>Also, I doubt it would be able to do anything for a specific subject that was moving during the shot Agreed. It probably goes and looks for many features whose bulk motion correlates...the background. I but you could tell it to unblur just the person though...that could make some interesting shots.
I'm super crazy excited about this. Ever indoor picture I've ever taken that's been ruined was ruined because of motion blur. I wonder how sensor noise works into the final image.
Unblurring without additional extrinsic information is different than unblurring intrinsic information that doesn't exist, which is what he was saying.
Blind deconvolution works, but, from what I understand, can only restore information up to the frequency components of the point spread function of the blur; you can only restore information that was preserved. If you do something like a Gaussian function, you've destroyed information and it'll never be sharp again.
No, this can bring out information...because the information, with all of its frequency components, is there.
For some shutter length, you end up with an image that's the sum of all the viewpoints that the camera saw while the shutter was open. Since most shaky handheld shots will be translational across the image sensor, you assume that the scene didn't change much, estimate this motion by looking at easy-to-see features, then sweep your estimated, non motion blurred image, over the estimated path a few times until you reduce the error to some satisfactory amount.
Unlike a Gaussian blur, the information is still there assuming you don't overexpose.
They've been doing this for a while in astronomy. Motion deblurring will bring up many many interesting papers.
Didn't mean to pry, but, besides the extreme intelligence, I saw some similarities in what you said to my current state and was looking for a solution.
Maybe it's some level of habituation from, roughly, studying the same concepts, virtually non stop, with little free time, for the past 10 years. Or, maybe it's just some physiological change that happens around mid 20's (seems like that's when it always happens).:-\
I'll try to keep on keepin on!
>Was just trying to give a first hand view And I thank you for making it clearer. Seriously, thanks for sharing! Best of luck!
This is one of my biggest problems with G+...you don't know if your friends are active! Visibility is posting or + mentions only. With facebook, I can see what my friends are talking about. In the very rare case that it's something interesting, I can get involved!
I'm always finding discussions that a few friends might find interesting, but, the only way to get a group in on an existing conversation is a post that's just a list of +John Doe names. There's tooo much isolation between me and my friends. Need some sort of activity stream.
What really kills the "any sort of usefulness" for me is the complete lack of search for anything non-public, and a total hack for anything public. Can't remember the address your friend posted so you could meet? To have any chance of finding it, you'll have to sift through *their* posts. Something interesting posted to a group or from a group? Better bookmark it or email it or something-not-google+, because it'll be gone in a days...pretty slick google. Thank you for letting me know that anything non-public post to or from me is disposable.
>China produces nothing the US can not obtain elsewhere or produce domestically.
Domestically!? I imagine Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos would get the work before *anything* went from Chinese to domestic production. A shop full of union workers will never make sense compared to a shop full of uneducated teenagers.
I agree with this only if mod points are limited, maintaining some sort of value per click. Otherwise, you end up with an up/down system like reddit, where everyone "downvotes" anything they slightly disagree with and ups anything they think the least bit interesting. The slashdot system works well because you have to choose wisely!
Who said a torus? Just use a tether attached to some weight (maybe a few old satellites that need decommissioning). This way, you could have "gravity rooms" of any size, including the whole ISS. I suppose you might want to put the communication satellite at the center of gravity.
Maybe the possibility of a severed tethers sending the craft into the atmosphere is why they don't do this approach.
Or, you know, drive so you can stop in time no matter what happens in front of you. Oddly enough, this doesn't involve maintaining a 5 foot distance to the car in front of you that's going 70mph.
I see this as a much needed remedy to fix the problem of *absolutely horrible* drivers that are on our roads. Think of this as a prosthetic driving ability.
I remember running Half Life 1 as my desktop back with windows 95. It would, how should I put it, "If you don't want to do... 'PC' things, then you don't have to and you're not paying for them in memory, battery life or hardware requirements."
...and thus improve broadband speeds and internet capacity across the rest of the world outside of the United States while marginally decreasing the time it takes to hit the bandwidth caps inside the United States!....
Size is interesting, but stability is too. The oil company doesn't depend on short term technological fads...they're practically selling toilet paper. Sure, you could go without it...but you'll always be spending a fixed portion of your income to make sure you don't! After the sloooow shifts in transportation energy infrastructure change to some other technology, we might see them shrink a bit...but that's not going to happen in any significant way for a while. I highly doubt a jump from 35mpg to 50mpg is enough of a fuel saving to compete with the number of new drivers from China, India, and all of the commercial 8mpg trucks that come with their growth.
I'm assuming the cameras are big because they hold a get nice big, high sensitivity, sensors and probably low F-number lens. Motion blur on something like this would make things MUCH more computationally difficult compared to snapping a clean picture and figuring out which way the camera is now facing. Motion blur can be estimated, but you wouldn't want to do that every frame...
Well, it's mathematically complex, but not really complex in a code size or if-then count sort of way.
Here are two videos (1, 2) from 2007 showing the jist of it (including some games that modify reality) done in *realtime* using a laptop GPU card.
It's basically...find a bunch of "features" in a scene (corners in some texture, circles, etc), then look at how these features move in the scene as the camera moves. Each feature is in a fixed point in space, so, their movements are caused by the camera moving. Using basic multi-view type math from the multiple views brought on by the movement and each frame of the video, you can "solve" the cameras position, rotation, AND all of the feature positions in 3D space using a big giant matrix created by all of those 2d image feature positions. If you've taken first year of linear algebra, and you covered singular value decomposition, you'll understand probably 80% of the math in the research papers (they'll find crazy efficient ways to do things...though.
Some complexity comes from disregarding moving objects in your scene...but that's mostly a "throw out data with a wtf factor greater than x" type statistics problem.
GPU's are very good at finding features, which is why that video from way back in 2007 is possible...that's around the time that shader programs with reasonable complexity could be made (like more than three texture lookups per pixel). The lack of complexity is also proven by the huge number of flash applications a few years ago that used this with your webcam, and the existence of the Nintendo DS AVR games, and all the cellphone apps that use it.
This isn't bleeding edge or all that complex...but it is a very cool. It's more of the standard, "the hardware and software is cheap enough to do it now".
If you're interested in this stuff, you could get something reasonable going using OpenCV pretty quickly...most of the feature tracking routines are built in.
On a side note...look at this cool shit we could be working on if people would stop messing with f'n web browsers/apps...
Sure, I care about contrast and such when printing on regular paper so that I can see the lines and words and simple pictures or diagrams that I'm printing. But I don't and never will care about anything beyond mediocre color accuracy if I'm printing on plain paper. Even if the color is 100% accurate, anything beyond text and line art, it will still look like complete crap...it's regular paper!
If I want a pretty prints that I give even the slightest care about, I'll use photo paper (matte or gloss).
Could someone explain how this works? Is this some sort of speckle interferometer? I don't understand how you can get the ridge profile by separating the light polarities unless you're shining the laser at very steep angles..
I believe they were talking about the Visual Studio 2010 interface. If you've used something from some years back, you'll understand how insanely slow doing they've managed to draw text. I think it's all incredibly hilarious watching everyone squirm. It makes me feel better when I think I must be getting old because people seem to program without any thought involved...just library calls.
Slashdot Mirror
>Also, I doubt it would be able to do anything for a specific subject that was moving during the shot
Agreed. It probably goes and looks for many features whose bulk motion correlates...the background. I but you could tell it to unblur just the person though...that could make some interesting shots.
I'm super crazy excited about this. Ever indoor picture I've ever taken that's been ruined was ruined because of motion blur. I wonder how sensor noise works into the final image.
Unblurring without additional extrinsic information is different than unblurring intrinsic information that doesn't exist, which is what he was saying.
Blind deconvolution works, but, from what I understand, can only restore information up to the frequency components of the point spread function of the blur; you can only restore information that was preserved. If you do something like a Gaussian function, you've destroyed information and it'll never be sharp again.
No, this can bring out information...because the information, with all of its frequency components, is there.
For some shutter length, you end up with an image that's the sum of all the viewpoints that the camera saw while the shutter was open. Since most shaky handheld shots will be translational across the image sensor, you assume that the scene didn't change much, estimate this motion by looking at easy-to-see features, then sweep your estimated, non motion blurred image, over the estimated path a few times until you reduce the error to some satisfactory amount.
Unlike a Gaussian blur, the information is still there assuming you don't overexpose.
They've been doing this for a while in astronomy. Motion deblurring will bring up many many interesting papers.
Didn't mean to pry, but, besides the extreme intelligence, I saw some similarities in what you said to my current state and was looking for a solution.
Maybe it's some level of habituation from, roughly, studying the same concepts, virtually non stop, with little free time, for the past 10 years. Or, maybe it's just some physiological change that happens around mid 20's (seems like that's when it always happens). :-\
I'll try to keep on keepin on!
>Was just trying to give a first hand view
And I thank you for making it clearer. Seriously, thanks for sharing! Best of luck!
Did you pop out of it?
>part of it was that I saw everything else as just trivial details and useless facts in the way of the big pictures
Just curious, what age did this start to happen?
>As it stands, nobody is active on Google+
This is one of my biggest problems with G+...you don't know if your friends are active! Visibility is posting or + mentions only. With facebook, I can see what my friends are talking about. In the very rare case that it's something interesting, I can get involved!
I'm always finding discussions that a few friends might find interesting, but, the only way to get a group in on an existing conversation is a post that's just a list of +John Doe names. There's tooo much isolation between me and my friends. Need some sort of activity stream.
What really kills the "any sort of usefulness" for me is the complete lack of search for anything non-public, and a total hack for anything public. Can't remember the address your friend posted so you could meet? To have any chance of finding it, you'll have to sift through *their* posts. Something interesting posted to a group or from a group? Better bookmark it or email it or something-not-google+, because it'll be gone in a days...pretty slick google. Thank you for letting me know that anything non-public post to or from me is disposable.
>China produces nothing the US can not obtain elsewhere or produce domestically.
Domestically!? I imagine Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos would get the work before *anything* went from Chinese to domestic production. A shop full of union workers will never make sense compared to a shop full of uneducated teenagers.
I agree with this only if mod points are limited, maintaining some sort of value per click. Otherwise, you end up with an up/down system like reddit, where everyone "downvotes" anything they slightly disagree with and ups anything they think the least bit interesting. The slashdot system works well because you have to choose wisely!
Having a non corroding electrode, not requiring lots of electrolytes, and doing it all with cheap materials, is what makes it very interesting.
This is an interesting electrolysis problem more than a "power something with a solar cell" problem.
So, you're saying you can have sex with 100 vaccinated prostitutes and only get HIV once...
Would you feel better about eating doves?
Pigeons are domesticated birds brought here from Europe...for eating.
Here's a Scientific America podcast about it all: Superdove!: The Straight Poop on Pigeons.
Who said a torus? Just use a tether attached to some weight (maybe a few old satellites that need decommissioning). This way, you could have "gravity rooms" of any size, including the whole ISS. I suppose you might want to put the communication satellite at the center of gravity.
Maybe the possibility of a severed tethers sending the craft into the atmosphere is why they don't do this approach.
Or, you know, drive so you can stop in time no matter what happens in front of you. Oddly enough, this doesn't involve maintaining a 5 foot distance to the car in front of you that's going 70mph.
I see this as a much needed remedy to fix the problem of *absolutely horrible* drivers that are on our roads. Think of this as a prosthetic driving ability.
I remember running Half Life 1 as my desktop back with windows 95. It would, how should I put it, ... 'PC' things, then you don't have to and you're not paying for them in memory, battery life or hardware requirements."
"If you don't want to do
Is circular polarization not preserved in fiber optic cables?
...and thus improve broadband speeds and internet capacity across the rest of the world outside of the United States while marginally decreasing the time it takes to hit the bandwidth caps inside the United States!....
Size is interesting, but stability is too. The oil company doesn't depend on short term technological fads...they're practically selling toilet paper. Sure, you could go without it...but you'll always be spending a fixed portion of your income to make sure you don't! After the sloooow shifts in transportation energy infrastructure change to some other technology, we might see them shrink a bit...but that's not going to happen in any significant way for a while. I highly doubt a jump from 35mpg to 50mpg is enough of a fuel saving to compete with the number of new drivers from China, India, and all of the commercial 8mpg trucks that come with their growth.
I'm assuming the cameras are big because they hold a get nice big, high sensitivity, sensors and probably low F-number lens. Motion blur on something like this would make things MUCH more computationally difficult compared to snapping a clean picture and figuring out which way the camera is now facing. Motion blur can be estimated, but you wouldn't want to do that every frame...
Well, it's mathematically complex, but not really complex in a code size or if-then count sort of way.
Here are two videos (1, 2) from 2007 showing the jist of it (including some games that modify reality) done in *realtime* using a laptop GPU card.
It's basically...find a bunch of "features" in a scene (corners in some texture, circles, etc), then look at how these features move in the scene as the camera moves. Each feature is in a fixed point in space, so, their movements are caused by the camera moving. Using basic multi-view type math from the multiple views brought on by the movement and each frame of the video, you can "solve" the cameras position, rotation, AND all of the feature positions in 3D space using a big giant matrix created by all of those 2d image feature positions. If you've taken first year of linear algebra, and you covered singular value decomposition, you'll understand probably 80% of the math in the research papers (they'll find crazy efficient ways to do things...though.
Some complexity comes from disregarding moving objects in your scene...but that's mostly a "throw out data with a wtf factor greater than x" type statistics problem.
GPU's are very good at finding features, which is why that video from way back in 2007 is possible...that's around the time that shader programs with reasonable complexity could be made (like more than three texture lookups per pixel). The lack of complexity is also proven by the huge number of flash applications a few years ago that used this with your webcam, and the existence of the Nintendo DS AVR games, and all the cellphone apps that use it.
This isn't bleeding edge or all that complex...but it is a very cool. It's more of the standard, "the hardware and software is cheap enough to do it now".
If you're interested in this stuff, you could get something reasonable going using OpenCV pretty quickly...most of the feature tracking routines are built in.
On a side note...look at this cool shit we could be working on if people would stop messing with f'n web browsers/apps...
Sure, I care about contrast and such when printing on regular paper so that I can see the lines and words and simple pictures or diagrams that I'm printing. But I don't and never will care about anything beyond mediocre color accuracy if I'm printing on plain paper. Even if the color is 100% accurate, anything beyond text and line art, it will still look like complete crap...it's regular paper!
If I want a pretty prints that I give even the slightest care about, I'll use photo paper (matte or gloss).
Maybe it's something like this Touchless 3-D Fingerprinting with two polarized beams going at once to speed things up.
Could someone explain how this works? Is this some sort of speckle interferometer? I don't understand how you can get the ridge profile by separating the light polarities unless you're shining the laser at very steep angles..
I believe they were talking about the Visual Studio 2010 interface. If you've used something from some years back, you'll understand how insanely slow doing they've managed to draw text. I think it's all incredibly hilarious watching everyone squirm. It makes me feel better when I think I must be getting old because people seem to program without any thought involved...just library calls.
Never mind! Only crashes Firefox 4.0. I'm a dummy.