Photoshop will soon debunk/confirm everything.

Good now lets get rid of 90% of the photos that are known fakes!

I cant wait to get my hands on this extension.

My take on what the article is saying is this, the extension is for getting rid of motion blur. Motion blur is caused by the camera being moved while the picture is being taken. It will not get rid of blur caused by the camera being out of focus.

If the blur is caused by motion then I dont think that you have to "assume" data you just have to reconstruct what is there already, If for example your hand moved 1cm to the left while you were taking the photo all of the data you need to sharpen the photo back up is actually still contained in the image but it has been blurred across the image, its just spread out as if someone had wiped a pallet knife over some blobs of wet paint, there isnt actually any data missing its just been moved to a different area.

If an image however is blurred because of being out of focus then the data needed to make it sharp just isnt there and there isn't much you can do to correct it

Originally posted by davespanners
My take on what the article is saying is this, the extension is for getting rid of motion blur. Motion blur is caused by the camera being moved while the picture is being taken. It will not get rid of blur caused by the camera being out of focus.

In the video, the first example seemed to take out motion blur. No doubt that's possible.

In the second example, he sharpened text that was fuzzy/out of focus. I couldn't tell how well it worked at the resolution of the video, but the audience who could see it better, seemed impressed.

So maybe it can do more with out of focus images than you think? In the case of text it may be able to cheat since there are a finite number of known text shapes.

When the true shape of the image could be anything and there's no way to cheat, it may not work as well. But even now I have a sharpen feature on my computer, that helps a little bit with out of focus images. But it only does so much, it can't make a badly out of focus image appear in focus. It can look for edges that are slightly fuzzy and make them slightly less fuzzy and better defined.

reply to post by garbageface


This is great news for ATS indeed!! can't wait. bad News for women who photoshop their photos to look thin and more attractive tho

reply to post by garbageface

someone forward this image to the photoshop dev't team. I don't think they'll have kodak develop the negative with state-of-the-art process anytime soon. That would've been better to send to these guys but this will have to do for now.

hop to it, people

I want to be able to zoom in 10,000X and see detail

In the era of photoshop and CGI, UFO photos and videos can simply never be considered good evidence, at least not without corroborative witness testimony, (hopefully numerous and credible witnesses), and other evidence to strengthen the case.

Every generation of Photoshop tools like that are improved. With the plug-in utilities they are doing what Photoshop can already do, only they save you time by simplifying it. In a business workflow saving a few minutes per image can be worth thousands a year easily.

Just in the desktop publishing I do for work, Photoshop likely saves me more than $30,000 a year. The large number of plug-ins I've purchased also end up paying for themselves. The price is a non-issue. For a hobbyist however it can be worth it also.

Fixing motion blur is already possible and I even have an old plug-in that does a remarkable job of that if you know how to use it.

The video is not viewable now in the OP. It says it's private. Likely an in-house video for CS6. It's about time for that to pop up with the .5 releases of many Adobe programs being already out. Generally when the new full releases come out, the improvements negate the plug-ins and they have to scramble to make them better than what's in Photoshop already.

It is impossible to identify fakes if done by an experienced person right now. People who say they can are not being honest. Yes, they can easily find evidence in work done by amateurs and fortunately most hoax stuff is done by kids and adults who have no idea what they are doing.

For an example of the worst of the worst try clicking on this site. The linked site shamelessly presents crap and many examples of how not to use the software. On purpose I think. My opinion but I think I'm right.

People need to understand what interpolation is and how the filters and such work. They cannot pull anything out of an image that is not in the original. They add things in fact that are not there through interpolation. People being honest will always give you access to the original file straight from the camera. Anyone who will not, no matter what excuse they use are hiding something.

There is like three threads on this now ...

Adobe MAX 2011 - Photoshop Image Deblurring
New program will rescue blurry UFO pics?

My thoughts are posted in the Adobe MAX 2011 thread, and cover most of the discussion things here.

Basics ... it's nothing really new. It's taking existing maths that have existed for a fairly long time and implementing them in a professional art application.

You can do forensic style things in photoshop if you understand the maths behind it, but photoshop is designed to hide maths not display them. Anyway, infos is in that thread.

Really 'UFO forensics' isn't going anywhere till persons go the same way courts have gone and start working out acceptable method etc ... which is not likely going to happen any time soon. Especially given people's eagerness to scream 'oh you edited the image!' if a person so much as touches a curves slider. They need to sort out the basics before moving onto error rates in reversing non-linear functions.

I'm sure though ... like the magical invert filter, we will be seeing a lot more of this kind of stuff if the app comes out.

Did this ever come out?!???

originally posted by: garbageface
This still obviously will need a lot of work, but I'm excited to see what comes of it. I can only imagine the amount of things that will be easily debunked or confirmed as a result of this technology.

a reply to: ATSZOMBIE

No, it wasn't released in CS6.

That sucks! We are awaiting such a tool to immediately wipe out 99.9% fake pictures..

originally posted by: reject
hop to it, people

That image is easy enough to debunk even without the fancy processing. It's some kind of tiny fiber or hair that got caught up in the mechanism and created a bubble.