Help needed- clean up picture taken from a plane

Cliff Top wrote:

Hi,
I have a photo of a friends house taken from a small plane. It has 2 problems I am struggling to overcome.
www.pfmrs.plus.com/andrew/house.jpg

Taken through the perspex ‘cockpit’ there is some ‘haze’ on the image. Second there are a few pixels of vertical motion ‘blur’ caused by the vibration/movement during the exposure.

When I change levels or contrast etc I can get better results but when I eliminate the haze it makes the bottom left grassy area go extremely dark. Any help on what method to best eliminate the haze would be appreciated.

Admittedly I am no expert, but I will recommend adjusting the levels in the image. This will likely allow you to improve contrast with suffering so much at the extremes. Give the auto level a try. If you’re not happy with that, you can manually set the end and midpoints for the levels as well.

Also is there a plug-in available that would be able to look at the amount of motion and compensate/’sharpen ‘ the image?

Perhaps it is because of my extreme amateur status, but I’ve really been happy with the effects of sharpening an image. At best I can strike a compromise by sharpening selected portions of an image, but that doesn’t really seem like much of an option in your case. I suspect that at least part of my dissatisfaction stems from the fact that the information to make the resolution I want is simply not in the picture.

If you can live with a smaller format, you might get some relief by resampling the image to smaller dimensions.

"Cliff Top" posted:

Hi,
I have a photo of a friends house taken from a small plane. It has 2
problems I am struggling to overcome.

Taken through the perspex ‘cockpit’ there is some ‘haze’ on the image. Second there are a few pixels of vertical motion ‘blur’ caused by the vibration/movement during the exposure.

I used Unsharp Mask with paramaters of 20/60/4,
(which is intended for removing haze), running it five times,

and then Smart Sharpen with 50/9.7/Lens Blur.

Before: http://maxbuten.com/andrewsHouse.jpg
After: http://maxbuten.com/AndrewHouseSharp.jpg

Not a work of art, but perhaps good enough to be useful.

When I change levels or contrast etc I can get better results but when I eliminate the haze it makes the bottom left grassy area go extremely dark. Any help on what method to best eliminate the haze would be appreciated.

Also is there a plug-in available that would be able to look at the amount of motion and compensate/’sharpen ‘ the image?

Smart Sharpen in CS2, although I don’t think it works well.

– Ben
—
Ben J Compson

http://buten.net/max/
Slideshows of Egypt, Jordan, Angkor Wat, Bali, Crete, France, Hudson Valley, Malaysia, Maui, Morocco, Mt Holly, Myanmar, Shanghai, Sicily, St Tropez, Singapore, Thailand, Tour de France.

http://pbase.com/mistermax – Shadows and Reflections

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:06:18 +0100, "Cliff Top" wrote:

Hi,
I have a photo of a friends house taken from a small plane. It has 2 problems I am struggling to overcome.
www.pfmrs.plus.com/andrew/house.jpg

I did a quick 5min bit of editing

http://axe.iinet.net.au/house-edit.jpg

I colour corrected the highlight/shadow/midtones with curves, despeckled, converted the lab mode and gaussian blured the a and b channel to reduce some noise. Converted back to RGB, quick masked the middle part that was hazy and altered the levels so it kinda matched the rest of the picture, altered the entire picture levels to increase contrast, smart sharpened with jpg set on, and used motion blur with a 90 degree angle. Increased the saturation +3 and then added a cooling filter with 5% opacity.

Dunno which house you wanted to make look better though.

Cliff Top wrote:

Hi,
I have a photo of a friends house taken from a small plane. It has 2 problems I am struggling to overcome.
www.pfmrs.plus.com/andrew/house.jpg

Taken through the perspex ‘cockpit’ there is some ‘haze’ on the image. Second there are a few pixels of vertical motion ‘blur’ caused by the vibration/movement during the exposure.

When I change levels or contrast etc I can get better results but when I eliminate the haze it makes the bottom left grassy area go extremely

dark.

Any help on what method to best eliminate the haze would be appreciated.
Also is there a plug-in available that would be able to look at the

amount

of motion and compensate/’sharpen ‘ the image?

cheers
Andrew

rmd’s edited version is about as good as it will probably ever get. Garbage in, garbage out, I’m afraid, especially when it comes to blur from slow shutter speeds.

—
Aaron

"Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." — John Stuart Mill

Cliff Top wrote:

Hi,
I have a photo of a friends house taken from a small plane. It has 2 problems I am struggling to overcome.
www.pfmrs.plus.com/andrew/house.jpg

Taken through the perspex ‘cockpit’ there is some ‘haze’ on the image. Second there are a few pixels of vertical motion ‘blur’ caused by the vibration/movement during the exposure.

When I change levels or contrast etc I can get better results but when I eliminate the haze it makes the bottom left grassy area go extremely dark. Any help on what method to best eliminate the haze would be appreciated.

Also is there a plug-in available that would be able to look at the amount of motion and compensate/’sharpen ‘ the image?

cheers
Andrew

This would make an ideal subject for a retouching challenge in www.retouchpro.com.

Whatever solution you eventually adopt I would suggest that you adjust the image by means of an adjustment layer and then paint in the layer to control the degree of adjustment, as the haziness is not uniform across your image.

John

Cliff Top wrote:

Taken through the perspex ‘cockpit’ there is some ‘haze’ on the image. Second there are a few pixels of vertical motion ‘blur’ caused by the vibration/movement during the exposure.

Try Image analyzer
http://meesoft.logicnet.dk/
or Picture Cooler
http://denoiser.shorturl.com/
or Focus Magic
http://www.focusmagic.com

I think the first one is the only one that will ‘deconvolute’ for free…

Thanks to all for your help with this.

Guy , "guy gelaes" <

Came up with the best to resolve the focus issue:-

For the correction i use PS CS2 with the Optipix plug-ins from http://www.reindeergraphics.com . They have a lot of amazing plug-ins for the graphic industry but not cheap. I use the "refocus" plug-in. If you want i send you the all workflow by email.

http://users.telenet.be/ggelaes/photo/housecorr.jpg )

I am still working on better ways to photograph from the plane, ideally with the camera outside, though checking image composition is not easy like that and vibration from the airframe is a problem if the camera is mounted directly onto it.

thanks Again

Cliff Top…. aka Andrew wilkinson

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:58:44 +0100, "Cliff Top" found these unused words floating about:

Thanks to all for your help with this.

Guy , "guy gelaes" <

Came up with the best to resolve the focus issue:-

For the correction i use PS CS2 with the Optipix plug-ins from http://www.reindeergraphics.com . They have a lot of amazing plug-ins for the graphic industry but not cheap. I use the "refocus" plug-in. If you want i send you the all workflow by email.

http://users.telenet.be/ggelaes/photo/housecorr.jpg )

I am still working on better ways to photograph from the plane, ideally with the camera outside, though checking image composition is not easy like that and vibration from the airframe is a problem if the camera is mounted directly onto it.

thanks Again

Cliff Top…. aka Andrew wilkinson

Many digital camerashave a ‘video’ output jack. If so, just get a small 5" lcd panel and mount -=inside=-.

Higher shutter speed will remove the vibration.

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:45:37 -0600, "Warren Weber" <hiview68NO

scribbled:

Is this any better?

Did you happen to see the word ‘binaries’ in the group’s name?

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:05:44 GMT, Voivod found these unused words floating about:

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:45:37 -0600, "Warren Weber" <hiview68NO

scribbled:

Is this any better?

Did you happen to see the word ‘binaries’ in the group’s name?

So why don’t -=you=- post the CHARTER for the group on a regular basis, so that newbies will understand what -=is=- and -=is not=- allowed!

HINT: -=SOME=- groups without ‘binaries’ -=DO=- allow imagery, per CHARTER !!!

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:41:15 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
scribbled:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:05:44 GMT, Voivod found these unused words floating about:

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:45:37 -0600, "Warren Weber" <hiview68NO

scribbled:

Is this any better?

Did you happen to see the word ‘binaries’ in the group’s name?

So why don’t -=you=- post the CHARTER for the group on a regular basis, so that newbies will understand what -=is=- and -=is not=- allowed!

If you don’t see ‘binaries’ don’t post ‘binaries’. How much simpler does it have to be made for you morons?

HINT: -=SOME=- groups without ‘binaries’ -=DO=- allow imagery, per CHARTER !!!

Irrelevant, charters are not binding on the concept of usenet.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:41:48 GMT, Voivod found these unused words floating about:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:41:15 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
scribbled:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:05:44 GMT, Voivod found these unused words floating about:

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:45:37 -0600, "Warren Weber" <hiview68NO

scribbled:

Is this any better?

Did you happen to see the word ‘binaries’ in the group’s name?

So why don’t -=you=- post the CHARTER for the group on a regular basis, so that newbies will understand what -=is=- and -=is not=- allowed!

If you don’t see ‘binaries’ don’t post ‘binaries’. How much simpler does it have to be made for you morons?

Really? Guess that only applies in your little corner … now face the wall and don’t speak until you realize you’re one of the many ‘morons’ inhabiting this place!

HINT: -=SOME=- groups without ‘binaries’ -=DO=- allow imagery, per CHARTER !!!

Irrelevant, charters are not binding on the concept of usenet.

No, CHARTERS are what states how and why the group is intended to be used by the ‘members’. A reminder often clears up little things – most of which you seem not to know about!

I know (and so the charter states) Binaries -=are=- (by charter) permitted in several groups that -=DO NOT=- have binaries in their naming.

Yes, without ‘binaries in the naming, it is curteous NOT to post until you either ask or read the CHARTER !!!.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:54:30 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
scribbled:

I know

Very little about usenet apparantly… Would you care to STFU now or do you feel like ranting like an idiot yet again?

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 01:11:19 GMT, Voivod found these unused words floating about:

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:54:30 -0700, Sir F. A. Rien
scribbled:

I know Very little about usenet apparantly… Would you care to STFU now or do

you feel like ranting like an idiot yet again?

Thanks for your admission …

BTW – your spill-chucker is out of date!

HAGD!