I don't know much about deconvolution.
My thinking is that the lens distortion parameters are best obtained
from many other images shot with the same focal length with the same
lens. It would be hard to calculate distortion from a motion blurred
image due to the loss of precision of control
On 11 Dez., 22:22, Terry Duell tdu...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:43:29 +1100, kfj _...@yahoo.com wrote:
Just a wild idea here: ...
OK, that's an interesting idea. Thanks.
Terry, I thought some more about the approach to deblur motion-blurred
images by means of
Hullo Kay,
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:42:43 +1100, kfj _...@yahoo.com wrote:
Terry, I thought some more about the approach to deblur motion-blurred
images by means of 2D-deconvolution. I have doubts the method will
work for wide-angle images. Why is that? Applying a convolution kernel
to a 2D
On 11 Dez., 00:05, Terry Duell tdu...@iinet.net.au wrote:
Hullo All,
I am looking for some thoughts, from the hugin cognoscenti, on the tricks
and traps that might be involved with re-aligning remapped images.
First a bit of background, as it may help.
Many moons ago I began looking at the
Hullo Kay,
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:43:29 +1100, kfj _...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
Just a wild idea here: Since you have a blur kernel, you might apply
it to the sharp image and calculate the CPs between the 'naturally'
blurred and 'artificially' blurred image. They might match better -
both
