Adobe MAX 2011 - Photoshop Image Deblurring Tool

Adobe is developing an image deblurring tool. The video is a presentation they call a sneak.

Unfortunately, the video isn't high quality. It's tough to see the changes the software made but the audience reaction is VERY strong.

From what I can tell the software analyzes the image and determines a template of how the image was blurred in the first place. It then reverses the blur to restore the image to what it should have looked like. I CAN'T WAIT to see this software work on some of the UFO pics that are around.

Originally posted by LazyGuy
Adobe is developing an image deblurring tool. The video is a presentation they call a sneak.

Unfortunately, the video isn't high quality. It's tough to see the changes the software made but the audience reaction is VERY strong.

From what I can tell the software analyzes the image and determines a template of how the image was blurred in the first place. It then reverses the blur to restore the image to what it should have looked like. I CAN'T WAIT to see this software work on some of the UFO pics that are around.

Looks promising, but i really don't think it can acuratly unblur old pictures. Understand that to fill in what is not there (blurs in this case) it needs to 'make-up' pixels to it's suroundings to fill the gaps. I guess i will try it on one of the thousand blured UFO photo's on the net. But i doubt you will get a stunning result tho.

Sounds like this would only work on pictures that have been blurred by a software program, not just blurry pictures.

Originally posted by mus8472
Sounds like this would only work on pictures that have been blurred by a software program, not just blurry pictures.

It would also work on nautural motion blur going by his description. If you notice that little curved line after he finishes analyzing the image, he calls it the "blur kernel" I think. And he said something about how it could also be viewed as the motion trajectory of the camera while the shutter is open, or something like that. So it basically looks at how the pixels were moved in order to cause the blur, and it reverses that to get the original. It could potentially work with many types of blurred images. I already have a few in mind.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by mus8472
Sounds like this would only work on pictures that have been blurred by a software program, not just blurry pictures.

It would also work on nautural motion blur going by his description. If you notice that little curved line after he finishes analyzing the image, he calls it the "blur kernel" I think. And he said something about how it could also be viewed as the motion trajectory of the camera while the shutter is open, or something like that. So it basically looks at how the pixels were moved in order to cause the blur, and it reverses that to get the original. It could potentially work with many types of blurred images. I already have a few in mind.

I was going to say something like that. You beat me to it.

Plus, I trust Adobe knows what they're doing.

reply to post by Required01


No, it actually removes two types of blur. Focus blur and motion blur. It basically analyzes the image to remove these two types of blur. It can probably do a whole lot more too. It can work on old photos as well.

Originally posted by mus8472
Sounds like this would only work on pictures that have been blurred by a software program, not just blurry pictures.

As I understand it, the software figures out how the image was blurred. In the video, after the analysis phase, there is a small image of a shaky curved line in black & gray. That line is the blur or the motion the camera made during the exposure. The image has most if not all of the data encoded with the blur. By reversing the blur on all of the pixels it moves them to where they should have been.

As I said, the quality of the video is too poor to see the effect clearly. I tried to find a picture example of the new Photoshop tool, but a Google image search using the keywords Photoshop Image Deblurring didn't come up with anything I saw as being correct. I did however discover another software tool that does a similar job. It's called Topaz In Focus. I found the following image which allegedly shows the effect of the software.


Sou rce

And the developer's homepage.
www.topazlabs.com...

Originally posted by BIGPoJo
reply to post by Required01

 

No, it actually removes two types of blur. Focus blur and motion blur. It basically analyzes the image to remove these two types of blur. It can probably do a whole lot more too. It can work on old photos as well.

OK so tell me this, how can it 'remove' a blur from a scanned in image? It's not a digital picture, so it becomes a flat jpeg.

How is it going to replace the blurs with shaprness? Where does he get the data that what it originally should be? It makes it up by using the surrounding pixels.

Originally posted by Required01
OK so tell me this, how can it 'remove' a blur from a scanned in image? It's not a digital picture, so it becomes a flat jpeg.

How is it going to replace the blurs with shaprness? Where does he get the data that what it originally should be? It makes it up by using the surrounding pixels.

I assume the software would fix a purely hypothetical blur with a purely hypothetical correction.

reply to post by Required01


Without looking at the source-code of the plugin, I am not sure how they do it. I can tell you that it does in fact work but its a trade secret as to how they do it. When it hits the market you can download a demo and try it on your photos if you are still not convinced.

This technology has been in use by the FBI for a while. It is how they catch child sexual predators, and was behind a major arrest a couple of years ago.

I foresee that this will be used, as in all new technology, in porn. All those housewives whose hubby's put their pic on the web will sincerely regret it.

reply to post by LazyGuy


Interesting, but I don't think it could make miracles, and only a miracle can correct most of blurred UFO photos that have appeared during all these years.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
If you notice that little curved line after he finishes analyzing the image, he calls it the "blur kernel" I think. And he said something about how it could also be viewed as the motion trajectory of the camera while the shutter is open, or something like that. So it basically looks at how the pixels were moved in order to cause the blur, and it reverses that to get the original.

There's a description of what a Kernel is in the post in my sig.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
This technology has been in use by the FBI for a while. It is how they catch child sexual predators, and was behind a major arrest a couple of years ago.

I foresee that this will be used, as in all new technology, in porn. All those housewives whose hubby's put their pic on the web will sincerely regret it.

It's not really a technology, and it isn't really new. It's just mathematics that have been use in forensics and imaging for a good long while. (By good long while the person it is named after was born in the very late 1800s I believe)

Regarding the sex predators thing ... They presented this to the public as brand new tech a while ago. It was simply reversing a kernal/deconvolution method using not so straight forward mathmatics. It introduces artifacts for varying reasons, but you can bring back a surprising amount of detail. (thelede.blogs.nytimes.com...) There is some educated guess work involved in reverse engineering these things also. I'm not 100% sure this app will be for random things like that though ... motion blur is/focus artifacts is a bit different mathematically from say a twirl. If it could reverse a twirl there is a whole bunch of other crazy stuff this would do as well!

What people forget about photoshop is that it isn't the only image processing application, and it hides a lot of the mathematics from the user. We don't do forensic imaging in programs like adobe, and imaging programs used for things like forensics, science and engineering are not amazingly secretive black ops things and never have been ... though at one point there was a certain understanding that a person shouldn't share what is or isn't possible with the general public at times.

Likely Adobe is using Wiener deconvolution and similar mathematics in combination with other 'artistic' deconvolution processes to reproduce an entire image, since the exact A to B point of how to get there isn't really that important for artistic purposes. This would be a nice way to get around some of the draw backs to the mathmatics involved (could write massive essay on this so I stop typing about it), and will do what Adobe is good at; hiding maths!

Here is some more infos:
MatLab Link
Wiener Deconvolution

Image engineering software is of course black hole which a person can hurl massive piles of monies down if they so wish. Adobe is simply following a trend of all artistic software houses of slowly closing the gap between the super 'pro' use of software and the artistic use. This is getting much easier. In the past such software 100% required an operator person to do some leg work to speed up the whole process, but since most people have what are basically super computers in their home now ... a whole bunch of the maths can be handed to the computer to handle and instead of taking weeks it takes perhaps minutes to produce the same results with the ghost in the machine finding the point spread functions etc ...

Couple of things I'm surprised no one has brought up ...

1. The release of this information to the public at large is quite interesting. Now many more persons will be aware that this is possible (and has been possible) for quite a long time. It will make criminal more careful ... although for a long time CSI and shows like this have been encourage to imply police are super human. I suppose making criminals 'fearful' is the new vogue over hiding law enforcement's hand.

2. This might be useful for lay person image analysis ... but won't be forensic level due to the hidden maths issue. Furthermore, it may cause even more 'false positives' in dealing with excessively noisey and crazy imagery, or even with the wrong person at the controls. It doesn't really solve the issue and I doubt it ever will for the amateur investigator ... since most amateur investigators don't ask about the maths involved before crying 'you modified the image! is fake!' (on both sides of the fence)

Okay! Rambling over.

As clever as this process is i dont think its works for out of focus shots , it seems it only works for blurring due to hand shake. So its only going to work on a handful of blurred pics.

Theres a difference between blurring and out of focus.

Sry , double post.

All of the de-blurring or resolution increase software aids are at best mathematical guesswork and on average pure imagination cloning. You aren't going to process a blurred image of a tree and have the software render the leaves, it's just that simple. You can add pixels and guess where the edges are but it's not real, it's imaginary. The real information just isn't there, it's lost. You'd be better off getting a traditional artist's rendition. I have to do this all of the time, "This image of this device is blurred, can you draw it instead for us"? Well pal, I can't make out if this is a bar or an axel, or even if it's a cube or cylinder! Software won't make you an artist, but it could aid your delivery if your story is good enough.

My guess is that forensic image enhancing software can't be admissible in court, but it could lead the detectives to question the right perpetrator and dig out the crime from questioning him and piecing together a link to the crime.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
As clever as this process is i dont think its works for out of focus shots , it seems it only works for blurring due to hand shake. So its only going to work on a handful of blurred pics.

Theres a difference between blurring and out of focus.

edit on 12-10-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

There is a difference but it really depends.

There are methods that will apply both to motion blur and a standard post bluring functions since those are fairly linear. Also some defocusing in some lens are fairly linear also.

Some other functions literally remove or damage numbers (complex to explain mathematically) that would be required to completely reverse 'damage' to an image. The more variables that are added the result becomes non-linear and reverse engineering in a logical way becomes considerbly harder. Lens artifacts etc from out of focus things will become a problem for an automated system. Things like bokeh etc ... will likely cause artifacts. It's mostly about getting this part correct: Point Spread Function

Originally posted by Illustronic
All of the de-blurring or resolution increase software aids are at best mathematical guesswork and on average pure imagination cloning. You aren't going to process a blurred image of a tree and have the software render the leaves, it's just that simple.

It depends on the mathematics involved.

Your average photoshop job by your average user, absolutely this happens. You're simply applying an arbitary kernel/maths to an image without doing any of the ground work, or with any of the understanding. However, several of those basic filters/operators/scripts can be used in court and are already accepted if applied correctly under precedent.

There are also more indepth functions which do actually bring back blurred or other damaged details quite reliably. To give an idea, a finger print with 15 - 40% detail can be restored and presented in most courts as evidence with the correct ground work because it is essentially a predictable Moiré pattern. (Moire Pattern)

My guess is that forensic image enhancing software can't be admissible in court, but it could lead the detectives to question the right perpetrator and dig out the crime from questioning him and piecing together a link to the crime.

edit on 12-10-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)

Not true.

When presenting an image in court there are various challenges or specifications that the evidence has to meet. For example:

Daubert Standard
Frye Standard

Standards etc vary depending on court and country ... also we're getting more progressive about what methods are generally accepted; especially since it is becoming much easier to present these details to a jury/judge in a court room as technology advances.

The biggest challenge is providing the image and the explanation in a digestable viewable format. Some of these issues need to be tackled by the judge and the expert witnesses together, some are challenged directly in front of jurors when it comes to chances for error etc ... That's where corresponding evidence will add to the case in particular, and also where most mistakes are made!

It has got a little more interesting over the years since it's much more common now for a mathematical image experts to be placed against photoshop experts (defendants cousin 'Tommy') in court and to have to respond to challenges. There have been cases were image evidence has been mishandled, or presented poorly which results in mistakes or items being thrown out. It's very frustrating to be on the receiving end of. Especially say when the percentage error for example is also presented as the actual change of being incorrect. IE a finger print with 1% artifacts/damage does not mean 1 in a 100 chance of being incorrect!

There are also many adjustments which are incredibly common and have a precedent of acceptance, especially when providing jurors with hard copies of evidence to open up tonal ranges so images can be seen when printed. In a small case it's expensive to print out high quality images, but you still want to give hard copies so jurors remember them after two weeks of a hearing.

Many courts do now allow other methods of presenting evidence now though, including direct digital means to jury members. So it's getting much easier.

Basically a good image with solid COC (chain of control) noting where it came from, how it got there, what was done to it, the margin of error etc ... is treated the same as most other pieces of forensic evidence (blood as example).

Anywaaaaaaay rambling over!

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by LazyGuy

 

Interesting, but I don't think it could make miracles, and only a miracle can correct most of blurred UFO photos that have appeared during all these years.

I'm surprised by your skepticism. You of all people should know that mathematics can do seemingly miraculous things.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

Originally posted by LazyGuy
I'm surprised by your skepticism. You of all people should know that mathematics can do seemingly miraculous things.

The difference is on the seemingly.

As a programmer and a photography fan (although not as technically advanced as I would like), I know the limitations faced by any system working with a photo like the ones I have seen posted on ATS.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Interesting, but I don't think it could make miracles, and only a miracle can correct most of blurred UFO photos that have appeared during all these years.

Not only that, like the various mysterious lunar and Martian "artifacts" that are sometimes discussed here, nearly all of them become much less mysterious once better photos of them are obtained.

P.S. -- The thing is, we already have plenty of pretty clear UFO photos. The problem is not the clarity. The problem is that they don't prove anything to begin with.