Can an unfocused digital photo be fixed?
January 13, 2009 4:18 AM Subscribe
Is there a program that can take a partially unfocused digital photo and make it look focused?
Not really. explosion above says that a sharpen filter will help. I don't think it does in the slightest. It takes the blur out, but doesn't resolve any greater detail. You usually get a worse-looking picture at the end of a sharpen, unless your sole complaint with your unfocused picture is with the blurry "halo" around objects--sharpen will help with that.
The information for greater detail just isn't there. For instance, if your mate's eyes and eyesockets are blurred together, it's because light reflected from the eye and eyesocket both into a single pixel element on the camera's sensor. That pixel recorded the combined color (somewhere between white and pink), and has no idea where that color came from. The camera doesn't know that a mauve-colored fly didn't buzz between you and your subject.
(Actually, your computer (or any other electronic) doesn't "know" anything. We're just anthropomorphizing for the sake of brevity.)
posted by Netzapper at 4:36 AM on January 13, 2009
The information for greater detail just isn't there. For instance, if your mate's eyes and eyesockets are blurred together, it's because light reflected from the eye and eyesocket both into a single pixel element on the camera's sensor. That pixel recorded the combined color (somewhere between white and pink), and has no idea where that color came from. The camera doesn't know that a mauve-colored fly didn't buzz between you and your subject.
(Actually, your computer (or any other electronic) doesn't "know" anything. We're just anthropomorphizing for the sake of brevity.)
posted by Netzapper at 4:36 AM on January 13, 2009
I use the FocusMagic plugin, which works ok. It's not perfect, since it is guessing like explosion said, but I think it works better than the native sharpen. Here it is compared to sharpening. It also has a separate algorithm for fixing motion blur.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:36 AM on January 13, 2009
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 4:36 AM on January 13, 2009
The "sharpen" function in programs such as Photoshop make an attempt to do just that
Not really; they are there to make abrupt transitions between colors more crisp; explained here. Netzapper is right when he says detail that isn't there to begin with can't be digitally reconstructed.
posted by TedW at 6:00 AM on January 13, 2009
Not really; they are there to make abrupt transitions between colors more crisp; explained here. Netzapper is right when he says detail that isn't there to begin with can't be digitally reconstructed.
posted by TedW at 6:00 AM on January 13, 2009
Sizing it smaller can certainly make it look a little sharper, albeit at - of course - a smaller size.
posted by asuprenant at 6:39 AM on January 13, 2009
posted by asuprenant at 6:39 AM on January 13, 2009
Getting more rez out of a blurry photo is more than just sharpening - it requires a deconvolution. Unfortunately, deconvolution of a modern, retro-foco-aspherico-loco lens is well-nigh impossible.
posted by notsnot at 7:08 AM on January 13, 2009
posted by notsnot at 7:08 AM on January 13, 2009
When I'm using my zoom lens I do end up with somewhat blurry images a lot, because the lens has no stabilization and I am often shooting without a tripod. The only solution I have is to always shoot multiple images at once and hope one comes out OK.
I have a feeling that too many shitty CSI-type shows and movies have given people the impression that blurry security camera-type images can be turned into crisp close-up head shots. You can probably get a good guess at what an image might have been had it been more carefully focused, but it will remain a guess no matter how good your computer algorithm is.
Now I'm sure that you're not trying to do anything that extreme - you likely just want to make a minor enhancement to a photo you took - but the same principle applies. The only sure way to get a focused version of a blurry image is to recreate the scene and re-shoot the image.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:37 AM on January 13, 2009
I have a feeling that too many shitty CSI-type shows and movies have given people the impression that blurry security camera-type images can be turned into crisp close-up head shots. You can probably get a good guess at what an image might have been had it been more carefully focused, but it will remain a guess no matter how good your computer algorithm is.
Now I'm sure that you're not trying to do anything that extreme - you likely just want to make a minor enhancement to a photo you took - but the same principle applies. The only sure way to get a focused version of a blurry image is to recreate the scene and re-shoot the image.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:37 AM on January 13, 2009
Just wanted to thank If only I had a penguin... for the FocusMagic tip.
In return, I propose the free (but not as flexible) Unshake.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:54 AM on January 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
In return, I propose the free (but not as flexible) Unshake.
posted by IAmBroom at 8:54 AM on January 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
High-quality Motion Deblurring from a Single Image
posted by martinrebas at 9:09 AM on January 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by martinrebas at 9:09 AM on January 13, 2009 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
An analogy is trying to alter a photo taken with poor lighting, and color-correct to get a bold variety of colors. It's just not going to happen, because you're trying to add information that's not there. If it was too dark to distinguish shades of color when the picture was taken, the computer won't be able to guess later, and it's pretty much the same with focus and fine details.
posted by explosion at 4:27 AM on January 13, 2009