|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> No. Only if everything in the frame is at approximately the same focal
> distance does it approximate a 2D convolution.
I doubt that happens very often, usually the camera gets a point in focus
you didn't intend (and the bit you did intend is then out of focus).
> If the motion is "small" relative to the distance of the objects from the
> camera, then the blur should be approximately a 2D convolution.
But is it accurate enough to visibly improve the sharpness of an image?
Judging by all the software I've seen that claims to do this, usually not.
> This merely means that you can't deconvolve the edges properly.
True, more precisely a region half the size of the convolution kernel along
each edge.
> A much bigger problem is figuring out what the hell the convolution kernel
> might have been, given only the blurred image...
Indeed, and it might not be constant for every pixel.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |