posted on 10/13/2011 11:59:13 AM PDT by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

Photoshop Ping!..........


2 posted on 10/13/2011 11:59:45 AM PDT by Red Badger (Furthermore, I think Obama must be impeached....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Evil capitalists strike again!!!!

vob


3 posted on 10/13/2011 12:02:29 PM PDT by Vob (free radical community organizer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Don’t believe it. Too easy to show these so called samples.

Like how do those red distant flowers not get processed into focus too.


4 posted on 10/13/2011 12:05:11 PM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT in 2006, now living north of Tampa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Nothing but fire can fix this image.

5 posted on 10/13/2011 12:06:19 PM PDT by TSgt (When in the Course of human events...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
But can it remove the pixelization used to hide the identity of a mob informant during a television interview? Hey, that's Jimmy the Stoolie! When did he turn against us?
6 posted on 10/13/2011 12:09:11 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Compare "Delay is preferable to error" - Thomas Jefferson // "Pass this bill now!" - Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I call BS on that sample. Thats a focus blur problem, not a motion blur problem.


7 posted on 10/13/2011 12:09:18 PM PDT by Paradox (The rich SHOULD be paying more taxes, and they WOULD, if they could make more money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
"an algorithm based on the idea of blind deconvolution, which is where an iterative process is used to facilitate a point spread function."

What more need be said?

8 posted on 10/13/2011 12:09:50 PM PDT by steveo (PETO-VT-IN-MARI-SVB-CRVCE-AVSTRALI-SEPELIAR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

Could be a selection algorithm set for foreground or based on aperture setting in metadata. Could ALS be done
Manually by blurring the backround back in with a layer mask.


9 posted on 10/13/2011 12:10:47 PM PDT by TADSLOS (Rick Perry engages in corporate welfare via Texas TEF/ETF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: George from New England

The red flowers are outside the focal point of the lens, and were never in focus in the photo. Can undo what wasn’t done.


10 posted on 10/13/2011 12:11:40 PM PDT by SuzyQue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

While I’m not doubtful of the advances Adobe has made, I am very doubtful of these before-and-after images. That’s not a motion blur, it’s a gaussian blur applied to the original.


11 posted on 10/13/2011 12:12:19 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveo

That it can increase the signal to noise ratio and decrease the entropy of the image.


12 posted on 10/13/2011 12:12:29 PM PDT by battlecry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
If you have a Photoshop ping list - please add my name!
13 posted on 10/13/2011 12:12:29 PM PDT by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

This should be useful for Japanese porn.


14 posted on 10/13/2011 12:13:47 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Call me old fashioned, but learning how to use a focus ring would be quicker and easier.


15 posted on 10/13/2011 12:14:30 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Yes, the real test of this feature’s effectiveness would be a low light image in focus of a moving object using a slow shutter speed and low ISO setting without using flash.


16 posted on 10/13/2011 12:15:13 PM PDT by TADSLOS (Rick Perry engages in corporate welfare via Texas TEF/ETF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: warsaw44

Shadow Ace has the Digital Technology Ping list.........


17 posted on 10/13/2011 12:15:27 PM PDT by Red Badger (Furthermore, I think Obama must be impeached....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

But the video is pretty interesting! Those results look more likely. Very impressive.


18 posted on 10/13/2011 12:16:16 PM PDT by Paradox (The rich SHOULD be paying more taxes, and they WOULD, if they could make more money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

...and you would know this because..........?


19 posted on 10/13/2011 12:16:19 PM PDT by Red Badger (Furthermore, I think Obama must be impeached....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

That’s pretty cool


20 posted on 10/13/2011 12:17:56 PM PDT by therightliveswithus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

Or.....”Beauty may be only skin deep, but UGLY goes right down to the bone.”


21 posted on 10/13/2011 12:19:16 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Already been done. A couple years back a guy posted video of himself raping children but with his face blurred out.

The cops “unblurred” it, arrested and convicted him.


22 posted on 10/13/2011 12:21:02 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

The Adobe PhotoshoppingBag feature might be of some use there.

23 posted on 10/13/2011 12:22:39 PM PDT by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

24 posted on 10/13/2011 12:26:25 PM PDT by rdax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

My guess is that eventually this will become feature with a camera, just like so many others. One step in the right direction.


25 posted on 10/13/2011 12:26:51 PM PDT by flaglady47 (When the gov't fears the people, liberty; When the people fear the gov't, tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

My friends told me all about it.


26 posted on 10/13/2011 12:26:51 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

ROFLMAO!


27 posted on 10/13/2011 12:27:09 PM PDT by TSgt (When in the Course of human events...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

They used this back in 1987 to try to identify “Yuri” in “No Way Out.”


28 posted on 10/13/2011 12:27:31 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

This is because if the new feature is indeed added to Photoshop, it will still be out of most people’s grasp due to the high price of the product.

<><><><

Yea, high priced for a couple of weeks.

Anybody remember the price of the IBM PC when it first came out? You know, the 8088 chip with 4K of RAM and 2 floppy drives?

It will be in Gimp (the freeware equivalent of Photoshop) overnight.


29 posted on 10/13/2011 12:32:17 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Would love to see the results when used on some of the vintage photographs I have in my collection.


30 posted on 10/13/2011 12:32:48 PM PDT by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

31 posted on 10/13/2011 12:35:49 PM PDT by Brandonmark (2012: Our Hope IS Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

How many bits per pixel of dynamic range resolution were provided by the camera that took the flower picture?


32 posted on 10/13/2011 12:38:23 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

How many bits per pixel of dynamic range resolution were provided by the camera that took the flower picture?


33 posted on 10/13/2011 12:38:26 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George from New England
Don’t believe it. Too easy to show these so called samples.

Looks more like the photo has gaussian blur applied then removed.
34 posted on 10/13/2011 12:38:43 PM PDT by cripplecreek (ALCS/NLCS playoff thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2789907/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

You may need new set of ‘friends’.......


35 posted on 10/13/2011 12:39:31 PM PDT by Red Badger (Furthermore, I think Obama must be impeached....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
So when released photos are blurred to hide the identity of a person, the facial features can be restored?
36 posted on 10/13/2011 12:43:38 PM PDT by Deaf Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
much more difficult to solve as it involves camera movement...

Three mutually perpendicular velocimeters/accelerometers integrated on a chip inside the camera storing medadata would make calculating the deconvolution kernal almost trivial.
37 posted on 10/13/2011 12:44:04 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

kernel, metadata. lunchtime.


38 posted on 10/13/2011 12:45:58 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
Three mutually perpendicular velocimeters/accelerometers integrated on a chip inside the camera storing medadata would make calculating the deconvolution kernal almost trivial.

Well, of course, everybody knows that..........whatever it is..........

39 posted on 10/13/2011 12:48:52 PM PDT by Red Badger (Furthermore, I think Obama must be impeached....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Deaf Smith

Well no, that’s a different kind of blurring, more like pixellation.........


40 posted on 10/13/2011 12:50:05 PM PDT by Red Badger (Furthermore, I think Obama must be impeached....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TSgt

AAAAGGGGHHHHH!

My EYES!!!

Next thing you know, somebody will post a photo of Frances Fox Piven.


41 posted on 10/13/2011 12:50:59 PM PDT by Westbrook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

LMAO...


42 posted on 10/13/2011 12:52:20 PM PDT by Gator113 (~ Just livin' life~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

43 posted on 10/13/2011 12:54:42 PM PDT by Red Badger (Furthermore, I think Obama must be impeached....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

HAHAHA! I thought those two photos were supposed to be supplied as a joke. There is absolutely NO way you could get the photo on the right from the one on the left. The detail is simply not there. Not even close.

I was shocked to see the same before and after at the link.

I need to go back to see if it is the Onion.


44 posted on 10/13/2011 12:57:28 PM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]




Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Gary and Harriet Had a Fight
Gary Has Taken Up X-Treme Skateboarding Competition

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!


Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly

Planning to donate at least $10? You can sponsor
one or more New Monthly Donors for no additional cost
FReepmail TheOldLady

45 posted on 10/13/2011 1:05:01 PM PDT by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Already been done. A couple years back a guy posted video of himself raping children but with his face blurred out.

Actually what he did was apply a pinwheel distortion to his face and the cops had a programmer write a routine to remap the swirl, or unwind it as it were.

46 posted on 10/13/2011 1:08:02 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

Whatever it was, good for them.


47 posted on 10/13/2011 1:12:53 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue
...The red flowers are outside the focal point of the lens, and were never in focus in the photo. Can undo what wasn’t done...

Well, if the yellow flowers WERE inside the focal point why were they out of focus?

48 posted on 10/13/2011 1:14:48 PM PDT by FReepaholic (I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Thats a focus blur problem, not a motion blur problem.

Exactly. There's no deconvolution information to be gained from that blur image. Typical un-tech article/editing.

49 posted on 10/13/2011 1:16:14 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: flaglady47

With cameras going the way of the smartphones and including accelerometers, sure, easy thing.


50 posted on 10/13/2011 1:18:10 PM PDT by Moose Burger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson