stereo from shaky images
Nov. 9th, 2008 06:40 pmI was just looking at my summer pictures, reorganizing and deleting some.
I have a few nighttime pictures where, thanks to the long exposure, you can clearly see the shaking of my hands. For example, point lights appear as squiggly lines.
I noticed that nearby lights draw bigger squiggles than faraway lights.
My question is twofold:
* what are methods for digital stabilization *after* the picture is taken? in other words, what is the current technology on recovering the image behind a shaky picture?
* can we use such pictures for stereo, i.e. to make a 3D image?
I have a few nighttime pictures where, thanks to the long exposure, you can clearly see the shaking of my hands. For example, point lights appear as squiggly lines.
I noticed that nearby lights draw bigger squiggles than faraway lights.
My question is twofold:
* what are methods for digital stabilization *after* the picture is taken? in other words, what is the current technology on recovering the image behind a shaky picture?
* can we use such pictures for stereo, i.e. to make a 3D image?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 04:05 am (UTC)Based on that fact that this was recent research, I'm assuming there's not much in the presence of arbitrary shaking while the shutter is continuously open...
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-10 08:29 am (UTC)for doing which?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-11 05:15 pm (UTC)I'm not sure how jitter could possibly help with stereo: you don't get any parallax from rotating around a fixed base, and the baseline change of hand jitter is tiny by definition.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 12:28 am (UTC)Of course, I'm referring to translational jitter. Rotational jitter is useless here.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 01:05 am (UTC)But actually you can't, because you blurred instead of having two perfectly registered images.
The maximum distance you can compute by triangulation if you can see an angle of theta is base/(2 tan(theta/2)). You need a really good camera to make the denominator small enough if your numerator is small.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-12 01:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-28 02:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-11 03:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-07 04:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-02 03:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-05 03:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-08 04:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-26 12:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-26 12:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-26 03:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-26 06:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-29 02:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-29 04:46 pm (UTC)What confuses me is that they aren't offering to EN.LARGE anything.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-27 02:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-11-30 04:57 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-12-04 02:43 am (UTC)