[X] My Assistant

[Decepticon]

Now thats cool! ^^

[tedstryk]

The image of Annefrank taken by Stardust space probe (left) and its de-convoluted image (right / Software: Focus Corrector, Focus Depth:= 2.4, Iteration:= 5)

That image is already over-processed!

[Harry]

Now thats cool! ^^

Thank you. Well, I think I did Focus Correct for all blurred images which I could get. I heard NASA sends the probe to Ceres and Vesta in near future. I look forward to looking at the images sent from that probe.

[Harry]

The following pictures are the image of Calypso taken by Cassini probe (left) and its deconvoluted image (right) processed by Focus Corrector (focus depth: 3.4, iterations: 9).

By the way through the discussions on this forum, I knew the Dawn project might become pending. Oh...

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[ugordan]

The following pictures are the image of Calypso taken by Cassini probe (left) and its deconvoluted image (right) processed by Focus Corrector (focus depth: 3.4, iterations: 9).

You do realize that your method doesn't bring out any real details from these images, don't you? The reason is that there are no further details beyond the resolution capability of the camera. All you accomplish is sharpening the noise or in this case noise coupled with bilinear enlargment artifacts.
Processing images after they have been taken at a low resolution and magnified is not the same as deconvolving images that are blurred by the optics, but still are captured at the nominal resolution. In the first case detail is permanently lost, while in the latter case detail was present but was blurred beyond recognition.

If you had two distinct Cassini Calypso images taken immediately one after the other and applied your sharpening, you'd quickly find out the "features" in the two images would not correspond to one another, a clear sign of them being synthetic.

[Phil Stooke]

ugordan said:

"If you had two distinct Cassini Calypso images taken immediately one after the other and applied your sharpening, you'd quickly find out the "features" in the two images would not correspond to one another, a clear sign of them being synthetic."

Very true. But if you applied this process to both of them and then merged the results, the noise would be reduced and the real features would stand out better. But basically of course ugordan is right, you can't create new details!

Phil

[Harry]

My software corrects the blurry on the image but can NOT improve the resolution which the original image has. It is a difficult question to answer whether the blurry appeared on the image has been caused from out of focus or low resolution since the blurry may be caused from the movement of object during the exposure even if the camera has the right focus and sufficient resolution.

The following images are the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko originally taken by HST and its de-convoluted image processed by Focus Corrector (focus depth: 3, iterations: 7).

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[tedstryk]

My software corrects the blurry on the image but can NOT improve the resolution which the original image has. It is a difficult question to answer whether the blurry appeared on the image has been caused from out of focus or low resolution since the blurry may be caused from the movement of object during the exposure even if the camera has the right focus and sufficient resolution.

The following images are the comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko originally taken by HST and its de-convoluted image processed by Focus Corrector (focus depth: 3, iterations: 7).

Nice enhancement of a shape model!

[ugordan]

Nice enhancement of a shape model! 

Ooooo, BAD!!!

[Phil Stooke]

I wouldn't personally place too much faith in the original shape model here. Its alarming degree of symmetry is a sure sign that the model is straining to produce a result at the limits of the data. If not beyond.

But Harry, this is a rendered image of a mathematical model, not the original HST image. Your effort would be more useful if you applied it to the original image rather than this. But it's good that you are experimenting with these things.


Phil

[Harry]

I wouldn't personally place too much faith in the original shape model here.  Its alarming degree of symmetry is a sure sign that the model is straining to produce a result at the limits of the data.  If not beyond. 

But Harry, this is a rendered image of a mathematical model, not the original HST image.  Your effort would be more useful if you applied it to the original image rather than this.  But it's good that you are experimenting with these things.
Phil

Thank you for your kind suggestion. It may be meaningless to de-convolute the image which has been already reprocessed. However I thought occasionally it might reveal some unknown features of original image.

Following your suggestion, I de-convoluted the genuine image of Vesta taken by HST. In the figure the left side is for the original image and the right side is for the de-convoluted one (Software: Focus Corrector, parameters: focus depth:= 4, iterations:=9).

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Harry]

The image of Vesta taken by HST (left) and its de-convoluted image (right) processed by Focus Corrector (focus depth:=4, iterations:=9)

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Harry]

The image of Vesta taken by HST (left) and its de-convoluted image (right) processed by Focus Corrector (focus depth:=4, iterations:=9)

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Once again: while I hate to say it, to the extent that these Huble images are fuzzy due to a simple shortage of pixels rather than to actual defocusing of the telescope's mirror, you're engaged in a fool's errand -- your program will just be synthesizing nonexistent details. And the Hubble images of little tiny distant bodies like Vesta and Pluto are indeed seriously limited in their pixel width -- those smooth-looking views of them that are published are misleading, being themselves the product of computer programs designed to make the original images look much less "grainy".

[tedstryk]

Bruce is right. Other than the Deep Impact HRI, pre-repair Hubble, and a Lunar Orbiter camera or two, I can't think of any truly out of focus camera. You are simply producing arifacts.