Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
"Image Deblurring using Inertial Measurement Sensors"
#1
Hi,



pretty interesting approach...



They take an "image deblurring attachment that uses inertial measurement sensors and [...] an algorithm to automatically deblur images"



[url="http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/imudeblurring/"]http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/imudeblurring/[/url]



Bye Sibbi
#2
Wow! Very interesting. It also looks to me like this could easily be built into a camera, as many cameras already sport 3 dimensional gyroscopes for other purposes.



I do wonder how effective this IS/VR/OS is, compared to the current versions which handle optics or sensor to control shake blur. As they state, they outperform the current image-based methods, with which I am not familiar, however.



And of course this should and could work with any lens, and if it stays an external attachment, with any camera too.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#3
If you look at the samples there, while the processed image is far better than a blurry one, there are various processing artefacts remaining. I don't know if they can be improved further, but perhaps this can be used as an extra level of stabilisation after lens or sensor shift has ran out of steam. As it stands, it isn't a substitute for taking a steady shot if you want the best quality.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#4
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1280872643' post='1476']

If you look at the samples there, while the processed image is far better than a blurry one, there are various processing artefacts remaining. I don't know if they can be improved further, but perhaps this can be used as an extra level of stabilisation after lens or sensor shift has ran out of steam. As it stands, it isn't a substitute for taking a steady shot if you want the best quality.

[/quote]



I agree - I think this solution is just a sort of add-on to the regular hardware stabilization. However, very interesting approach which shows that there is still some room for improvements left in the DSLR world <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



Bye Sebastian
#5
I really dislike the results. If you look at the hi-res images there is no more detail and they seem to introduce a lot of ghosting. I think you are better off scrapping the image still... Although I do admit its an interesting approach!

Allan
#6
It's just "digital" stabilisation assisted by hardware... you lose resolution...
#7
[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1280911882' post='1482']

I really dislike the results. If you look at the hi-res images there is no more detail and they seem to introduce a lot of ghosting. I think you are better off scrapping the image still... Although I do admit its an interesting approach!

Allan

[/quote]



[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1281412439' post='1615']

It's just "digital" stabilisation assisted by hardware... you lose resolution...

[/quote]



Well, it is quite a bit better than the original, non-processed image, and way better than no image, if you'd ask me <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#8
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1281412439' post='1615']

It's just "digital" stabilisation assisted by hardware... you lose resolution...

[/quote]



yes - but the same applies to higher ISO - "you lose resolution" :-)
#9
[quote name='Sebastian' timestamp='1281449758' post='1642']

yes - but the same applies to higher ISO - "you lose resolution" :-)

[/quote]



Umm I think I'll just use optical stabilisation when I can... thanks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />
#10
This isn't really anything new.

The technique is a very basic one based on an FFT of the image and the FFT of the blur direction. (I learned about it 8 years ago in one of my imaging classes)

Note that this works a LOT better if the blur is in a straight line.



Anyway, it does lose you resolution, but if you can apply it it does gain you a better end-image.



Obviously optical stabilisation is going to be a better idea (no blur to start with), but compared to high-iso this might just make the difference, especially if you are talking about images taking on the edge of handholdability.



If the adjustment is smaller the artifacts that are introduced are a lot smaller.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)