> 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