Unmasked Vesta

tontoko wrote:

The pictures shown in the following URL;

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach& type=post&id=2017
are the original image of Vesta (left), its de-convoluted image (middle / focus depth:=3.8, iteration:=8 / software: Focus Corrector ) and another de-convoluted image (right / focus depth:=4.3, iteration:=8 / software: Focus Corrector).

For detail of Focus Corrector, visit;

http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/c22508/focus.htm

Wouldn’t you need metadata (EXIF) to send shake (IS) data across to make these adjustments? I do not think meta data contains that kind of information. How do you get these beautiful results?

Thanks,
Ron

I didn’t use EXIF format file. I got the original image of Vesta from HST website. It was a jpeg file and I converted it to bmp file for dealing with it on my software (!)

My method is based on the inverse convolution (de-convolution) for re-focusing blurred image. While for that purpose usually Fourier transform is applied, my method carries out the inverse convolution with iterative matrix calculations.

I have an online-gallery for some planetary images deconvolved by Focus Corrector as,

http://www.geocities.com/q17320508/focuscorrector/gallery/pl anetary2/planetary2.htm

In the above gallery I fear some images might be over-deconvolved…

wrote:

tontoko wrote:

The pictures shown in the following URL;

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach& type=post&id=2017
are the original image of Vesta (left), its de-convoluted image (middle / focus depth:=3.8, iteration:=8 / software: Focus Corrector ) and another de-convoluted image (right / focus depth:=4.3, iteration:=8 / software: Focus Corrector).

For detail of Focus Corrector, visit;

http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/c22508/focus.htm

Wouldn’t you need metadata (EXIF) to send shake (IS) data across to make these adjustments? I do not think meta data contains that kind of information. How do you get these beautiful results?

Thanks,
Ron

tontoko wrote:

I didn’t use EXIF format file. I got the original image of Vesta from HST website. It was a jpeg file

Uh-oh!

and I converted it to bmp file for
dealing with it on my software (!)

My method is based on the inverse convolution (de-convolution) for re-focusing blurred image. While for that purpose usually Fourier transform is applied, my method carries out the inverse convolution with iterative matrix calculations.

I have an online-gallery for some planetary images deconvolved by Focus Corrector as,

http://www.geocities.com/q17320508/focuscorrector/gallery/pl anetary2/planetary2.htm
In the above gallery I fear some images might be over-deconvolved…

Definitely. Unfortunately, without knowing what the objects look like without blur, we can’t tell how good a job your algorithm is doing. How about using more convenient objects, like trees or buildings, where you can mount the camera on a tripod and take focused and de-focused images?

Andrew

For those unwilling to spend $49.85 for Focus Corrector, you may find the freeware Unshake a suitable alternative:
http://www.hamangia.freeserve.co.uk/Unshake/
It also uses Fourier transforms.
Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

In article ,
tontoko wrote:

My method is based on the inverse convolution (de-convolution) for re-focusing blurred image. While for that purpose usually Fourier transform is applied, my method carries out the inverse convolution with iterative matrix calculations.

For detail of Focus Corrector, visit;

http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/c22508/focus.htm

Thank you for your suggestion. However to use the sample image taken by myself might not be objective, since I may choose the example having better result deliberately (!)

In the following webpage the comparison of deconvolved images of Tempel 1 processed by Photoshop and Focus Corrector is shown.

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach& type=post&id=5869

(Left: the original image taken by Deep Impact probe
Middle-left: processed by Photoshop
Middle-right: processed by Focus Corrector
Right: another genuine image taken at the position closer to the surface of Tempel 1)

Andrew Morton wrote:

tontoko wrote:

I didn’t use EXIF format file. I got the original image of Vesta from HST website. It was a jpeg file

Uh-oh!

and I converted it to bmp file for
dealing with it on my software (!)

My method is based on the inverse convolution (de-convolution) for re-focusing blurred image. While for that purpose usually Fourier transform is applied, my method carries out the inverse convolution with iterative matrix calculations.

I have an online-gallery for some planetary images deconvolved by Focus Corrector as,

http://www.geocities.com/q17320508/focuscorrector/gallery/pl anetary2/planetary2.htm
In the above gallery I fear some images might be over-deconvolved…

Definitely. Unfortunately, without knowing what the objects look like without blur, we can’t tell how good a job your algorithm is doing. How about using more convenient objects, like trees or buildings, where you can mount the camera on a tripod and take focused and de-focused images?
Andrew

Tom Nelson wrote:

For those unwilling to spend $49.85 for Focus Corrector, you may find the freeware Unshake a suitable alternative:
http://www.hamangia.freeserve.co.uk/Unshake/
It also uses Fourier transforms.
Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

Hi Tom,
The results you are getting are amazing but due to problems with my computer I was unable to get it to work. I think it may be possible to improve the user interface. I like the idea of an input folder and an output folder. But if in addition to that if you generated a set of output images, maybe twelve, according to a distribution (possibly initially random) of input parameters then allow the user to select the best, say two or three, of that set as a way to generate new sets of parameters. That process could be repeated allowing the user do eliminate by selection paths of failed parameters. It would also add meaning to its name ‘Small Wriggly Thing’.

Thank you for putting it together and good luck with your project, Ron