PDA

View Full Version : OT: SIGGRAPH ADOBE showing off image processing stuff. Pretty Impressive.



Dexter2999
10-28-2011, 08:56 AM
http://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/you-saw-the-unblur-clip-with-the-audience-gasping-here-is-the-source/

It is the anti blur stuff that is amazing. The second part is pretty cool when you think that he is doing some of that stuff real time from a laptop.

xxiii
10-28-2011, 03:36 PM
I keep trying to do the "every other release" upgrade strategy with them, and then they keep doing stuff like this.

I wonder though if the picture search thing is (maybe) going to be Bridge, Lightroom, both, or something else? (I'm hoping it will be in at least Bridge).

probiner
10-28-2011, 11:52 PM
Great Stuff!!!
Rainn Wilson is pretty annoying in this video :D

Dexter2999
10-29-2011, 12:00 AM
This is what happens when you get actors and tell them "just do whatever"

It is just painful. I was grinding my teeth last year over the Dick Van Dyke/William Shatner appearance. Part of me was so excited and wanted to LOVE it. And part of me was reacting like it was a trainwreck. I couldn't decide if I was going to look away or watch.

probiner
10-29-2011, 12:11 AM
We have an expression here for that; "vergonha alheia", which basicly mean you feel embarrassed for something that you see someone else doing and you want to get out of there.

I for example switch channels back and forward when Mr.Bean is on :D

prometheus
10-29-2011, 06:39 AM
Ahh very nice..I want this now!

I might even put some money away and do laser eye surgery, in order to loose my contact lenses, then I guess I will see a lot of stuff more clearly instead of blurs:)

Michael

xxiii
10-30-2011, 12:33 AM
This is what happens when you get actors and tell them "just do whatever"

It is just painful. I was grinding my teeth last year over the Dick Van Dyke/William Shatner appearance. Part of me was so excited and wanted to LOVE it. And part of me was reacting like it was a trainwreck. I couldn't decide if I was going to look away or watch.

I think in general whenever you have someone (especially if they are a "look at me! look at me!!!" type) who doesn't really understand the product/technology/whatever, trying to wing it this is bound to happen, and I'm not quite sure why its become the trendy thing to do lately (I did appreciate Rainn's "I don't pay for things anymore" remark though).

I didn't realize there was a term for it (I should know better, there is a term for everything), when someone else's actions make yourself want to hide under your chair.

I am somewhat, ah, concerned about Jeri Ryan's upcoming appearance, but if she's basically working from a script, I suppose it will be alright (then again, maybe she knows more about the subject than I'm assuming).

(To make it clear, I assume performers specialize in performing unless otherwise specified; the remark above is not intended to imply any other reason for my concern).

Dexter2999
10-30-2011, 12:49 AM
xxiii- Performers specialize in performing yes but that is misleading.

A comedian can have a great act. That doesn't always translate to a comedian being great at improvisation and thinking on his feet. (Or her feet, whatever.)

xxiii
10-31-2011, 12:47 PM
xxiii- Performers specialize in performing yes but that is misleading.

A comedian can have a great act. That doesn't always translate to a comedian being great at improvisation and thinking on his feet. (Or her feet, whatever.)

My last sentence was simply meant to say that I don't expect an actor to be a 3d-expert any more than I expect a 3d-expert to be an actor. Perhaps its a regional thing, but I was worried someone would mis-read my "concern" to be because of gender or certain physical attributes.

I was not trying to imply that performers are necessarily good at improvisation, which would in fact contradict the rest of my post. I also didn't mean to imply that performing was a narrow field with no sub-specializations (or 3d either for that matter) but I guess that's what happened, sorry.

kadri
11-01-2011, 06:48 AM
Rainn Wilson is very annoying and almost makes the show annoying too . I wouldn't want to go to such an event where he is from now on. Curious what kind of posts were after this on the Adobe forums like some threads here about some events...But not so curious to bother to look :)

The presenters aren't actors. They are probably nervous and concentrated to not make some mistakes at the presentation. Then some guy makes a joke and he is in the weird position to counteract.

I have not seen much of such events but Newtek should better plan some key parts-funny parts of the coming show. In some way the Adobe videos i saw here look really like they are unscripted . I wouldn't go this route. The outcome could be good maybe but like here annoying too. Not something to leave to luck.

probiner
11-07-2011, 01:43 PM
Well, to be honest I think this tech is fantastic but the presented result might have limited uses in a professional sense, no?
1 - This is good for photoso without tripod.
2 - How good will it be to do "time freezes" for blurry moving subjects?

Now, for example, what personally I would use almost on a daily basis, since I have o do lots of masks on product shots, would be to have a plugin to kill Depth of Field, not motion blur.

Many times photographers go all woopsy and don't use the tightest diafragm the camera has cause it forces them too shoot slwer. It's quite painfull some times to have to cutout some elements where the frontier between the subject and the background is not a thin line of pixels but a large band of them.

Tonttu
11-07-2011, 03:20 PM
Cool! We have the (rather new) expression "fremdschaemen"(verb) or "Fremdscham"(noun), also meaning feeling embarrased for someone else.

Weird, we have a neologism in Finnish for that, too. It's like "shamepathy".

xxiii
11-07-2011, 03:26 PM
Well, to be honest I think this tech is fantastic but the presented result might have limited uses in a professional sense, no?

(Sticking to the photoshop portion) the interesting thing about photoshop is that all the basic functionality is done. Now they can concentrate on all these interesting and esoteric algorithms, some of which may not necessarily appeal to the masses, or only have an occasional use.



kill Depth of Field, not motion blur.

Unfortunately, that requires reconstructing information that just isn't in the photo, though it might be possible to reconstruct a sharp-seeming approximation; perhaps similar to what you'd get if you scaled it down and then back up (using a preserve-sharp-edges scaling algorithm). Unlike motion-blur, where one can calculate where the smearing came from, and apply an inverse correction, depth of field blur comes from "everywhere" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion). Perhaps a really smart algorithm might be able to look at the non-blurry parts of the image and make a decent educated guess about what the rest of it should look like (especially if the parts you're interested in fixing are almost sharp already).

Perhaps they will tackle this next.

It occurs to me I should throw in a note about photo sharpening functions. They don't really increase sharpness, they only increase local (on a pixel by pixel basis) contrast, which in human vision processing is perceived as being sharper, until this contrast adjustment reaches the point of obviousness (typically perceived as halos).

Since Photoshop seems "done" for the last several releases, its interesting to see what they keep coming up with to keep interest in upgrades. (Not that there aren't areas that could still use some polishing, HDR tone-mapping for instance).