Adobe's Image Deblurring Sneak Preview

stick-dan

Anyone else seen this? Pretty impressive, will more than likely be out in the next CS Release. Looks too good to leave out. What do people think?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xxjiQoTp864

Sir Gallagher

Yowza, very impressive.

DaireQuinlan

Cue overexcited cries of 'NO MOAR TRIPODS' as people rush in their droves to hock their manfrottos, followed by the predictable backlash and gnashing of teeth when CS5 is released and this feature is revealed to be only marginally useful in real life.

We'll image de-blur what we want, and smart content fill everything else goddamnit !

AnCatDubh

But, but, but,...... I like bokeh

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Cue overexcited cries of 'NO MOAR TRIPODS' as people rush in their droves to hock their manfrottos, followed by the predictable backlash and gnashing of teeth when CS5 is released and this feature is revealed to be only marginally useful in real life.

We'll image de-blur what we want, and smart content fill everything else goddamnit !

Actually you are right, the further technological advancement is applied, the less the need for you to have a camera. I hereby predict that with CS7 or thereabouts, you won't even need a camera in your hands to take stunning photographs - just hold your arms outstretched and make a click of the shutter release motion with your fingers. Optionally with your own voice, make an audible click if you want really amazing results - Though I wouldn't be running towards Paddy Power on the basis of my predictions tbh.

In fairness, yes technologically wonderful stuff comes from the Adobe camp. That said, they do tend to bloat things too. Meh, I'll probably download a trial of whatever they have just for a gander. I don't think it would be a must have feature for me - wouldn't overly encourage me into getting an adobe citizenship card. It should be seen as a 'save a single important shot where other circumstances contrived against you taking it right in the first place' type of thing rather than a way (style) to take or process photographs.

Can't wait to see what gets released next. Seriously. I think its great what they can do with image processing.

Andrew33

Please pardon my ignorance, is this just a leap forward on the sharpening tool technology or is a different method completely? I wonder will pics have that "over sharpened" look after being deblurred?

magicbastarder

this is great news. it is a further step on the road to allowing amateurs to take bad photos and run them through a few actions in PS to get professional quality photos.

magicbastarder

is it focus or motion blur which this fixes anyway? i haven't watched the video.

smash

Is it just an overuse of the sharpening tool?

smash

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

when CS5 is released and this feature is revealed to be only marginally useful in real life.

But CS5 was released ages ago. They're already on CS5.5

Andrew33

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is great news. it is a further step on the road to allowing amateurs to take bad photos and run them through a few actions in PS to get professional quality photos.

There's more to a good photo than just sharpness. A bad photo will always be a bad photo:D

magicbastarder

Andrew33 wrote: »

A bad photo will always be a bad photo:D

adobe are working on a plugin which distils the thought process of ansel adams, eliot erwitt and robert mapplethorpe into a few complex algorithms, and which will fix *any* poor photo.
though the mapplethorpe extension can be toggled on or off, the results sometimes upset people.

magicbastarder

btw, it's a good thing that the new refocussing tool didn't exist in 1987 or the plot of 'no way out' would have not been nearly as suspenseful.

well, that is if suspenseful is a word.

DaireQuinlan

Andrew33 wrote: »

There's more to a good photo than just sharpness. A bad photo will always be a bad photo:D

Nonsense ! Sharpness is the ultimate criteria by which ANY image can and should be judged. It's quantifiable and objective and lends itself well to graphs and rankings and what not. If I buy a lense for example I spend days poring over MTF charts to see how sharp it is. It's the most important thing.

magicbastarder wrote: »

adobe are working on a plugin which distils the thought process of ansel adams, eliot erwitt and robert mapplethorpe into a few complex algorithms, and which will fix *any* poor photo.
though the mapplethorpe extension can be toggled on or off, the results sometimes upset people.

The Jill Greenberg add-on actually makes your children cry.

Andrew33

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Nonsense ! Sharpness is the ultimate criteria by which ANY image can and should be judged. It's quantifiable and objective and lends itself well to graphs and rankings and what not. If I buy a lense for example I spend days poring over MTF charts to see how sharp it is. It's the most important thing.



The Jill Greenberg add-on actually makes your children cry.

Photography, like art, is subjective not objective.
You are completely missing the point, a sharp photo is not automatically a good photo, I'll stick to my original statement that a bad photo will always be a bad photo no matter how sharp it is.

DaireQuinlan

Andrew33 wrote: »

Photography, like art, is subjective not objective.
You are completely missing the point, a sharp photo is not automatically a good photo, I'll stick to my original statement that a bad photo will always be a bad photo no matter how sharp it is.

It is YOU who are missing the point. The overwhelming value of sharpness as a metric is that it IS objective, not SUBjective. Therefore it must be embraced in these inclusive times as the only criteria by which an image can be judged. I examine all my images at 200% and if I spot even the slightest bit of unsharpity or softage I discard them IMMEDIATELY !

magicbastarder wrote: »

adobe are working on a plugin which distils the thought process of ansel adams, eliot erwitt and robert mapplethorpe into a few complex algorithms, and which will fix *any* poor photo.
though the mapplethorpe extension can be toggled on or off, the results sometimes upset people.

The Edward Weston supplement can sometimes take as many as 30 tries to get your image completely spot-on.

magicbastarder

unfortunately, the robert capa plugin has shown an unfortunate tendency to melt 80% of the photos at random.

Andrew33

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

It is YOU who are missing the point. The overwhelming value of sharpness as a metric is that it IS objective, not SUBjective. Therefore it must be embraced in these inclusive times as the only criteria by which an image can be judged. I examine all my images at 200% and if I spot even the slightest bit of unsharpity or softage I discard them IMMEDIATELY !



The Edward Weston supplement can sometimes take as many as 30 tries to get your image completely spot-on.

:rolleyes: You're still missing it.
You take a badly composed, badly lit picture of a lousy subject but by your criteria if it's sharp (or can be sharpened), well then it's a good picture?

I think not.

DaireQuinlan

Andrew33 wrote: »

:rolleyes: You're still missing it.
You take a badly composed, badly lit picture of a lousy subject but by your criteria if it's sharp (or can be sharpened), well then it's a good picture?

Absolutely, yes. Even better still if it's taken with a full frame digitial camera with L lenses. That means it'll have good bokeh too.

magicbastarder

i think he means that not all sharp photos are good photos, but that a photo cannot be good if it is not sharp.

zenno

to be honest I thought focusmagic was better at fixing blurry pictures than photoshop cs5... example below.. and this is a very small program and has motion blur and focus fix..

below is a normal out of focus or blurry picture.



and this is just using the focus in the program.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think he means that not all sharp photos are good photos, but that a photo cannot be good if it is not sharp.

how dare you presume to misinterpret me ! I think I've been -QUITE- clear.

magicbastarder

zenno wrote: »

to be honest I thought focusmagic was better at fixing blurry pictures than photoshop cs5... example below.. and this is a very small program and has motion blur and focus fix..

it doesn't give nice results, though.
i would expect that to do a 'proper' job, it'd need to know how your lens is constructed, and how it behaves when out of focus.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

it doesn't give nice results, though.
i would expect that to do a 'proper' job, it'd need to know how your lens is constructed, and how it behaves when out of focus.

It's basically all about working out what the appropriate deconvolution function is. For OOF blur you'd assume a straight gaussian distribution as a default, but if you had the lens specifics you could indeed work out a more accurate one. Might be different for different focal lengths as well (if it's a zoomy zoomy) and at different apertures.

For motion blur you need some smart way of determining the character of the movement that caused the blur. If you can characterise that exactly then you can do pretty smart things with the result. I assume that this is the smarts behind this new Adobe thing. The actual 'un-blur' bit is a solved problem, its characterising the SOURCE of the blur is the area that's still being heavily researched.

zenno

magicbastarder wrote: »

it doesn't give nice results, though.
i would expect that to do a 'proper' job, it'd need to know how your lens is constructed, and how it behaves when out of focus.

yeah I suppose, it manages to clear it up somewhat but not perfect.

Andrew33

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

how dare you presume to misinterpret me ! I think I've been -QUITE- clear.

Whatever, fruitcake.