Prev: Why can't a non-SLR have equivalent quality?
Next: What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitorcan only display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you canonly see 8 bit?
From: Scotius on 12 Jul 2010 02:04
Suppose you've taken a photo that is blurred (not due to
movement, but due to improper focus).
Would it be possible, if you could look through just the right
type of lens, to see the picture correctly focused?
If so, would it be possible for software to calculate the
focus problem, or even for a photographer to just go through
progressively different foci to fix something that is blurred?
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 12 Jul 2010 13:02
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> saying
something like:

> Suppose you've taken a photo that is blurred (not due to
>movement, but due to improper focus).
> Would it be possible, if you could look through just the right
>type of lens, to see the picture correctly focused?
> If so, would it be possible for software to calculate the
>focus problem, or even for a photographer to just go through
>progressively different foci to fix something that is blurred?

Focus Magic goes some way to addressing this, but it's not magic,
iyswim.
From: Chrlz on 13 Jul 2010 07:28
On Jul 12, 4:04 pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>         Suppose you've taken a photo that is blurred (not due to
> movement, but due to improper focus).
>         Would it be possible, if you could look through just the right
> type of lens, to see the picture correctly focused?
>         If so, would it be possible for software to calculate the
> focus problem, or even for a photographer to just go through
> progressively different foci to fix something that is blurred?

Google 'deconvolution' and/or 'richardson-lucy'

To answer your question simplistically.. No. :) *Some* processing
techniques can recover *some* information, but in essence, once the
detail is blurred into other detail, you can never be quite sure that
what you recover is real.. Typically, deconvolution introduces
artefacts along with any 'recovered' detail.

It's a bit like enlarging - there's no free lunch - if you want real
detail, you must capture it adequately in the first place.
From: whisky-dave on 15 Jul 2010 08:51

"Scotius" <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:fvbl365uk3dke9evr6fn07icl48upeo33q(a)4ax.com...
> Suppose you've taken a photo that is blurred (not due to
> movement, but due to improper focus).
> Would it be possible, if you could look through just the right
> type of lens, to see the picture correctly focused?
> If so, would it be possible for software to calculate the
> focus problem, or even for a photographer to just go through
> progressively different foci to fix something that is blurred?

I very muvh doubt it, and I thought adaptive optics was used
to partialy overcome atmospheric interference. This is employed in ground
based networked telescopes both for visible light and radi wave and IR I
think.It's used by adapting the shape of the 'reflector' or whatever is
grabbing the data from teh objects


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Why can't a non-SLR have equivalent quality?
Next: What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitorcan only display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you canonly see 8 bit?