Maybe they'll actually be able to go CSI on it, zoom in on a super pixelated license plate, or the face of the killer, and get a super sharp version of what that actually is.
Just in case others didn't pick up on it from the video. It's not magically adding any details ala CSI sharpen filters. It "only" tries to remove the motion blur caused by the camera moving while taking a picture. So it should be very much like a after the fact anti shake feature. It won't fix your out of focus pictures just improve on pictures taken with a shaky hand.
Extremely awesome non the less though, I have tons of pictures that could potentially be saved by this .
Most of their customers are people who have to work with photos, we're the weird niche users. I'm sure the same crowd would yawn and blank-stare a presentation on improved 3d painting.
Just in case others didn't pick up on it from the video. It's not magically adding any details ala CSI sharpen filters. It "only" tries to remove the motion blur caused by the camera moving while taking a picture. So it should be very much like a after the fact anti shake feature. It won't fix your out of focus pictures just improve on pictures taken with a shaky hand.
Extremely awesome non the less though, I have tons of pictures that could potentially be saved by this .
Yes this^
Now the real test would be, lets say you take a photo in low light at ISO 800 with a bit of camera shake, and a photo at ISO 6400 with no camera shake but loads of noise - which would retain more detail?
The best use of this would probably be for cell phone cameras, where you have a tiny sensor, limited controls, poor high ISO and often no flash or image stabilization. Along with poor ergonomics that make it hard to get a steady shot.
There are a wide variety of software options for post-stabilization for video out there. Theres also no reason this specifically couldn't be done on a per-frame basis for video, it would just be very slow.
Also, motion blur is generally something you want in video, I dont think the end result of a perfectly sharp image for every frame would ever be a good idea. Just think of something like transformers without the motion blur, your eyes would pop out of your skull.
Replies
Neat.
OR
Lame, you can totally tell this dude ran than filter on this.
Which will be our future?
Unsharp Mask became staple, but will this take it's throne. Doesn't really matter till I'm using it I guess.
lol
roflness: actually as things go this is pretty old. de-convolution filters have been about for quite a bit.
dfacto: just use content aware fill. that draws the picture for you.
Maybe they'll actually be able to go CSI on it, zoom in on a super pixelated license plate, or the face of the killer, and get a super sharp version of what that actually is.
Extremely awesome non the less though, I have tons of pictures that could potentially be saved by this
Yes this^
Now the real test would be, lets say you take a photo in low light at ISO 800 with a bit of camera shake, and a photo at ISO 6400 with no camera shake but loads of noise - which would retain more detail?
The best use of this would probably be for cell phone cameras, where you have a tiny sensor, limited controls, poor high ISO and often no flash or image stabilization. Along with poor ergonomics that make it hard to get a steady shot.
The real test is japanese porn
There are a wide variety of software options for post-stabilization for video out there. Theres also no reason this specifically couldn't be done on a per-frame basis for video, it would just be very slow.
Also, motion blur is generally something you want in video, I dont think the end result of a perfectly sharp image for every frame would ever be a good idea. Just think of something like transformers without the motion blur, your eyes would pop out of your skull.
Found this tool:
http://www.zen147963.zen.co.uk/
Also has a how it works which gives a quick explanation.
[ame="