| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/06/2013 03:47:44 AM · #1 |
Given how other types of image (CAT scans for example) are built through the application of software techniques, I suppose this was inevitable. A (near) future game changer for consumer cameras?
Vimeo link |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 03:57:49 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 07:18:25 AM · #3 |
| Impressive, logic and actually simple. Yes the time is coming where physical limitations of shutter speed, refraction of light etc etc are going to be addressed by cyber code. There is NO end in where 'will it end'. Then in the next 15 years you will see the might of the NANO... The new expense in photography is already shifting towards software. |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 10:32:49 AM · #4 |
| The biggest challenge is the variance of the point spread, across the frame, with wavelength of light, and with aperture. They have addressed this nicely. This is a significant step forward, IMO. |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 11:23:12 AM · #5 |
| I might need this if my doublet experiment doesn't work well. :) |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 11:30:00 AM · #6 |
| What the heck language were they speaking...???? |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 11:47:16 AM · #7 |
i wonder how they come up with a good number for total number of patches to calculate.
The technique looks good looking at the video, depending on how they deal with the information, and how the runs compare to the current standards - they could really be changing things. |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 11:47:48 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
What the heck language were they speaking...???? |
In the words of Jesse Pinkman...."Science, b****!"
|
|
|
|
10/06/2013 12:13:47 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
i wonder how they come up with a good number for total number of patches to calculate.
The technique looks good looking at the video, depending on how they deal with the information, and how the runs compare to the current standards - they could really be changing things. |
My guess is that basically any number would work, with improved results as you use more 'patches'. |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 12:17:25 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
i wonder how they come up with a good number for total number of patches to calculate. |
I'm guessing that it is empirical, being a balance between the number of patches (more patches, higher accuracy) and the costs of increasing patch density. In the corners, it is relatively important to have a higher patch density, since the point spread function changes rapidly from place to place. In the center, not so much.
ETA: If computational power were no worry, this technique could in theory be used to model and correct any lens. You'd test the lens, create a representation of its point spread function as a function of position in the frame, aperture setting, focus distance, etc., and perform your deconvolution based on that function and the reported EXIF information.
Message edited by author 2013-10-06 12:20:50. |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 12:27:21 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Devinder:
i wonder how they come up with a good number for total number of patches to calculate. |
I'm guessing that it is empirical, being a balance between the number of patches (more patches, higher accuracy) and the costs of increasing patch density. In the corners, it is relatively important to have a higher patch density, since the point spread function changes rapidly from place to place. In the center, not so much.
ETA: If computational power were no worry, this technique could in theory be used to model and correct any lens. You'd test the lens, create a representation of its point spread function as a function of position in the frame, aperture setting, focus distance, etc., and perform your deconvolution based on that function and the reported EXIF information. |
Would you mind deconvoluting this post? |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 12:34:25 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Would you mind deconvoluting this post? |
I could do that, but I'd have to know your point spread function 8-0
Sorry, but you simply cannot give me a straight line like that! |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 12:45:40 PM · #13 |
| I don't think it would be computationally complex. Couldn't it be done with lookup tables? |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 03:53:19 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Devinder:
i wonder how they come up with a good number for total number of patches to calculate. |
I'm guessing that it is empirical, being a balance between the number of patches (more patches, higher accuracy) and the costs of increasing patch density. In the corners, it is relatively important to have a higher patch density, since the point spread function changes rapidly from place to place. In the center, not so much.
ETA: If computational power were no worry, this technique could in theory be used to model and correct any lens. You'd test the lens, create a representation of its point spread function as a function of position in the frame, aperture setting, focus distance, etc., and perform your deconvolution based on that function and the reported EXIF information. |
Would you mind deconvoluting this post? |
"Efficient primal dual forward backward splitting method": you've never experimented with this? Even inefficiently? I'd expect dancers to be especially adept at this, and gymnasts...
Message edited by author 2013-10-06 19:38:33. |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 07:26:52 PM · #15 |
| Poorly engineered.I don't see any slot for the flux capacitor. |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 08:30:34 PM · #16 |
| how would this technology improve expensive lenses? |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 09:47:40 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
how would this technology improve expensive lenses? |
It would help nice lenses too, but not by nearly a much. Nice lenses are so much closer to perfect that the errors are more to do with manufacturing variance than they are poor optics. To get the same improvement you would need to calculate the point spread functions uniquely for every copy of the lens.
Paul is correct that it would be fairly easy to do computationally. It's more than a lookup table, but could probably still be done real-time in an FPGA. |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 09:54:45 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Efficient primal dual forward backward splitting method": you've never experimented with this? Even inefficiently? I'd expect dancers to be especially adept at this, and gymnasts... |
I could do the split!
Still can to a certain extent but not backward. Maybe can correct it with software
Message edited by author 2013-10-06 21:58:19. |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 09:56:33 PM · #19 |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 10:49:24 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Tiberius:
I could do the split!
Still can to a certain extent but not backward. Maybe can correct it with software |
 |
|
|
|
10/06/2013 11:08:36 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Tiberius:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Efficient primal dual forward backward splitting method": you've never experimented with this? Even inefficiently? I'd expect dancers to be especially adept at this, and gymnasts... |
I could do the split!
Still can to a certain extent but not backward. Maybe can correct it with software |
If I tried that I'd be left with software. |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 12:59:43 AM · #22 |
| I'd be left with wet ware. |
|
|
|
10/07/2013 01:35:01 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
In the words of Jesse Pinkman...."Science, b****!" |
This is for Scott ( bohemka) who's been waiting for me to say something all intellectual and stuff. :P |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/07/2025 02:13:02 PM EDT.
