|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> Echo, focal blur and motion blur are all instances of convolution.
Are you sure that focal blur is a pure 2D convolution? If it was, wouldn't
you be able to add physically correct focal-blur to a perfectly sharp image
(eg a ray-traced image) with a simple convolution?
Ditto for motion blur - it's impossible to add motion blur by simply using a
convolution (for example some detail might be hidden behind the moving
object which then becomes visible in real motion blur).
> That means, hypothetically, that by applying a suitable *deconvolution*,
> you should be able to get back the original signal.
>
> Question: Is it actually feasible to do this in the real world?
The problem is when you apply a convolution to an image, you get a bigger
image (the size of the original image + the size of the convolution window).
The extra data around the edges is needed in order to do the deconvolution.
Obviously in a photo you don't get this information.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |