|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
scott wrote:
>> 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).
No, as demonstrated, the problem I usually have is that my camera's
optics physically can't focus near enough. That blurry image I posted is
of a flat piece of ground. The focal depth is probably near-identical
everywhere. (Except that I think the ground plane might be tilted
relative to the camera...)
> 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.
OK. That's kind of what I was asking. DSP theory says it can be done,
but are the results worth it?
(DSP theory also says that a perfect deconvolution would require
infinity gain at certain frequencies. You just *know* that's not going
to work well in the Real World.)
>> 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.
For the image I'm thinking of, that wouldn't matter. The bit I want is
the person's head in the center.
>> 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.
I suppose if it changes sufficiently slowly, it might still be possible
to estimate... maybe...
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |