[X] My Assistant

[Harry]

The image of HH34 taken by HST (left) and its de-convoluted image (right) processed by Focus Corrector (focus depth:=1, iterations:=5)

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 centre of radio galaxy Centaurus A taken by VLT (left) and its de-convoluted image (right) processed by Focus Corrector (focus depth:=2, iterations:=6)

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)

 

[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)

 

[Decepticon]

Harry a request SVP!?

What can been done with this Ceres picture?

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/objects/images/ceres_800.jpg

[Harry]

Harry a request SVP!?

What can been done with this Ceres picture?

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/objects/images/ceres_800.jpg

Ok. I tried to de-convolute the image after downscaling it. In the following images, the left side is the original image and the right side is the de-convoluted one. As you'll see the edge of each pixel is enhanced. Personally I feel the features of Ceres is still enigmatic. I hope someone brings the picture of Ceres with better resolution in future...

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:=3.8, iterations:=11)

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Bob Shaw]

The image of Vesta taken by HST (left) and its de-convoluted image (right) processed by Focus Corrector (focus depth:=3.8, iterations:=11)

Harry:

I thought of a way to demonstrate to everyone whether or not your techniques are really pulling hidden data out of images, or are instead just imposing artefacts onto the original data.

It's simple - test shots.

We need a series of images of known objects, such as the Moon, or famous landmarks (both natural and man-made). These should be 'out-of-focus' (NOT blurred in Photoshop or whatever, goodness knows what that would do to the test) and should be matched by, er, in-focus shots of the same things taken at the same time.

You apply your techniques to the blurry jobs, then we all look at the effects - with the in-focus versions as a sanity check.

That should settle matters!

Bob Shaw

[Harry]

Harry:

I thought of a way to demonstrate to everyone whether or not your techniques are really pulling hidden data out of images, or are instead just imposing artefacts onto the original data.

It's simple - test shots.

We need a series of images of known objects, such as the Moon, or famous landmarks (both natural and man-made). These should be 'out-of-focus' (NOT blurred in Photoshop or whatever, goodness knows what that would do to the test) and should be matched by, er, in-focus shots of the same things taken at the same time.

You apply your techniques to the blurry jobs, then we all look at the effects - with the in-focus versions as a sanity check.

That should settle matters!

Bob Shaw

Thank you for your suggestion. At present I don't have any blurred published images of Moon. I'll look for some photos suitable for that purpose. Meanwhile, please check the following images of Tempel 1. The left is the original image taken by the Kamikaze probe with magnified twice, the middle is its de-convoluted image (Software: Focus Corrector, focus depth:=2.6, iterations:=7), and the right is another original image taken at the position closer to the surface (refer to here.)

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[ugordan]

The left is the original image taken by the Kamikaze probe with magnified twice, the middle is its de-convoluted image.

After all the recent arguments, you still insist on deconvolving magnified images. Don't you get it there's nothing to deconvolve in a magnified image?
I see Ted Stryk did some work on Hubble's pre-repair images of Mars in this thread, why don't you also get those raw images and try your luck on them, for a change?

[Rob Pinnegar]

Yeah. Although these deconvolved images _are_ nice to look at, I did notice recently that a disproportionate number of them (especially the Vesta series) seem to feature a dark "ring" just inside the boundary of the asteroid.

There's no way something like that could appear at all those different viewing angles. It's got to be an artifact of the technique.

Harry's approach may have some similarities with edge detection perhaps? Anyways, as is the case with a lot of image processing methods, the danger seems to be that, if you keep tweaking the parameters patiently enough, it might just show you what you want to see. That can spell trouble.

[edstrick]

My impression is that this sharpening algorithm that's under discussion is a quite effective adaptive sharpening filter. While it does bring out nasty jpg artifacts and other problems in degraded images, with images that are "capable of being helped", it usefully boosts fine detail with a relative absence of ringing or other artifacts.

The dark ring around the boundary of the asteroid images is clearly an artifact; I suspect it results largely from the space background outside the asteroid's limb having been set to a uniform black, rather than being real data, with the result that the enhancement goes crazy beyond the edge of real data.