Out of focus photo
The Old Bloke
Is there anyway to fix/enhance an out of focus photo? I think the
answer is no, but this is a really special case.
A Mate of mine lives in a remote part of Australia. His son turned 18
recently and there was a rare family reunion to celebrate the day. The
young lad is in a wheelchair, and maybe has another year to live.
The family photo was badly ourt of focus.
Does anyone have a magic technique?
Regards
Doug
Mike Russell
> Path: feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!pit-transit.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail
> From: The Old Bloke <le0p...@Xgmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.graphics.photoshop
> Subject: Out of focus photo
> Message-ID: <gqn1h59u7h4tfsrj4...@4ax.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 15
> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:39:26 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 58.174.162.216
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@bigpond.net.au
> X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1259397566 58.174.162.216 (Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:39:26 EST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:39:26 EST
> Organization: BigPond Internet Services
> Xref: eternal-september.org alt.graphics.photoshop:1986
Hi Doug,
Unfortunately, no. I'd suggest making the image available and see what
some of us can do with it. If privacy is an issue, which it may well be
for a family image, perhaps you could email individual copies. Based on
past experience, I think the image can be improved over what you have now,
using curves, and un-sharp mask to make things somewhat better.
On a more experimental (aka probably not practical) note, it *might* be
possible to improve your image using a process called de-convolution.
Here's a web page demonstrating some relatively recent work in this area.
The basic process consists of taking measurements of the camera properties,
then using a rather hefty algorithm to reconstruct a blurred image. The
Home page includes a link to some free experimental software that was used.
http://www.bialith.com/Research/BARclockblur.htm
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
david johnson
as already mentioned its pretty hard to do
http://www.focusmagic.com/ this might help but don't expect miracles.
Alan Browne
The Old Bloke
<grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
Mike, I have emailed the photo to you.
I hope you can help.
Regards
Doug
Sam
"The Old Bloke" <le0p...@Xgmail.com> wrote in message
news:gqn1h59u7h4tfsrj4...@4ax.com...
Depends what sort of blur you're talking about, as there are several types.
If it's lens blurring caused by a poorly focused camera, you can duplicate
the layer in photoshop, run a high pass filter on it and set the resulting
layer to "Overlay" blend mode.
This will detect and enhance all the edge contrasts in the image. It won't
increase the sharpness, but it will give the illusion that it has.
If it's motion blur caused by camera movement, there's really not a lot you
can do unless you're prepared to do a lot of heavy duty reconstruction using
the clone tool.
If it's fringeing caused by chromatic abberation, you'll find Photoshop
actually has a dedicated tool for fixing this under "Filters>Distort>Lens
Corection".
Chromatic abberation is identified by coloured fringes around items in the
image, usually towards the edges and corners, and the tool corrects it by
shunting and resizing the red, green and blue channels.
If you could post a link to the picture, we might be able to offer more
comprehensive help.
Ragnar
"Sam" <s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:_YSdnb59w-_yFY_W...@bt.com...
>
<SNIP>
> If it's fringeing caused by chromatic abberation, you'll find Photoshop
> actually has a dedicated tool for fixing this under "Filters>Distort>Lens
> Corection".
> Chromatic abberation is identified by coloured fringes around items in the
> image, usually towards the edges and corners, and the tool corrects it by
> shunting and resizing the red, green and blue channels.
>
Looks like a filter I could use, but it is not available on Photoshop v. 8
as far as I can see. Anyone know of a plugin for download? (Preferably
free)
R.
The Old Bloke
The family is not comfortable with the image being widely available,
however I will email to an address.
Regards
Doug
The Old Bloke
I gave it a good try without a better image
The Old Bloke
I am a mere beginner with images, bit it looks like camera movement as
the image looks like a TV ghost, albeit all looks blurred.
Remove the "X" s to reply directly
Mike Russell
kee...@yahoo.com.invalid
<grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi People,
>>>>
>>>> Is there anyway to fix/enhance an out of focus photo? I think the
>>>> answer is no, but this is a really special case.
>>>>
>>>> A Mate of mine lives in a remote part of Australia. His son turned 18
>>>> recently and there was a rare family reunion to celebrate the day. The
>>>> young lad is in a wheelchair, and maybe has another year to live.
>>>>
>>>> The family photo was badly ourt of focus.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have a magic technique?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Doug
Here's an idea since you're figuring on photo shopping the image anyway's..
It just requires some advance preparation..
Sort of a green screen effect. You take the background, assuming it's intact.
Inform the rest of the family what you need.. Maybe get a separate shot of JUST
the background from the Oz family. Then separate shots of all the family in OZ
in separate shots.
placement.. stick an x on a green screen test image for where you want all the
relatives in Oz to stand, get them to take more pictures, and send them to you.
Then you take green screen photos of all the rest positioned on the remaining X
spots. A color wheel in all the photos would go a long way to equalizing the
differences in colors from all the pieces of the photos you need to cut & paste
together.
Then a little cut & paste, and edge blur to remove sharp edges. And they're all
back together. Make as many copies as you want.
ie: you can visit Iraq during a fire fight, and in the middle of a IED with PS.
Go to Italy, Climb Everest etc...
Much faster & accurate than attempting to guess what sort of blur you have, and
trying to step back in time to before it was blurred.
If you doubt the reality of this, do a google for fake images. Most will appear
on nude sites.. ie: The monkey Michelle Obama that google removed from their
search engines just this week. It was a good fake, but it stood out as a fake
because of the 2 separate images being combined.
green screen = any plain colored wall. Take the photos of everyone on a plain
background.
I don't know of any magic that green has, other than it's not a color normally
found in nature, and stands out like a sore thumb when looking for edges.
Simpler to remove the green background.. vs trying to separate a white shirt
from a white background etc..
Mike Russell
> I don't know of any magic that green has, other than it's not a color normally
> found in nature, and stands out like a sore thumb when looking for edges.
Green and blue are the common colors for screening, and still have their
uses in digital. Blue screen was historically the preferred color for
creating film mattes because emulsions exist that are sensitive only to
blue light, and blue wavelengths give the best detail in a photograph.
Green is advantageous for digital photography - it's one of the normal
channels of an RGB image, has fewer jaggies due to the Bayer pattern
arrangement of color filters, and the green channel is almost always less
noisy than the blue channel.
Sam
<kee...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:j7p7h5davpp2tn4a2...@4ax.com...
?????
Where do you live if you think green isn't a colour normally found in
nature?
Green is the colour of grass, foliage, algae, the sea, moss, many animals
etc.
Green is one of the most abundantly found colours in nature.
Mike Russell
LOL - I think what he meant was that, being mammals, we tend not to be
green. We're also self-centered enough that plants are almost always part
of the background.
---
kee...@yahoo.com.invalid
<grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:18:33 -0000, Sam wrote:
>
>> <kee...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:j7p7h5davpp2tn4a2...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 03:55:20 -0800, Mike Russell
>> <grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know of any magic that green has, other than it's not a color
>>> normally
>>> found in nature
>>
>> ?????
>> Where do you live if you think green isn't a colour normally found in
>> nature?
>> Green is the colour of grass, foliage, algae, the sea, moss, many animals
>> etc.
>> Green is one of the most abundantly found colours in nature.
>
>LOL - I think what he meant was that, being mammals, we tend not to be
>green. We're also self-centered enough that plants are almost always part
>of the background.
>---
>Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
I don't know why I'd bother explaining what I said any deeper, since it's
obvious that everyone knows that fluorescent lime green is NOT a color found
naturally in nature.
So it's a perfect choice to stand out from anything other than lime green
sherbet. But then sherbet doesn't fluoresce.
Sam
<kee...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:v2k8h5ptrqnrt8abv...@4ax.com...
Well, now that you've edited your statement to include the word
*flourescent*, it makes sense.
Alan Browne
Bread smell? Is that what makes "scents"?
Mike Russell
Thanks for raisin that issue, Alan.
Sam
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:4tydnQtX96xP64nW...@giganews.com...
mmmMMMmmm...Freshly ground coffee...
tony cooper
<grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
It's not like you to make rye comments, Mike.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Michael J Davis
>>
>>On a more experimental (aka probably not practical) note, it *might* be
>>possible to improve your image using a process called de-convolution.
>>Here's a web page demonstrating some relatively recent work in this area.
>>The basic process consists of taking measurements of the camera properties,
>>then using a rather hefty algorithm to reconstruct a blurred image. The
>>Home page includes a link to some free experimental software that was used.
>>http://www.bialith.com/Research/BARclockblur.htm
>
>
>as already mentioned its pretty hard to do
>
>http://www.focusmagic.com/ this might help but don't expect miracles.
I find Focusmagic pretty useful both with motion blur (including camera
shake) and occasional oof shots.
It uses deconvolution formulae, and is different from 'normal'
sharpening techniques which rely on micro contrast effects.
However, the correction can get fairly nasty when the blur is greater
than 10pixels, and worse if the blur is not linear. eg when someone has
swung the camera round in an arc.
I'm not clear from this thread if anyone has attempted to do this with
the image in question. Is it just too blurred to get results?
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<>{
Free advice is often worth
less than you paid for it.
<>{
Mike Russell
It's motion blur, linear blur of about 20 pixels with the appearance of
faintly doubling the image. I've been experimenting with various ways to
deal with it.
Now that you mention it, I'll see if FocusMagic has a demo version and give
it a go.
Michael J Davis
Yes it does - 10 attempts.
It rescued a couple of problem photos of mine (1 camera shake, 1 subject
movement) and I decided to buy it. v. useful.
However 20 pixels with 'doubling effect' will give some harsh effects in
Focus magic. I suspect it would need some pretty sophisticated
algorithms to resolve that.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
www.flickr.com/photos/watchman
<><
Photography takes an instant out of time,
altering life by holding it still. - Dorothea Lange
<><
The Old Bloke
Hi Mike,
I calculated the blur at 16 pixels. I tried with focusmagic without
success. I was able to "recombine" the image, but at the expense of
introducing major artefacts.
Regards
Doug
Mike Russell
I had a similar experience. I'm in the midst of experimenting with
offsetting the image and subtracting it from itself - this also seems not
to be working all that well. I do have a version that looks somewhat
better, using that good old standby, unsharp mask, but it does so at the
expense of some of the fine detail that the image has.
Michael J Davis
>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 12:29:05 -0800, Mike Russell
><grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:40:36 +0000, Michael J Davis wrote:
>>> I find Focusmagic pretty useful both with motion blur (including camera
>>> shake) and occasional oof shots.
>>>
>>> It uses deconvolution formulae, and is different from 'normal'
>>> sharpening techniques which rely on micro contrast effects.
>>>
>>> However, the correction can get fairly nasty when the blur is greater
>>> than 10pixels, and worse if the blur is not linear. eg when someone has
>>> swung the camera round in an arc.
>>>
>>> I'm not clear from this thread if anyone has attempted to do this with
>>> the image in question. Is it just too blurred to get results?
>>>
>>faintly doubling the image. I've been experimenting with various ways to
>>deal with it.
>>
>>Now that you mention it, I'll see if FocusMagic has a demo version and give
>>it a go.
>
>success. I was able to "recombine" the image, but at the expense of
>introducing major artefacts.
Yes, from the way you were describing it, I suspected that would be the
problem.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis
<Photographing the public for fifty years>