Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by davidbiedny
At the end of the day something that can put a tiny bit of detail back into a photograph is not going to go very far in solving the UFO mystery like
you were suggesting.
Depends on the situation I suppose. I'm gonna be a bit brief and simple, but there are lots of books and things if someone gets interested; especially
on the more basic things. Also am sure some folks know most or at least some of this stuff already ... I wrote some stuff on ATS about sharpening ages
The basic sharpen in paintshop isn't really doing what it says. There is no 'unsharpening' occurring mathematically. Side effects like bringing up
noise, haloing etc ... really damage smaller objects; especially edges. (Eye detail for example or tiny ship with martian in). Often it's just an
application of a laplacian or unsharp mask to 'bring up' detail for want of better words. It will never fix a severe out of focus image as an example.
Sharpen filters shine at just bringing an extra bit of emphasis to a photograph. The side effects can be a little too obvious for harsh artistic use
and it cannot correct for lens movement. Its a little 'entry level' for most purposes.
I'm not saying that Wiener (and other - I saw Tikhonov in the options) deconvolution toys are the bestest thing ever ... but for getting a look at a
blurred image when you have no idea how that image was captured and are unsure of the PSF it's okay!
The bee shots are perhaps not the best examples. The result wouldn't compare to a basic laplacian sharpen / unsharp mask in context. Better
comparisons are with things where a basic sharpen would be a hinderence or completely useless. Stronger blurs/motion blurs can't really be 'undone' by
a sharpen for example since it's not actually using a PSF; all it is doing is creating faux sharpness for human eyes.
Smart Sharpen (Adobe):
I haven't included basic sharpen filter / unsharp mask examples mainly because if you understand how those operators function, it's plainly obvious it
will not work on this image.
In the right environment, smart deblur holds its own; it's a solid application of known deconvolution techniques. It's an open source program, so you
can't expect it to clean up after processing the same way an Adobe or Boris product might etc ... It's also for a different purpose. It's not really
something you would use as a photographer to fix a shot ... if you did want motion blur processing you would likely invest in ways to calculate camera
movement on the day and use a different filter. Or perhaps just take the photo properly first time.
The maths itself have a number of uses in forensic and science fields etc ... It's always going to have some artifacts generally, is never perfect,
some situations down right useless, and not the best for artistic things. A lot of UFO videos will be far too cheap and noisy, but it's another tool
to put in the box for that one time the portrait of your alien is out of focus ha.
Hope it helps. >.<
edit on 25-10-2012 by Pinke because: typo