Photoshop Challenge - For Snit

[Fabian Russell]

Here is an out-of-focus image:

http://s28.postimg.org/8akp74qpp/woman_blur.jpg


Here is the image "deblured" using Fred Weinhaus's
CAMERADEBLUR ImageMagick script:

http://s15.postimg.org/skcd14bi3/woman_deblur.jpg


Can Photoshop do better?


If you want to try it yourself, the original TIFF image
is here:

http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g5c6952207fd506e5999750975ac4890544754fae7


Fred's script is here:

http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/cameradeblur/index.php


The difference is that with Linux/ImageMagick one has to know
exactly what one is doing. With Photoshop, one does not.

Linux rules!

[John Gohde]

Snit challenging Snit - LOL! What has the world of COLA come to?

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 1:01 PM, in article
pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"

<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> Here is an out-of-focus image:
>
> http://s28.postimg.org/8akp74qpp/woman_blur.jpg
>
>
> Here is the image "deblured" using Fred Weinhaus's
> CAMERADEBLUR ImageMagick script:
>
> http://s15.postimg.org/skcd14bi3/woman_deblur.jpg
>
> Can Photoshop do better?

No idea.

> If you want to try it yourself, the original TIFF image
> is here:
>
>
http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g5c6952207fd506e5999750975ac4890544754fae>
7

Completely different than the jpg. Odd.

>
> Fred's script is here:
>
> http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/cameradeblur/index.php
>
>
> The difference is that with Linux/ImageMagick one has to know
> exactly what one is doing. With Photoshop, one does not.

What on Earth makes you think that? People can use Photoshop for years and
still be a beginner. Heck, I *have* used it for years but I am not a
photography expert nor an expert in the math used for such transformations -
and such do not know how to do these things well.

Here is one method of debluring in Photoshop:

<https://youtu.be/YyecUMp3nPA>

Admit I tried it on the image you show, both the jpg and the tif, and
neither came out nearly as nice as what they show in the video. Not sure if
I goofed or would have to play with numbers for the specific image.

> Linux rules!

ImageMagick also runs on OS X... and Windows.



--
* OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 1:41 PM, in article
f0f3d518-23d3-4500...@googlegroups.com, "John Gohde"

Everyone is Snit.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:03:18 -0700, Snit wrote:

>>
>> The difference is that with Linux/ImageMagick one has to know
>> exactly what one is doing. With Photoshop, one does not.
>
> What on Earth makes you think that?
>

I just stumbled upon a video with some Photoshop technicians demonstrating
their deblur filter in front of a large audience. After the "magical"
result appears on the overhead screen, the assembled crowd erupts into
a jubilant applause.

How pathetic. How disgusting. The elimination of motion blur is not
magic. It is the straightforward application of image deconvolution.
Yet this crowd of ignoramuses erupted as if they were witnessing a
religious miracle.

It's good for Photoshop sales, though, to have such enthusiastic
dumb-fscks willing to hand out big bucks for the illusion of
magic and miracles.

Here is said video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxjiQoTp864

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 2:59 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

So you saw a video and made a bad assumption. OK.

[Edward Stansfield]

Idiot.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:03:18 -0700, Snit wrote:

>

>> If you want to try it yourself, the original TIFF image
>> is here:
>>
>>
> http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g5c6952207fd506e5999750975ac4890544754fae7
>
> Completely different than the jpg. Odd.
>

Different? How is it different? The JPEG is made from this
same TIFF.

But, if you want a hint, you must first analyze the image using another
Weinhaus script called CEPSTRUM.

CEPSTRUM will produce, if all goes well, an image containing a
central white circle. The radius of this circle is equal to
the width of the JINC function that corresponds to the original
image convolution.

Here is the CEPSTRUM image from the out-of-focus original:

http://s23.postimg.org/92x05e52z/woman_blur_cep.png

Carefully measuring the radius of the inner circle gives 10 pixels.

Plug this value into CAMERADEBLUR as "-a 10 -r 0" and the deblured,
focused image is produced.

Very nice stuff from Fred Weinhaus and ImageMagick!

[DFS]

On 11/20/2015 4:59 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:03:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The difference is that with Linux/ImageMagick one has to know
>>> exactly what one is doing. With Photoshop, one does not.
>>
>> What on Earth makes you think that?
>>
>
> I just stumbled upon a video with some Photoshop technicians demonstrating
> their deblur filter in front of a large audience. After the "magical"
> result appears on the overhead screen, the assembled crowd erupts into
> a jubilant applause.
>
> How pathetic. How disgusting. The elimination of motion blur is not
> magic. It is the straightforward application of image deconvolution.
> Yet this crowd of ignoramuses erupted as if they were witnessing a
> religious miracle.

Says the bozo who connected LibreOffice Base to MariaDB, viewed some
rows in a main form/sub form, spooged all over the screen and called it
'advanced usage of databases'.

> It's good for Photoshop sales, though, to have such enthusiastic
> dumb-fscks willing to hand out big bucks for the illusion of
> magic and miracles.
>
> Here is said video:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxjiQoTp864

So how do YOU use Linux/FOSS to eliminate motion blur?

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:46:29 -0500, DFS wrote:

>
> Says the bozo who connected LibreOffice Base to MariaDB, viewed some
> rows in a main form/sub form, spooged all over the screen and called it
> 'advanced usage of databases'.
>

It was intended as an INTRODUCTION. You might want to look up the meaning
of that word.

>
> So how do YOU use Linux/FOSS to eliminate motion blur?
>

Motion blur represents either a convolution in intensity space,
or a sinc function multiplication in frequency space (FFT).

Since frequency space is a better vantage, we'll use that.

Step 1 is to determine the sinc function used to blur the motion.
Fred Weinhaus's CEPSTRUM script will do that,

Step 2 is to reverse the effect of sinc multiplication by dividing
the FFT transform by the sinc function. Freddie's CAMERADEBLUR
will do that.

The result should completely eliminate the motion blur, except for
possibly some ringing artifacts from the FFT transforms.

[Edward Stansfield]

And during the time the Linux user is trying to remember how to spell
CEPSTRUM or CAMERADEBLUR, the Photoshop user is already done.

You are one fucked up Linux freak.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 22:59:59 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote:

>>
>> So how do YOU use Linux/FOSS to eliminate motion blur?
>>
>
>

> Since frequency space is a better vantage, we'll use that.
>

Just an addendum concerning Photoshop:

Although I can't be certain (the code is proprietary), I strongly
suspect that Photoshop uses convolution in the intensity domain
for most, if not all, of its image processing. This is likely
the reason its results can be less than optimal.

Frequency domain processing is preferred, and if Photoshop were
to use this method they would certainly use FOSS tools (e.g.
www.fftw,org).

Would they give back to the community from which they indulge?

Actually, Photoshop uses the theoretical results that were developed
by academics and other researchers over the past 50 years. Have Photoshop
software engineers contributed back to this free font of knowledge from
which they have so heavily borrowed and profited?

[Edward Stansfield]

On 20 Nov 2015 22:59:59 GMT, Fabian Russell wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:46:29 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>>
>> Says the bozo who connected LibreOffice Base to MariaDB, viewed some
>> rows in a main form/sub form, spooged all over the screen and called it
>> 'advanced usage of databases'.
>>
>
> It was intended as an INTRODUCTION. You might want to look up the meaning
> of that word.
>
>>
>> So how do YOU use Linux/FOSS to eliminate motion blur?
>>
>
> Motion blur represents either a convolution in intensity space,
> or a sinc function multiplication in frequency space (FFT).
>
> Since frequency space is a better vantage, we'll use that.
>
> Step 1 is to determine the sinc function used to blur the motion.
> Fred Weinhaus's CEPSTRUM script will do that,

Looks like good old Fred is another Linux hypocrite:

http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/


"Licensing:
Copyright © Fred Weinhaus

My scripts are available free of charge for non-commercial use, ONLY.

For use of my scripts in commercial (for-profit) environments or non-free
applications, please contact me (Fred Weinhaus) for licensing arrangements.
My email address is fmw at alink dot net.

If you: 1) redistribute, 2) incorporate any of these scripts into other
free applications or 3) reprogram them in another scripting language, then
you must contact me for permission, especially if the result might be used
in a commercial or for-profit environment.

Usage, whether stated or not in the script, is restricted to the above
licensing arrangements. It is also subject, in a subordinate manner, to the
ImageMagick license, which can be found at:
http://www.imagemagick.org/script/license.php"


And then we have the "Pointers for use (This one is hysterical !!):

"Pointers for use:
Be sure you have installed the unix calculator, bc. It is an option that
you may have to select when installing unix.
Download the script
Change the name to add or remove the .sh as desired when running
Set the script to executable (chmod u+x)
Find the full path to where IM (convert) resides by typing in a shell
terminal window: type -a convert
If type -a convert returns more than one path, type in a shell terminal
window: path2/convert -version, where path2 is each of the paths found.
Decide which version of IM you want to use.
Modify your PATH environment variable so that it includes the full path to
where IM (convert) resides (often /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin). This can be
done by editing your .profile file.
Alternately, edit the script somewhere between the comments and the first
use of any IM command, such as just below the defaults section to add the
following two lines:
imdir="path2" #(such as imdir="/usr/local/bin" or imdir="/usr/bin")
PATH="${imdir}:${PATH}"
Open a shell terminal window
bash /fullpathto/scriptname(.sh) arguments /fullpathto/inputimage
/fullpathto/outputimage
To avoid the bash and just use scriptname(.sh) ... set your PATH to contain
the location of the script
Optionally edit the script to change the default directory (found after the
defaults section) from dir="." to dir="/tmp"
If you have trouble with filenames with spaces in them, then you will need
to edit the script in several places until I have time to review and fix
all my scripts.
Find where infile and outfile (maskfile or any others) are defined at the
end of the argument trapping section. Make sure to enclose in double quotes
any declarations of those files that include $1, $2, etc, such as
infile="$1", etc
Find any occurrences of $infile or $outfile and enclose them in double
quotes as "$infile", etc."

Fuck!!!!

What a fucking nightmare!

> Step 2 is to reverse the effect of sinc multiplication by dividing

No normal human being (that excludes an uber-dork like you Fabio), will
ever reach Step 2.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:05:08 -0500, Edward Stansfield wrote:

>
> And during the time the Linux user is trying to remember how to spell
> CEPSTRUM or CAMERADEBLUR, the Photoshop user is already done.
>

What Photoshop user? Do you mean that ad agency flunky that
specializes in transposing the heads of ugly woman onto
the bodies of a beautiful ones?

Any Photshop user who calls himself a true professional will
be fluent in the mathematical theory of image processing.
This is the meaning of PROFESSIONALISM, and ad flunkies don't
count.

The marketing department lackey that juxtaposes the fat bitch
with the skinny bimbo in weight-loss-clinic brochures doesn't
count either.

But maybe that's what you do with Photoshop.

[DFS]

On 11/20/2015 6:15 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 22:59:59 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So how do YOU use Linux/FOSS to eliminate motion blur?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Since frequency space is a better vantage, we'll use that.
>>
>
> Just an addendum concerning Photoshop:
>
> Although I can't be certain (the code is proprietary), I strongly
> suspect that Photoshop uses convolution in the intensity domain
> for most, if not all, of its image processing. This is likely
> the reason its results can be less than optimal.
>
> Frequency domain processing is preferred, and if Photoshop were
> to use this method they would certainly use FOSS tools (e.g.
> www.fftw,org).
>
> Would they give back to the community from which they indulge?

100% unsupported accusation.

I'll make one, too: the freetard community takes much more from Adobe
(in the form of stolen Photoshop) than it gives back.

> Actually, Photoshop uses the theoretical results that were developed
> by academics and other researchers over the past 50 years. Have Photoshop
> software engineers contributed back to this free font of knowledge from
> which they have so heavily borrowed and profited?

http://www.adobe.com/open-source.html

http://adobe.github.io

[DFS]

On 11/20/2015 6:26 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:05:08 -0500, Edward Stansfield wrote:
>
>>
>> And during the time the Linux user is trying to remember how to spell
>> CEPSTRUM or CAMERADEBLUR, the Photoshop user is already done.
>>
>
> What Photoshop user? Do you mean that ad agency flunky that
> specializes in transposing the heads of ugly woman onto
> the bodies of a beautiful ones?
>
> Any Photshop user who calls himself a true professional will
> be fluent in the mathematical theory of image processing.
> This is the meaning of PROFESSIONALISM, and ad flunkies don't
> count.

Ridiculous.

An Oracle DBA doesn't have to know anything about set theory to be an
advanced, accredited Oracle PROFESSIONAL.

A race car driver doesn't have to know diddly about the physics of
inertia or brake materials to be a racing PROFESSIONAL.

> The marketing department lackey that juxtaposes the fat bitch
> with the skinny bimbo in weight-loss-clinic brochures doesn't
> count either.
>
> But maybe that's what you do with Photoshop.

You're a PROFESSIONAL fucking idiot.

[DFS]

So you employ someone else's code to do it for you... and how is that
different from me using Photoshop?

[Edward Stansfield]

This moron is an even bigger fucking idiot than that other Linux using
idiot 7.

Fabio should take his computer, ASCII terminal, pizza, coke and lock
himself in a cage that can be put on display for people to laugh at.
He could charge admission and might actually make some decent money.

Maybe snit will give him a place in his circus?
This Linux using kook would be a perfect addition to snit's sideshow.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:15:12 -0500, Edward Stansfield wrote:

>
> And then we have the "Pointers for use (This one is hysterical !!):
>

Not as hysterical as the image of you when you were first learning
how to point and click your way through Photoshop.

"Duh, what's a jpeg quality, duh ..."

Someone should have captured your "baby steps" on video.
That would have made for hilarious viewing.

Except I think I'd puke instead.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:39:50 -0500, DFS wrote:

>
> So you employ someone else's code to do it for you... and how is that
> different from me using Photoshop?
>

I believe that I answered that one already.

With Photoshop, your kitty cat walking across the keyboard could
possibly produce excellent results with Photoshop.

The same cannot be said for Freddie/IM.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:38:15 -0500, DFS wrote:

>

> An Oracle DBA doesn't have to know anything about set theory to be an
> advanced, accredited Oracle PROFESSIONAL.
>
> A race car driver doesn't have to know diddly about the physics of
> inertia or brake materials to be a racing PROFESSIONAL.
>

Enjoy your next 12-hour transatlantic flight with a pilot who
doesn't understand aerodynamics.

Enjoy your next emergency surgery with a physician who doesn't understand
anatomy and physiology.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!


But your first example doesn't make it. Software accreditation in general
is only a cheap gimmick intended to impress brain-dead hiring managers.
In these cases, the label of PROFESSIONAL is only a toy badge.

[Edward Stansfield]

You are either the biggest idiot to ever post in COLA or you are a master
troll working hard and succeeding at making Linux users look bad by
confirming the stereotypical Linux user.

What a fucktard.

[DFS]

On 11/20/2015 6:50 PM, Fabian Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:39:50 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>>
>> So you employ someone else's code to do it for you... and how is that
>> different from me using Photoshop?
>>
>
> I believe that I answered that one already.

Not at all.

You're a [self-proclaimed] "PROFESSIONAL" who seems to/pretends to know
the theory behind removing motion blur... so why do you have to use
Freddie's work to actually do it?

> With Photoshop, your kitty cat walking across the keyboard could
> possibly produce excellent results with Photoshop.
>
> The same cannot be said for Freddie/IM.

ha!

1000 kitties dancing on the keyboard could end up with:

convert -size 320x85 canvas:none -font Bookman-DemiItalic -pointsize 72
\ -draw "text 25,60 \'Magick\'" -channel RGBA -blur 0x6 -fill darkred
-stroke magenta \ -draw "text 20,55 \'Magick\'" fuzzy-magick.png

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 4:50 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

So the "disadvantage" you see in Photoshop is you think it is easier to use.

LOL!

Do not get me wrong, the results you have shown are impressive and beyond my
skills. I have no problem admitting to that. But your comments about
Photoshop are comical at best.

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 4:45 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

You are merely showing your ignorance about Photoshop. Nothing more.

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 4:26 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:05:08 -0500, Edward Stansfield wrote:
>
>>
>> And during the time the Linux user is trying to remember how to spell
>> CEPSTRUM or CAMERADEBLUR, the Photoshop user is already done.
>>
>
> What Photoshop user? Do you mean that ad agency flunky that
> specializes in transposing the heads of ugly woman onto
> the bodies of a beautiful ones?
>
> Any Photshop user who calls himself a true professional will
> be fluent in the mathematical theory of image processing.

For those who need to know that, yes, they should. And I have met those who
do. I am not one of them. :)

> This is the meaning of PROFESSIONALISM, and ad flunkies don't
> count.

Depends on the profession. Photoshop serves many different types of
professionals.

> The marketing department lackey that juxtaposes the fat bitch
> with the skinny bimbo in weight-loss-clinic brochures doesn't
> count either.
>
> But maybe that's what you do with Photoshop.
>

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 4:15 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 22:59:59 +0000, Fabian Russell wrote:
>
>>>
>>> So how do YOU use Linux/FOSS to eliminate motion blur?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Since frequency space is a better vantage, we'll use that.
>>
>
> Just an addendum concerning Photoshop:
>
> Although I can't be certain (the code is proprietary), I strongly
> suspect that Photoshop uses convolution in the intensity domain
> for most, if not all, of its image processing. This is likely
> the reason its results can be less than optimal.

You have not shown they they can be "less" than anything else - though I
acknowledge what you have shown, if real, is quite impressive.

> Frequency domain processing is preferred, and if Photoshop were
> to use this method they would certainly use FOSS tools (e.g.
> www.fftw,org).

And being open source they are free to do so.

> Would they give back to the community from which they indulge?

They have produced things for Linux... but they have no obligation to.
Welcome to the world of open source. Use it as you want (within the confines
of the license, of course).

> Actually, Photoshop uses the theoretical results that were developed
> by academics and other researchers over the past 50 years. Have Photoshop
> software engineers contributed back to this free font of knowledge from
> which they have so heavily borrowed and profited?

They have their own development team. Not sure what they have shared...

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 3:43 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:03:18 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>
>>> If you want to try it yourself, the original TIFF image
>>> is here:
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g5c6952207fd506e5999750975ac4890544754fa
>> e7
>>
>> Completely different than the jpg. Odd.
>>
>
> Different? How is it different? The JPEG is made from this
> same TIFF.

They appear very differently visually.

> But, if you want a hint, you must first analyze the image using another
> Weinhaus script called CEPSTRUM.

Then it is not a straight save of the TIF. OK.

> CEPSTRUM will produce, if all goes well, an image containing a
> central white circle. The radius of this circle is equal to
> the width of the JINC function that corresponds to the original
> image convolution.
>
> Here is the CEPSTRUM image from the out-of-focus original:
>
> http://s23.postimg.org/92x05e52z/woman_blur_cep.png
>
> Carefully measuring the radius of the inner circle gives 10 pixels.
>
> Plug this value into CAMERADEBLUR as "-a 10 -r 0" and the deblured,
> focused image is produced.
>
> Very nice stuff from Fred Weinhaus and ImageMagick!

No argument here. The result is nothing short of amazing.

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 4:39 PM, in article n2oarv$t0t$2...@dont-email.me, "DFS"

Exactly. And he used code you can ALSO use on Windows and OS X.

I like how OS X and Windows give more choice than Linux. :)

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:22:06 -0700, Snit wrote:

>
> And he used code you can ALSO use on Windows and OS X.
>

The binaries available for MS Win and OS X do not include
HDR support which is necessary for complete FFT.

On those systems, the user must compile from source to
include HDR.

So, go ahead. Compile and run the scripts.

Without a GUI to hold your hand, you'd be lost.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:21:01 -0700, Snit wrote:

>>
>> Different? How is it different? The JPEG is made from this
>> same TIFF.
>
> They appear very differently visually.
>

When's the last time you had your eyes examined?

They look identical to me.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 19:52:20 -0500, DFS wrote:

>
> so why do you have to use
> Freddie's work to actually do it?
>

The same reason that I don't pick up corn cobs off the floor
of the barn when I need to wipe my ass.

I use store-bought toilet paper to save myself some trouble.

[DFS]

But when Photoshop users employ Adobe code to 'save themselves some
trouble' your panties tighten up into a bunch.

Wazzup, hypocrite?

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:21:01 -0700, Snit wrote:

>>>

>>> Completely different than the jpg. Odd.
>>>
>>
>> Different? How is it different? The JPEG is made from this
>> same TIFF.
>
> They appear very differently visually.
>

How do they appear different?

It is possible that your viewing software is applying a color
profile somewhere. Do not allow this to happen.

Oh, wait. You not using Linux. You cannot control your software
but your software controls you.

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 8:34 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

Ah, so that is a good reason to buy commercial products. OK.

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 8:29 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:22:06 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> And he used code you can ALSO use on Windows and OS X.
>>
>
> The binaries available for MS Win and OS X do not include
> HDR support which is necessary for complete FFT.

I would like to see support for this.

> On those systems, the user must compile from source to
> include HDR.

So?

> So, go ahead. Compile and run the scripts.
>
> Without a GUI to hold your hand, you'd be lost.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Why would I be lost? They give directions on their site!

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 8:32 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

OK, you cannot see the VERY obvious differences.

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 9:06 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:21:01 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Completely different than the jpg. Odd.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Different? How is it different? The JPEG is made from this
>>> same TIFF.
>>
>> They appear very differently visually.
>
> How do they appear different?

The TIFF is washed out horribly... in multiple software packages.

Even tried GIMP, but it cannot even open it! Maybe because it is a 32 bit
image?

The JPG is an 8 bit image.

> It is possible that your viewing software is applying a color
> profile somewhere. Do not allow this to happen.

If it has one attached it should be respected.

> Oh, wait. You not using Linux. You cannot control your software
> but your software controls you.

What? Seriously, what are you even trying to say with this?

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 21:46:25 -0700, Snit wrote:

>
> OK, you cannot see the VERY obvious differences.
>

I downloaded both files from the links given in the original
post (woman_blur.jpg and woman-blur.tif).

I'm staring at them right now. They are identical. They'd
better be because the JPEG is just a compressed version of
the TIFF (made with convert -quality 95 woman-blur.tif woman_blur.jpg).

I think you need to see an eye doctor pronto.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 21:47:37 -0700, Snit wrote:

>
> Maybe because it is a 32 bit
> image?
>

Yes, it is a 32-bit floating point image. But that shouldn't make
a difference. Any competent software should display it just fine.


Anyway, here is the same image as 8-bit integer gamma:

http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=gb8eae17d93e56e1799975108879a245a3dd929612

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 11:04 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 21:47:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>

>> Even tried GIMP, but it cannot even open it! Maybe because it is a 32 bit

>> image?
>
> Yes, it is a 32-bit floating point image. But that shouldn't make
> a difference.

For GIMP it makes a world of difference - it cannot even open the file!

> Any competent software should display it just fine.

So you think open source GIMP is not "competent software". OK.

> Anyway, here is the same image as 8-bit integer gamma:
>
http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=gb8eae17d93e56e1799975108879a245a3dd92961>
2
>
>

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 10:56 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 21:46:25 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, you cannot see the VERY obvious differences.
>
> I downloaded both files from the links given in the original
> post (woman_blur.jpg and woman-blur.tif).
>
> I'm staring at them right now. They are identical.

Not even close with Photoshop and Preview and some other smaller packager
which likely use the same engine as Preview. GIMP and LibreOffice could not
even open it. It looked somewhat better in GraphicConverter.

> They'd better be because the JPEG is just a compressed version of the TIFF
> (made with convert -quality 95 woman-blur.tif woman_blur.jpg).
>
> I think you need to see an eye doctor pronto.

The difference I am talking about is not subtle. Not even a little. If you
are not seeing it then your system is not showing what mine is.

[Fabian Russell]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:11:57 -0700, Snit wrote:

>
> For GIMP it makes a world of difference - it cannot even open the file!
>

You are obviously using the 2.8.x GIMP version, which is already WAY
behind the times.

You should get the latest 2.9.x GIMP development, although it is fully
functional and stable. GIMP 2.9.x has fully integrated GEGL and can
handle any conceivable image type (bit type that is).

[Snit]

On 11/20/15, 11:27 PM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:11:57 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> For GIMP it makes a world of difference - it cannot even open the file!
>
> You are obviously using the 2.8.x GIMP version, which is already WAY
> behind the times.

Yup. I am.

For what it is worth, just checked the TIF and the JPG in Safari. They *do*
look identical or at least nearly so there. Weird.

> You should get the latest 2.9.x GIMP development, although it is fully
> functional and stable. GIMP 2.9.x has fully integrated GEGL and can
> handle any conceivable image type (bit type that is).

Oh, so 2.9 is pre-release. Might wait a bit then anyway. Don't use it enough
to really care about it being on the bleeding edge.

[Sandman]

In article <pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain>, Fabian Russell
wrote:

> Here is an out-of-focus image:

> http://s28.postimg.org/8akp74qpp/woman_blur.jpg

> Here is the image "deblured" using Fred Weinhaus's CAMERADEBLUR
> ImageMagick script:

> http://s15.postimg.org/skcd14bi3/woman_deblur.jpg

> Can Photoshop do better?

> If you want to try it yourself, the original TIFF image is here:

> http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?
id=g5c6952207fd506e5999750975ac4890544754fae7

Actually, this is the original image:

<http://galleries.allover30.com/mature/StarNine/DmyIXT/sta010002008786008.jpg
>

So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera. Nice try though!

--
Sandman

[Edward Stansfield]

So Fabio faked the entire project by manually blurring and then unblurring
the image using software?

[Steve Carroll]

Good catch! Though, this isn't much of a surprise, really. In my opinion, this guy is an example of a good troll.

[Snit]

On 11/21/15, 2:40 AM, in article
sandman-94e59f17a36c...@individual.net, "Sandman"

So he has been lying the whole time. Lovely.

[Edward Stansfield]

Linux advocacy and lying go hand in hand. You can't have one without the
other.

[Fabian Russell]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:40:23 +0000, Sandman wrote:

>
> So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera.
>

Mr. Smart-Fsck thinks he's got something. What an ass!

What a supreme idiot! Camera blur doesn't have to come from a camera.
It can be perfectly simulated by a number of techniques.

The image was deliberately blurred, in the GIMP, using a gaussian
IIR filter to simulate an out of focus condition.

But the ImageMagick scripts are completely independent. To them,
the source of the blurring, be it a camera or other method, makes no difference.
The debluring process works just the same.

NOW LISTEN AND LISTEN GOOD, YOU FSCKING DUMB-FSCK IDIOT!

You know fscking sh!t about image processing. You think you've made
some big discovery but you only reveal your serious ineptitude.

So, unless you have something truly intelligent and insightful to
say, keep your fscking dumb-fsck comments out of my thread,

Everything I have said and done here remains perfectly and indisputably
valid.

[Snit]

On 11/21/15, 10:36 AM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

The "de-blurred" image looks just like the original. Why don't you welcome a
blurred image where you do NOT have the original and see how it does. Would
be great to see and remove any question of you cheating.

So far the evidence does not look good for you - but I also know Sandman
lies about accusations so he can feel better about himself. I am still
willing to show trust (honest people tend to trust more). So why don't you
let me send you an image I have blurred and then see how well you handle it?

If you want you can even tell me what parameters to set for blurring.

[Fabian Russell]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:40:23 +0000, Sandman wrote:

>

> So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera.
>

Listen to this smug-ass dumb-fsck idiot supreme!

This brain-dead motherfscker is attempting to denigrate
something about which he is totally ignorant.

An image can be de-focused with a camera or with some other
process. In the digital world of pure information, it makes
no difference whatsoever.

The important thing is how well a piece of software can reverse
the de-focus, and such a test is completely independent of the
image source.

Fscking idiot!

But what else can be expected from a pack of GUI-using losers.
Without their GUI they stumble like blind men and with mouths
spewing bullsh!t like crippled crones.

[Fabian Russell]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 10:40:26 -0700, Snit wrote:

>
> So far the evidence does not look good for you
>

Says who? Says you? And who the fsck are you?

Your're just a goddamned Photoshop dilettante who couldn't
distinguish a bit from a byte. You're just a pointy-clicky
moron who never left the comfort of his GUI.

And you are no different from all the rest.

It's pointless reasoning with a pack of ignoramus dumb-fscks.
I experienced this asinine lunacy once before and I should have
learned my lesson.

Go get butt-fscked by a jackass -- that represents both your heritage
and your legacy.

[Steve Carroll]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 10:40:34 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 11/21/15, 10:36 AM, in article
> pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
> <ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:40:23 +0000, Sandman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera.
> >>
> >
> > Mr. Smart-Fsck thinks he's got something. What an ass!
> >
> > What a supreme idiot! Camera blur doesn't have to come from a camera.
> > It can be perfectly simulated by a number of techniques.

LOL! A simulation is not camera blur and only an ignorant person would claim it can be "perfectly simulated". More importantly, any steps used to simulate camera blur, by any technique (any algorithm), can be undone and... presto!... the perfectly unblurred image is back again.

Realistically, for all anyone knows, you blurred the image, saved a copy, then unblurred and saved again... to show off your 'mad skilz'. We've seen this movie plenty of times from people like Snit.

> > The image was deliberately blurred, in the GIMP, using a gaussian
> > IIR filter to simulate an out of focus condition.
> >
> > But the ImageMagick scripts are completely independent. To them,
> > the source of the blurring, be it a camera or other method, makes no
> > difference.
> > The debluring process works just the same.
> >
> > NOW LISTEN AND LISTEN GOOD, YOU FSCKING DUMB-FSCK IDIOT!
> >
> > You know fscking sh!t about image processing. You think you've made
> > some big discovery but you only reveal your serious ineptitude.
> >
> > So, unless you have something truly intelligent and insightful to
> > say, keep your fscking dumb-fsck comments out of my thread,
> >
> > Everything I have said and done here remains perfectly and indisputably
> > valid.

And then you woke up ;)

Reality check: Everything you've said has no reason to be believed at all.

Of course, you know this... because you're just trolling. Until now, you were doing ok with it... but you're starting to drop the ball.

> The "de-blurred" image looks just like the original. Why don't you welcome a
> blurred image where you do NOT have the original and see how it does.

Gotta love it! Snit calls for an evidentiary chain when it's someone else's evidence, but not for his own "evidence". Gee, no one saw that coming ;)

> Would
> be great to see and remove any question of you cheating.

If you're aware the potential for tampering exists, Snit, why did you *ever* talk about versions of PDFs on *your* server for the email you sent to Mackay?

> So far the evidence does not look good for you - but I also know Sandman
> lies about accusations so he can feel better about himself.

I realize you're just about as stupid as you can possibly be, but feel free to explain how Sandman 'lied' here by providing what is obviously the image "Fabian Russell" started with.

[DFS]

You're an angry prick because you have to rely on the physicist Fred
Weinhaus and his nice ImageMagick scripts.

http://www.fmwconcepts.com/fmw/fmw.html
http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/index.php


Not good enough to roll your own? No need to take it out on everyone
else, especially people who don't share your nutty compulsion to use CLI
programs to do everything.


There's plenty of research in 'deconvolution' and eliminating motion blur:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson–Lucy_deconvolution

This one is interesting:
"Removing Motion Blur from Astrophotographic Images"
http://www.sweaglesw.com/cs448/

[Snit]

On 11/21/15, 10:43 AM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

My view:

1) You at this point are in a position to show your scripts do as they say.
This can be done with my providing you with an image for you to work with...
you can set the level and type of blurring you want. Or I can just send a
blurred image taken from my lousy camera.

2) Sandman did some good research here. I had not even bothered (like most
honest people I tend to trust), but now have done an image search with
Google, Bing, and TinEye and none found what Sandman did. Using the image
*he* found finds other copies, but not the one you did. So whatever he used
worked better than those. Congrats to Sandman.

3) Keep in mind Sandman pushes dishonest accusations. He made up a very,
very elaborate story about me that I ripped to shreds:
<https://goo.gl/WD4rKl> [Google Archive]. He does this to people he feels
have shown where he is wrong.

4) The reason he did this to me was years ago I noted (gasp!) his CSS did
not validate. A reasonable person would not care, but Sandman quickly fixed
his CSS then denied it had been failing. I showed absolute 100% proof his
CSS on his site failed to validate in ANY archived copy from the
WayBackMachine:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/sandman/sandman-archive.pdf>. He has been
trolling me and lying about me ever since.

[Snit]

On 11/21/15, 10:54 AM, in article

pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
<ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 10:40:26 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> So far the evidence does not look good for you
>
> Says who? Says you? And who the fsck are you?

Says the fact an original of the image you showed has been found that
matches your "fixed" one.

But you can resolve this easily: just tell me what setting to use to blur an
image and then you can run the same script. Boom. No question as to if your
tools work as they say.

Below you go off ranting about other tools - as if you have something to
hide. This is not looking good for you. I am the one who is saying I still
trust you may be honest... and giving you a chance to show it.

> Your're just a goddamned Photoshop dilettante who couldn't
> distinguish a bit from a byte. You're just a pointy-clicky
> moron who never left the comfort of his GUI.
>
> And you are no different from all the rest.
>
> It's pointless reasoning with a pack of ignoramus dumb-fscks.
> I experienced this asinine lunacy once before and I should have
> learned my lesson.
>
> Go get butt-fscked by a jackass -- that represents both your heritage
> and your legacy.
>

[Steve Carroll]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 11:40:41 AM UTC-7, Snit wrote:
> On 11/21/15, 10:43 AM, in article
> pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain, "Fabian Russell"
> <ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:40:23 +0000, Sandman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera.
> >>
> >
> > Listen to this smug-ass dumb-fsck idiot supreme!
> >
> > This brain-dead motherfscker is attempting to denigrate
> > something about which he is totally ignorant.
> >
> > An image can be de-focused with a camera or with some other
> > process. In the digital world of pure information, it makes
> > no difference whatsoever.
> >
> > The important thing is how well a piece of software can reverse
> > the de-focus, and such a test is completely independent of the
> > image source.
> >
> > Fscking idiot!
> >
> > But what else can be expected from a pack of GUI-using losers.
> > Without their GUI they stumble like blind men and with mouths
> > spewing bullsh!t like crippled crones.
> >
> My view:
>
> 1) You at this point are in a position to show your scripts do as they say.
> This can be done with my providing you with an image for you to work with...
> you can set the level and type of blurring you want. Or I can just send a
> blurred image taken from my lousy camera.
>

The view of people with working brains:

Anything allegedly sent to him by you is not just automatically suspect, such claims should be automatically rejected because of what you have shown yourself to be. For all anyone knows, you and he are the the same person, which is why *any* attempt at verification where you are involved should also be automatically rejected. Who *doesn't* know this?

(snip additional, irrelevant BS)

[GreyCloud]

Edward Stansfield wrote:

> On 20 Nov 2015 23:58:39 GMT, Fabian Russell wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 18:38:15 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> An Oracle DBA doesn't have to know anything about set theory to be an
>>> advanced, accredited Oracle PROFESSIONAL.
>>>
>>> A race car driver doesn't have to know diddly about the physics of
>>> inertia or brake materials to be a racing PROFESSIONAL.
>>>
>>
>> Enjoy your next 12-hour transatlantic flight with a pilot who
>> doesn't understand aerodynamics.
>>
>> Enjoy your next emergency surgery with a physician who doesn't understand
>> anatomy and physiology.

>>
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>
>>

>> But your first example doesn't make it. Software accreditation in
>> general is only a cheap gimmick intended to impress brain-dead hiring
>> managers. In these cases, the label of PROFESSIONAL is only a toy badge.
>
> You are either the biggest idiot to ever post in COLA or you are a master
> troll working hard and succeeding at making Linux users look bad by
> confirming the stereotypical Linux user.
>
> What a fucktard.

Maybe he is making a run into the Guiness book of records on how many people
he can piss off in usenet.

[Edward Stansfield]

I don't think anyone is pissed at him.
Most people are laughing their asses off at his expense.
He puts on quite the show!

[Sandman]

In article <n2pqau$tis$1...@dont-email.me>, Edward Stansfield wrote:

> > > Fabian Russell:

> > > Here is an out-of-focus image:
> >
> > > http://s28.postimg.org/8akp74qpp/woman_blur.jpg
> >
> > > Here is the image "deblured" using Fred Weinhaus's CAMERADEBLUR
> > > ImageMagick script:
> >
> > > http://s15.postimg.org/skcd14bi3/woman_deblur.jpg
> >
> > > Can Photoshop do better?
> >
> > > If you want to try it yourself, the original TIFF image is here:
> >
> > > http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?
> > > id=g5c6952207fd506e5999750975ac4890544754fae7
>

> > Sandman:

> > Actually, this is the original image:
>
> > <http://galleries.allover30.com/mature/StarNine/DmyIXT/sta010002008786008.jpg
>
> > So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera. Nice try
> > though!
>
> So Fabio faked the entire project by manually blurring and then
> unblurring the image using software?

I don't know what the purpose was here, but the image in question was not the
result of an out of focus photo out the camera that was "deblurred", it was a
pornography image that was blurred by software.

Whether or not the proposed "deblurred" was just the original image or not, I
don't know.

There are some blurring algorithms that can be mathematically reversed, but only
if the blur used the reverse algorithm to blur the image, it can not be applied
to blurry photos from the camera.

A blurry photo is an out of focus photo, and the light point spread is a unique
function of the lens. To (more or less) "deblur" the resulting exposure, one
would have to know 100% of the optical properties of the lens.

--
Sandman

[Sandman]

In article <pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain>, Fabian Russell wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera.
>
> Mr. Smart-Fsck thinks he's got something. What an ass!

> What a supreme idiot! Camera blur doesn't have to come from a
> camera. It can be perfectly simulated by a number of techniques.

Incorrect, camera blur is a direct property of the point spread of a given lens.
It's a unique feature of that lens. This is what is sometimes called "bokeh" when
it is aesthetically pleasing, and is different from lens to lens.

> The image was deliberately blurred, in the GIMP, using a gaussian
> IIR filter to simulate an out of focus condition.

It doesn't "simulate" anything, it emulates the result. A gaussian blur is a
mathematical algorithm that can easily be reversed using a high pass sharpen
using the same radius. It's just reversing the process mathematically since the
process is 100% known, unlike the conditions of a camera lens.

This can not be done with an out of focus shot from a camera. Not to the degree
shown in the pornographic image.

> But the ImageMagick scripts are completely independent. To them,
> the source of the blurring, be it a camera or other method, makes no
> difference. The debluring process works just the same.

It really doesn't, but instead of just claiming it, do it. Here's a shot I just
took. It is purposefully shot out of focus and is blurry:

<http://jonaseklundh.se/files/outoffocus.NEF>

I also took a shot in focus, so we can compare when you've run your "magic", huh?

--
Sandman

[Sandman]

In article <pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain>, Fabian Russell wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera.
>

> An image can be de-focused with a camera or with some other process.
> In the digital world of pure information, it makes no difference
> whatsoever.

It makes all the difference. When you blur an image in post processing, you are
using existing data and rearranging them. For some of these operations (gaussian
blur) the process can be 100% reversed.

When a camera is out of focus, the point spread of the light is at an unknown
state, and the original (would be, in-focus) image is nonexistent. The end result
is thus totally unpredictable mathematically to reverse the process 100%.

By using a series of sharpening techniques, you can certainly create a sharper
image, but you will never achieve an image that would appear as it would had the
lens been in focus.

> The important thing is how well a piece of software can reverse the
> de-focus, and such a test is completely independent of the image
> source.

I eagerly await your 100% sharp version of the out of focus RAW image I supplied
in the other reply to prove me wrong.

--
Sandman

[-hh]

Sandman wrote:
> In article <n2pqau$tis$1...@dont-email.me>, Edward Stansfield wrote:
>
> > > > Fabian Russell:
> > > > Here is an out-of-focus image:
> > >
> > > > http://s28.postimg.org/8akp74qpp/woman_blur.jpg
> > >
> > > > Here is the image "deblured" using Fred Weinhaus's CAMERADEBLUR
> > > > ImageMagick script:
> > >
> > > > http://s15.postimg.org/skcd14bi3/woman_deblur.jpg
> > >
> > > > Can Photoshop do better?
> > >
> > > > If you want to try it yourself, the original TIFF image is here:
> > >
> > > > http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?
> > > > id=g5c6952207fd506e5999750975ac4890544754fae7
> >
> > > Sandman:
> > > Actually, this is the original image:
> >
> > > <http://galleries.allover30.com/mature/StarNine/DmyIXT/sta010002008786008.jpg
> >
> > > So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera. Nice try
> > > though!
> >
> > So Fabio faked the entire project by manually blurring and then
> > unblurring the image using software?
>
> I don't know what the purpose was here, but the image in question was not the
> result of an out of focus photo out the camera that was "deblurred", it was a
> pornography image that was blurred by software.
>
> Whether or not the proposed "deblurred" was just the original image or not, I
> don't know.

Agreed, and even though it is a simple enough snake-oil, most people won't bother
to run their own test.

> There are some blurring algorithms that can be mathematically reversed, but only
> if the blur used the reverse algorithm to blur the image, it can not be applied
> to blurry photos from the camera.
>
> A blurry photo is an out of focus photo, and the light point spread is a unique
> function of the lens. To (more or less) "deblur" the resulting exposure, one
> would have to know 100% of the optical properties of the lens.

Its more than that, since the data will be conflated by the multiple sources of
potential blurring, such as camera motion (which is what messed up the below).

So! Case in point: if this really is a miracle clean-up script, then it should be
able to work wonders on my below image. I invite Fabian to go run it through his
setup to show us all:

Source:
<http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/armor_hole.jpg>



-hh

[Ezekiel]

"Fabian Russell" <ro...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain...

> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 10:40:26 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>>
>> So far the evidence does not look good for you
>>
>
> Says who? Says you? And who the fsck are you?
>
> Your're just a goddamned Photoshop dilettante who couldn't
> distinguish a bit from a byte. You're just a pointy-clicky
> moron who never left the comfort of his GUI.
>
> And you are no different from all the rest.
>

You're nothing but a lame poser. It's no wonder that HP fired your ignorant
ass.

--
"Microsoft implements the Unicode standard using UTF-16. This means that
ascii text files are now TWICE as large. Very stupid."

The "very stupid" Fabian Russell
<pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain>
Nov 9, 2015

[Ezekiel]

"Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in message
news:sandman-688e181b7825...@individual.net...

> In article <pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain>, Fabian Russell
> wrote:
>
>> > Sandman:
>> > So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera.
>>
>> Mr. Smart-Fsck thinks he's got something. What an ass!
>
>> What a supreme idiot! Camera blur doesn't have to come from a
>> camera. It can be perfectly simulated by a number of techniques.

Instead of frothing and screaming why don't you simply deblur the image that
he posted? Oh wait - you can't fix his image so you're attempting to save
face by denying the obvious.

Fabian was quick to issue a "photoshop challenge" to Snit (OP for this
thread). How quick will he be to accept your challenge with an actual
blurred photo.

I suspect Fabian will run away because the result from a real image will be
not nearly as close as the digitally blurred image.

--
"Most, if not all, women in science are fscking ugly.

Fabian Russell - October 30, 2015
<pan.2015.10...@localhost.localdomain>

[Snit]

On 11/22/15, 5:06 AM, in article
a570295b-a003-4500...@googlegroups.com, "-hh"
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

...

> Its more than that, since the data will be conflated by the multiple sources
> of potential blurring, such as camera motion (which is what messed up the
> below).
>
> So! Case in point: if this really is a miracle clean-up script, then it
> should be able to work wonders on my below image. I invite Fabian to go run
> it through his setup to show us all:
>
> Source:
> <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/armor_hole.jpg>
>
>
>
> -hh
>

I am in no, way, shape, or form an expert in this type stuff and I did this
just quickly... but the original and three different methods in Photoshop:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/armor_hole>

[Sandman]

In article <a570295b-a003-4500...@googlegroups.com>, -hh wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > I don't know what the purpose was here, but the image in question
> > was not the result of an out of focus photo out the camera that
> > was "deblurred", it was a pornography image that was blurred by
> > software. Whether or not the proposed "deblurred" was just the
> > original image or not, I don't know.
>
> Agreed, and even though it is a simple enough snake-oil, most people
> won't bother to run their own test.

I was interested in trying it out, but a gut feeling told me to check the input
parameters first :)

> > Sandman:

> > There are some blurring algorithms that can be mathematically
> > reversed, but only if the blur used the reverse algorithm to blur
> > the image, it can not be applied to blurry photos from the
> > camera. A blurry photo is an out of focus photo, and the light
> > point spread is a unique function of the lens. To (more or less)
> > "deblur" the resulting exposure, one would have to know 100% of
> > the optical properties of the lens.
>
> Its more than that, since the data will be conflated by the multiple
> sources of potential blurring, such as camera motion (which is what
> messed up the below).

Yes, I only mentioned out of focus blur, since that's the kind of blur that is
hardest to "correct" in post processing. Motion blur in an in-focus shot, if not
too severe, can be mathematically corrected to almost near perfection

> So! Case in point: if this really is a miracle clean-up script,
> then it should be able to work wonders on my below image. I invite
> Fabian to go run it through his setup to show us all:

> Source: <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/armor_hole.jpg>

Well, that's a really low-res image. If you had the 12/14-bit RAW file on hand,
there might be more one could do with it.

--
Sandman

[Sandman]

In article <n2sfc1$lak$1...@dont-email.me>, Ezekiel wrote:

> > > > So it's not an image that was out of focus in the
> > > > camera.
> > >

> > > Fabian Russell:

> > > Mr. Smart-Fsck thinks he's got something. What an ass!
> >
> > > What a supreme idiot! Camera blur doesn't have to come from a
> > > camera. It can be perfectly simulated by a number of techniques.
> >
> Instead of frothing and screaming why don't you simply deblur the
> image that he posted? Oh wait - you can't fix his image so you're
> attempting to save face by denying the obvious.

He hasn't posted since I uploaded it, just give him some time. :)

> > > Fabian Russell:

> > > But the ImageMagick scripts are completely independent. To
> > > them, the source of the blurring, be it a camera or other
> > > method, makes no difference. The debluring process works just
> > > the same.
> >

> > Sandman:

> > It really doesn't, but instead of just claiming it, do it. Here's
> > a shot I just took. It is purposefully shot out of focus and is
> > blurry:
>
> > <http://jonaseklundh.se/files/outoffocus.NEF>
>
> > I also took a shot in focus, so we can compare when you've run
> > your "magic", huh?
>
> Fabian was quick to issue a "photoshop challenge" to Snit (OP for
> this thread). How quick will he be to accept your challenge with an
> actual blurred photo.

You can run the above image through an high pass sharpen that would help a bit,
but his example image had strands of hair that supposedly where brought back from
a blurry photo, which is absolutely the most tricky part.

The above is a high resolution (36MP) photo taken with my D800E. As I said, I
also took an in focus shot so we can compare the end result. :)

> I suspect Fabian will run away because the result from a real image
> will be not nearly as close as the digitally blurred image.

Correcting out of focus blur is one of the hardest types of sharpening you can do
with a photo. It's all about entropy. Using gaussian blur, you reorder entropy to
reduce it, but do so with a mathematical formula. Using high pass sharpen, you
use the exact same formula in reverse, restoring entropy.

With an actual out of focus photo, the entropy was less to begin with, and there
is no data to restore mathematically.

--
Sandman

[-hh]

Sandman wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> > > Sandman:
> > > I don't know what the purpose was here, but the image in question
> > > was not the result of an out of focus photo out the camera that
> > > was "deblurred", it was a pornography image that was blurred by
> > > software. Whether or not the proposed "deblurred" was just the
> > > original image or not, I don't know.
> >
> > Agreed, and even though it is a simple enough snake-oil, most people
> > won't bother to run their own test.
>
> I was interested in trying it out, but a gut feeling told me to check the input
> parameters first :)

Agreed.

> > > Sandman:
> > > There are some blurring algorithms that can be mathematically
> > > reversed, but only if the blur used the reverse algorithm to blur
> > > the image, it can not be applied to blurry photos from the
> > > camera. A blurry photo is an out of focus photo, and the light
> > > point spread is a unique function of the lens. To (more or less)
> > > "deblur" the resulting exposure, one would have to know 100% of
> > > the optical properties of the lens.
> >
> > Its more than that, since the data will be conflated by the multiple
> > sources of potential blurring, such as camera motion (which is what
> > messed up the below).
>
> Yes, I only mentioned out of focus blur, since that's the kind of blur that is
> hardest to "correct" in post processing. Motion blur in an in-focus shot, if not
> too severe, can be mathematically corrected to almost near perfection
>
> > So! Case in point: if this really is a miracle clean-up script,
> > then it should be able to work wonders on my below image. I invite
> > Fabian to go run it through his setup to show us all:
>
> > Source: <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/armor_hole.jpg>
>
> Well, that's a really low-res image.

Indeed. It dates from the days when not only were originals not really all
that big (this was from a 4MP camera), but web server space was pretty
limited as well - - if memory serves, the average domain web account at
the time had a ~20MB quota for all of one's webpages & images.

> If you had the 12/14-bit RAW file on hand, there might be more one could do with it.

Unfortunately, no RAW file exists, as the 4MP camera it came out of was just
a Point-n-Shoot. I use this low performance pic as an example of the "best camera
is the one that you have with you" paradigm.

Granted, I should still have the original in my digital archives, so I could (& should)
take a look at how it could be made less bad through the technologies of post
processing which have advanced in the last decade. Nevertheless, the main
problem is still the blur from being handheld on a slow shutter speed, and I'm
still interested to watch Febian's claims of being able to work miracles ... do so.

Obviously, if his process can't work with real images, then it isn't much good.


-hh

[Snit]

On 11/22/15, 12:08 PM, in article
276deb03-a97d-40c5...@googlegroups.com, "-hh"

<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>>> Source: <http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/2005/paris/armor_hole.jpg>
>>
>> Well, that's a really low-res image.
>
> Indeed. It dates from the days when not only were originals not really all
> that big (this was from a 4MP camera), but web server space was pretty
> limited as well - - if memory serves, the average domain web account at
> the time had a ~20MB quota for all of one's webpages & images.
>
>
>> If you had the 12/14-bit RAW file on hand, there might be more one could do
>> with it.
>
> Unfortunately, no RAW file exists, as the 4MP camera it came out of was just
> a Point-n-Shoot. I use this low performance pic as an example of the "best
> camera
> is the one that you have with you" paradigm.
>
> Granted, I should still have the original in my digital archives, so I could
> (& should)
> take a look at how it could be made less bad through the technologies of post
> processing which have advanced in the last decade. Nevertheless, the main
> problem is still the blur from being handheld on a slow shutter speed, and I'm
> still interested to watch Febian's claims of being able to work miracles ...
> do so.
>
> Obviously, if his process can't work with real images, then it isn't much
> good.

I took on the challenge. I openly admit someone with more knowledge and who
spends more time could likely to do a better job (and mine is overdone I
think... whatever, it was quick):

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/armor_hole>

I might have time tonight to do a bit more with it... but that shows some
common techniques in Photoshop.

[Sandman]

In article <pan.2015.11...@localhost.localdomain>, Fabian Russell wrote:

> > Sandman:

> > So it's not an image that was out of focus in the camera.

> The image was deliberately blurred, in the GIMP, using a gaussian
> IIR filter to simulate an out of focus condition.

Funny how you vanished after this? Why didn't you deblur the photo I uploaded?

--
Sandman

[chrisv]

Sandman wrote:

> Fabian Russell wrote:
>>
>> The important thing is how well a piece of software can reverse the
>> de-focus, and such a test is completely independent of the image
>> source.

If you're going to be a loud-mouthed know-it all, "Fabian", you had
best first get your facts straight.

>I eagerly await your 100% sharp version of the out of focus RAW image I supplied
>in the other reply to prove me wrong.

--

"It's the presence of negative feedback that maintains the stability."
- trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", putting his ignorance on display

[chrisv]

> Kreep wrote:
>>
>> I suspect Fabian will run away because the result from a real image
>> will be not nearly as close as the digitally blurred image.

Hey, Kreep, does the fact that Google "needs" to run "a million" Linux
machines to function *really* reflect poorly upon Linux? Or are you a
truly fscktarded Kreep?

--
"If linux is so fast, powerful and efficient it's rather sad that
Google needs to run a million servers just to stay functional." -
trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"

[Chris Ahlstrom]

chrisv wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

If Linux is so "sad", why doesn't Google just pony up some cash
to Microsoft to pay for a million CALs?

:-D
:-D
:-D
:-D
:-D

--
Increased knowledge will help you now. Have mate's phone bugged.

[Slimer]

On 2015-11-23 1:28 PM, chrisv wrote:
>> Kreep wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect Fabian will run away because the result from a real image
>>> will be not nearly as close as the digitally blurred image.
>
> Hey, Kreep, does the fact that Google "needs" to run "a million" Linux
> machines to function *really* reflect poorly upon Linux? Or are you a
> truly fscktarded Kreep?

Google relies on Linux to spy on the world and sell their data to the
highest bidder in the ultimate eradication of privacy. Be proud, Linux
users, for Google is using your beloved kernel to take what's left of
your private life to accurately profile you and make predictions about
your behaviour.

--
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia Member / IFAW and PETA Supporter
Death to those who would abuse and kill in the name of Islam.

[chrisv]

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> chrisv wrote:
>>
>> Hey, Kreep, does the fact that Google "needs" to run "a million" Linux
>> machines to function *really* reflect poorly upon Linux? Or are you a
>> truly fscktarded Kreep?
>>
>> --
>> "If linux is so fast, powerful and efficient it's rather sad that
>> Google needs to run a million servers just to stay functional." -
>> trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"
>
>If Linux is so "sad", why doesn't Google just pony up some cash
>to Microsoft to pay for a million CALs?
>
> :-D
> :-D
> :-D
> :-D
> :-D

Kreep should call-up Sergey Brin and tell him that he's basing his
business on the wrong OS!

Oh, wait, Kreep hates Google. He thinks that they are "thugs" because
of their influence on their Open Handset Alliance partners. "Google
bad" because they expect something in return for their hard work -
it's not just a one-way street where other companies get to use
Android for free while making no concessions to Google.

I wonder if the stupid lying Kreep is still insisting that companies
like Samsung don't have the choice to branch Android, if they don't
like Google's terms.

Even though several companies have branched Android.

Oh, but wait, Google doesn't give-away for free *everything* needed to
compete with them, head-to-head in the market! "Google bad!"

I mean, the fsckwittery is beyond belief!

--
"If you want to examine thugs and an offer they can't refuse try
taking a look at what the thugs at Google+Android are doing *today* -
not 1980." - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel"

[Slimer]

Still obsessed with Ezekiel, eh?


--
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW & PETA Supporter