Skip navigation

Sneak Peek #3 about the future of Photoshop: dashed and dotted lines

Feb 8, 2012 1:42 PM

  Latest reply: adaanpremedia, May 29, 2012 12:51 AM
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Noel Carboni
    23,526 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 10, 2012 10:57 AM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    Someone above mentioned it possibly not being in PS CS6...  Where's the evidence of that?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,938 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 10, 2012 11:52 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel, if you read the entire 'Behind All the Buzz: Deblur Sneak Peek' blog post, it rather deflates a lot of the awe and wonder the Adobe Max demonstration initially inspired. In fact the full size shots of the before and after Plaza image are even more incredible, and the detail gained is barely short of magic! 

     

    However the article makes it clear that the Plaza shot was synthetically applied and a ‘simple’ motion blur.  Real life blurry images apparently tend to have more complex blur going on, and that is currently beyond the deblur algorithms employed in the Adobe Max demonstration.  It also made it clear that those algorithms need strongly contrasted edges to lock onto.  The last bugbear stated was the heavy computing employed in making it work.

     

    The blog article, it strongly stresses that the team behind deblur are from Adobe’s Advance Technology Labs, and makes it clear that there is a way to go before we see it in Photoshop. But in actual fact, I bet that most of us would be more than pleased to have a flawed version of deblur in CS6, and I think it would work on enough images to be worthwhile.   I use a tripod for important non dynamic shots, but still see evidence of motion blur.  But because of the tripod, that would be the sort of simple, one directional, blur that deblur would work very nicely on.  Incidentally, before anyone comments, my grip gear probably cost more than some of the cameras people here use.  I mainly shoot with a Canon 1DsMK3, (I also own a 1DMK4) and with very sharp lenses, you get to be hyper-critical when it comes to acceptable sharpness.

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,526 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 10, 2012 12:04 PM   in reply to Trevor Dennis

    Well, it seems to me it would be rather stupid to show it off then disappoint people by not releasing something.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 10, 2012 12:04 PM   in reply to Trevor Dennis

    Sooooooo... no deblurring, huh? Dots 'n' dashes it is then!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 10, 2012 4:41 PM   in reply to Trevor Dennis

    I really don't think that you can expect depth of field fronm a

    deconvolver. A deconvolver attempts to restore the actual lens transfer

    function by estimating the defocus transfer function. The depth of field

    would be reduced, in a sense, to its true value. A completely defocussed

    lens would have an infinite depth of field.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 10, 2012 4:54 PM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    Interesting that the presenter did not say they were only removing

    camera shake, and not deconvolving.  Actually, deconvolving is probably

    easier than shake and motion blur.  If they can get a first cut version

    of this into CS6 , it will still be a bestseller.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 10, 2012 4:59 PM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    Thank you very much for that URL, Pierre.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,938 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 11, 2012 2:56 AM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    Great links Pierre.  Most of the Max sneak peeks were new to me, and I have just sat through all of them.  The one that excited me almost as much as debur was the image search facility Pixel Nuggets 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 8:45 PM   in reply to Trevor Dennis

    If you go to the Focus Magic site and send them an email asking when it will be avaiable for CS5 on Mac, they will reply telling you that they are busy on something else, and ask if you want to be put on their waiting list.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,938 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 9:52 PM   in reply to Lundberg02

    If you own a copy of the Fractalius plugin, then every time you use it, you have to go on a waiting list to find out when it has finished!   It must have taken real skill to code something to run so slowly.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 15, 2012 11:13 PM   in reply to Trevor Dennis

    That's the way Safari ran in Tiger.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 29, 2012 12:51 AM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    I really don't think that you can expect depth of field from a deconvolver. A deconvolver attempts to restore the actual lens transfer function by estimating the de-focus transfer function. The depth of field would be reduced, in a sense, to its true value. A completely defocussed lens would have an infinite depth of field.

     

    Regards

    Adaan Pre-Media Services

    For more image editing services follow us @

    Image editing services

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points