On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 23:19:23 +1100, kfj <[email protected]> wrote:
your test image is 10x10. This is an unusual choice for a matrix to be subjected to an FFT, and the underlying algorithm may well pad it with zeroes up to the next power of two (16x16). Maybe feed a 16x16 in? Your test image has sharp discontinuities which seem to jump from zero to maximum. This may be asking too much. Did you try to recover the original image doing an IFFT after the FFT to make sure the double transform keeps all information?
I have just tried my basic experiment using a 16x16 test image, and can recover the original image exactly after the FFT, so that's all OK. Applying the psf to the blurred still doesn't give back a result even close to the sharp, so there are probably other things not right with what I am doing. A bit more homework to do.
If I'm not mistaken, deconvolving is an iterative process (i.e. you have to do it repeatedly), and recovery of the source image is never complete. Don't expect miracles. There's only so much you can do with bad data.
You are probably right. I had somehow gained the impression that deconvolution is only an iterative process in the time domain.
Cheers, -- Regards, Terry Duell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
