Motion Blur removal

[fmw42]

Sorry, I do not understand their work well enough to explain it.

[pdaraja]

what is meant by texture less blur images and saturated blur areas of image?
please refer the conclusion of their paper.

[fmw42]

Texture means rapid variation in color -- detail. Saturation means that the colors are very colorful and do not have a lot of white mixed in.

See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_texture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorfulness

[pdaraja]

thank you so much..
whether motion blur due to object is same as the camera shake?
i got the code for the above method.(salient edge)..
then i need to add the different type motion blur for an image to check the above method.
is there any tool for that?

[fmw42]

Object motion and camera motion produce similar effects. Object motion is limited to where the object is in the scene. Camera shake is across the whole image. Object motion generally does not move back and forth, but is usually in one direction, but can be non-uniform, that is accelerate. Camera shake can cause motion of the image to move in different directions.

I do not understand what tool you want.

[pdaraja]

is there any tool for making object motion blur?

[pdaraja]

there is no data-set images for the object motion blur. but i have to add artificial motion blur for an image to check the algorithm. so only i need the object motion blur tool.
or else if you have any data-set, please send me the link.

[fmw42]

ideal motion blur is created and then removed at viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30775&start=15#p139612

[pdaraja]

hi,
come back after a long time.
how can i determine the size of the blur kernel in the blur image ?
is there any code available?
please help me....

[fmw42]

I do not know of any tool besides Photoshop that can remove camera shake (as opposed to the ideal motion blur that I have explained above) and one below. You have some references and can Google for others. That is all I know about it. I do not have any practical experience doing more complex blurs such as camera shake.

see also

http://cs.nyu.edu/~fergus/papers/deblur_fergus.pdf <-- very relevant
http://www.di.ens.fr/willow/research/saturation/ <-- very relevant
http://www.di.ens.fr/willow/research/de ... yte11a.pdf <-- very relevant

http://relaunch.piccureplus.com/
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
http://library.utia.cas.cz/prace/960094.pdf
https://ojs.cvut.cz/ojs/index.php/ap/ar ... e/1023/855
http://cg.postech.ac.kr/research/fast_m ... deblur.pdf
http://cg.postech.ac.kr/research/non-un ... Images.pdf
http://www.di.ens.fr/willow/pdfs/cvpr10d.pdf <-- very relevant
http://imagej.net/Parallel_Spectral_Deconvolution
http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~peleg/papers/wacv00-blur.pdf
http://cvit.iiit.ac.in/papers/VSRao10Motion.pdf

[pdaraja]

thank you for your reference...
I am having one doubt..
i have two images with motion blur which are having 50 PIXEL in Motion length with 0 degree direction.
but both images are look like very different.
what is the difference between them? please acknowledge me...
First Link is the image which is a motion blurred image simulated by photoshop. then the other one by lunapic online tool. but the parameter settings are same.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Eilz ... lZb1E/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6Eilz ... 9ESVE/view

[fmw42]

There are two meanings for linear motion blur.

The first is what imagemagick uses and is not a proper linear camera motion blur, but an artificial blur effect. See http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/blur/#motion-blur and http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/convolve/#blur and http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/convolve/#comet. It is a {half) gaussian moving blur and does not have constant intensity and does not have a straight line PSF

The second is proper linear camera motion blur, which is created by a PSF that is a straight line of constant intensity. See http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/ ... otion_blur and http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/ ... /index.php

Your first image does not look like proper mathematical camera motion blur. Your second image may be proper camera motion blur or not. If it has a PSF that is not a simple straight line but is do to camera shake or acceleration motion or motion that is not the same across the whole image, then it is not simple proper camera motion blur. If the cepstrum is a clean set of opposing points, then it is proper simple motion blur. See http://www.fmwconcepts.com/imagemagick/ ... /index.php

[snibgo]

The "Photoshop" example, 0_degree.png, looks like a horizontal blur created by a constant straight line PSF, like an ideal camera motion blur. Windows BAT syntax:

Code: Select all

%IM%convert ^
  rgb_000354.png ^
  -define "convolve:scale=^!" ^
  -morphology convolve rectangle:50x1 ^
  b.png

I'll mention another effect, which is a Gaussian straight line PSF. This gives a smoother effect that is less photographic.

Code: Select all

%IM%convert ^
  rgb_000354.png ^
  -morphology convolve Blur:0x15 ^
  b2.png

EDIT: Using those two commands on the cameraman image...

... The first "ideal constant blur" has a hard edge to the blur:

The second image (using "convolve Blur:0x20") has a smooth edge to the blur:


In practice, when I have a real photograph with blur caused by small camera movement, the effect is somewhere between the two.

[fmw42]

In the real case (first example above), notice how the legs of the camera tripod are blurred equal width all along and stand out distinctly. In the motion blur effect case (second example above), you see no clean definition of the width of the legs. This is because the linear PSF is not a constant intensity, but is a 1D Gaussian with tapering. This softens the effect and does not correspond to proper camera blur.