http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/10/photoshop … ng-for-air
impresssive
impresssive
Last edited by Camm (2011-10-11 02:19:54)
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
awesome.
too bad everybody just deletes their blurred photos.
also, was the cam guy on a boat? what's with the slow panning?
too bad everybody just deletes their blurred photos.
also, was the cam guy on a boat? what's with the slow panning?
not anymore they don'tpirana6 wrote:
too bad everybody just deletes their blurred photos.
finally we can ENHANCE
main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg
but can you zoom?
"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
i want to go thereCamm wrote:
http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/10/photoshop-unblur-leaves-max-audience-gasping-for-air
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxjiQoTp … r_embedded
impresssive
usual photoshop witchcraft
♥
I find it hard to believe..
Even if it can be done properly I doubt half of the stuff in the picture will look as it should
Even if it can be done properly I doubt half of the stuff in the picture will look as it should
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
It's just an algorithm. If you can analyse the direction the camera had moved while the shutter was collecting light, you can merge the image by compressing it in the opposite direction.
What I would like to know is how they work out the direction the shutter moved. That is where a lot of the heavy math would happen.
What I would like to know is how they work out the direction the shutter moved. That is where a lot of the heavy math would happen.
Looks like a lot of jiggery pokery is involved
