|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
scott wrote:
>> Echo, focal blur and motion blur are all instances of convolution.
>
> Are you sure that focal blur is a pure 2D convolution?
No. Only if everything in the frame is at approximately the same focal
distance does it approximate a 2D convolution.
> Ditto for motion blur - it's impossible to add motion blur by simply
> using a convolution.
If the motion is "small" relative to the distance of the objects from
the camera, then the blur should be approximately a 2D convolution.
>> 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.
This merely means that you can't deconvolve the edges properly.
A much bigger problem is figuring out what the hell the convolution
kernel might have been, given only the blurred image...
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |