That program uses A LOT of memory and or CPU when it is de-bluring. I have a lot of both and it still takes some time for that progress bar to move along the bottom. When I previously had a smaller amount of both it often would not finish the job. I'm guessing that's what is going on with your computer -- it got overwhelmed. BTW, I believe the company that makes SoftOptics programs is in Germany, although they are sold by U.S. companies. Likely their tech support is out of India so I don't know how impacted they are by the virus. Try you trial again with a simple picture (fewer shapes and colors and pixels) needing only a little correction and see if it works.

I've had good results with Easy Photo Unblur -- as well as several other photo programs from SoftOrbits, BUT -- and this is such a big "but" -- I finally ended up removing all of them -- both paid for and free -- because of my disgust at their antiquated anti-piracy code.

That is to say, their software is unusually sensitive to any "changes in the computer's environment" and quick to declare your paid-for-and-owned-program has reverted to being an unusable "expired trial".

Back story for explanation: Microsoft lead the way into such technology years ago to prevent folks from buying one copy of Windows and installing it on different machines. So Windows records details about your computer and flips your license from owned to expired when there are too many changes -- suggesting you actually just installed it on a whole different computer. In the early days, their anti-piracy code was overly sensitive and they got tired of dealing with complaints from people who were doing everything right but still losing their Windows and having to call MS to get a new serial number to get it back operating. As a result, MS -- and every other software company that I buy photo programs from -- made their anti-piracy code not so sensitive. They can all still pick up true piracy but not simple mechanical changes(such as adding memory or a new hard drive, etc.)

But NOT -- at least in my experience -- SoftOrbits -- who is still back in those early days of anti-piracy coding. Make any hardware changes in your computer and their programs are lost to you. So feel free to download their trials -- they are good programs -- but beware of buying them if you are a tinkerer who regularly updates or backs up your computers. You'll find yourself having to contact them each time for a new serial number . . . or wave goodbye and move on to other, less troublesome software.

I have a Sony just like yours, but mine is called a "Travel Camera", not a Pocket Camera. I've had great luck with it -- even the time I fell in a creek and submerged it. I broke a finger on the hand holding the camera, but the camera still works fine (after I dried it out in a box of rice), however my finger is still numb three years later. I also have an Olympus "Tough" camera -- a TG-870. Its pictures are not as good as the Sony but it's the one I take whitewater rafting . . . or carry in my pocket. It's built for that sort of abuse and takes it well. My father was always quick to stop me when I did something like trying to open a paint can with a screwdriver . . . or use one to stir the paint. "Son," he'd say, "there is a tool for every purpose."

KEH in Atlanta is in a big, impressive building, of which only the first 10 x 20 foot entrance room is open to the public -- to pick up equipment you have already ordered and paid for. They do have used camera bags sitting out for impulse buyers, otherwise think of it as mail order only.

I've bought from them several times. Each time the equipment was in better condition than advertised and cheaper than KEH. I recommend both companies.

Received one as my major Christmas present in 1962. I was 17 and my father -- not a rich man -- had been delighted to find it for me as a marked-down close-out at a famous Cleveland department store. I was surprised and appreciative, but secretly disappointed as I had wanted one of those "new" Japanese SLR's. The Kodak took beautiful, sharp pictures; and the rangefinder made for easy focusing, but I did find the EV system of exposure somewhat confusing, compared to my old lightmeter. The next year, with my own money from a new job, I replaced the Signet 80 with a Yashica SLR. Dim view through pre-set lenses made for tough focusing. And the pictures were not nearly as sharp as with my by-then-gone Kodak. How could this be? Isn't the Latest Thing always the best thing? My biggest Christmas present in 1962 was being taught by my father the true answer to that question.

I've also seen unprocessed or oddly processed "chunks" of my photos with that program. I've never seen that with any other photo software of any kind, including the various Topaz programs I already own. I uninstalled my trial and will wait until they figure it out before I return to give it another try.

Everyone should have had the same experience if they kept their slides long enough. The long life of Kodachrome compared to other films is a function of its unique chemistry and one of the reasons it was preferred.

Too big a deal to set up in your bathroom, but otherwise I wouldn't think any more capital intensive than many other complex machines, such as in the food or drug industry. And the rewards were great. I seem to recall reading at one time that Kodak film was operating on a 70% profit margin -- largest of any inductry. Before 1954 only Kodak could develop Kodachrome, not because it was impossibly complex, but because Kodak would not sell the developers to anyone until they were forced to when they lost their monopoly in court. Also to be noted is that while we are mostly talking about 35mm slide film -- Kodachrome was available in various sizes, including movie film. There were certainly enough pictures and movies being shot to keep a number of processors busy in its hayday . . . until Kodak invented the digital camera and sort of cut its own throat.

The antitrust suit against Kodak was to stop them from selling their film only with processing included. That pretty obviously had kept everyone else out of the business of processing the film used by about 90% of the population.

(When Kodak started out in the late 1800's, you bought their cameras with the film already loaded and then had to send the whole camera in to them for processing. The camera was then returned loaded with new film.)

After the modern anti-trust suit, Kodak could still sell processing mailers, but you bought your film "naked" and made your own choice if you wanted it developed locally or through anyone's mailer. That gave business to a lot of drugs stores, camera stores, etc., etc.

As I recall, you could get processing on 20 slides from 35mm film for 99 cents on sale, with Kodak closer to $3. But if you thought yours were going to turn out to be keepers, the Kodak processing was worth it -- the colors started out accurate and stayed fixed longer than with most anyone else. And the film was properly centered and stayed so in its cardboard holders.

The cheapest way to go was buying 35mm movie film in bulk and loading it into your used camera film canisters. Then home developing (not with Kodachrome) and mounting the slide film in 2x2 holders and sealing it with various tricks. Reloading old canisters was simple until Kodak decided to crimp their canisters so they had to be damaged when opened.

Kodachrome had an ASA of 10 when I was shooting it in the 50's. The New and Exciting Kodachrome II was ASA 25. In addition to its higher speed, it also had more natural colors and contrast, but was of course hated by many for not having the artificially deep blue skies of the original -- it was closer to the real world but further from the pictures in National Geographic. (as Paul Simon argued in his Kodachrome song)

For a time the battle between Kodachrome and "II" raged as with the introduction of New Coke; and many (not me) bought up all the original Kodachrome they could and stored it in freezers for the day when it would be no longer available.

Someday anthropologists will unearth a locked 1960's freezer and wonder why humans back then ate film.

Ektachrome was faster and not as fine grained or as accurate, but you could develop it at home since the dyes were in the film. Kodachrome dyes were in the developing solutions and best left to commercial development (of which I thought Kodak did by far the best job).

All the Kodak films back then were clearly superior to their American competitors (Ansco and 3M and ???) but for slides I preferred Agfa 50 and Ilford made some B&W film as good as Kodak's. Didn't like the early Fuji at all -- greens and yellows overdone to me.

I tried it during a trial period and chose to not buy it. Of all the "auto-filter" type software I have used, I liked it the least. The changes it makes to the original image seemed crude and harsh. On the positive side, it does have a nice name. And while the program is working, it impressively flashes a display of lines and lights -- as if it is doing something more than what it seems to actually have done.

I did put in the code and it did show the reduction to $70 on the order form. When I clicked to okay the order the $70 "mysteriously" changed to $137.50, which they then charged to my credit card. If you have a phone number for Topaz I would be only too happy to call them instead of continuing to send them emails which they don't answer. On my Topaz webite they offer only an internet link and a FAX number

Something is very wrong at Topaz. Friday, when I clicked to pay for the Pro package with a credit card, it suddenly switched to the full price, not the $70 it had been showing. Now Topaz only responds to my emails with a form letter referring me to FAQ. I'm contacting my credit card bank to cancel payment.