Amadeus Loc: New York

Award for best answer. 😂😂😂

delder Loc: Maryland

You can also try manual focus.

jsfphotos Loc: New York, NY

I think On1 No Noise and Sharpen is the best for both -- preferable to Topaz.

bbradford Loc: Wake Forest NC

Squint

SteveInConverse Loc: South Texas

Hahahaa! Topaz is a great little program.

Brian45 Loc: Melbourne, Australia

[quote=Longshadow]Not going to tell us? 👍

SalvageDiver Loc: Huntington Beach CA

The basic process used is 'Deconvolution" and well-known. You can get a quick synopsis from wikipedia. A more thorough explanation of this process can be found in almost any signal or image processing text.

Basically, if you try and take an image of a very small point (like a very narrow beam laser) of know characteristics, that image is spread or blurred as it passes thru the lens onto the sensor (or film). The blurring is referred as the point spread function (PSF). So you have the original image multiplied by the PSF (convolved in the frequency domain) to get the final blurred image.

At NASA (or Langley), the camera/lens systems are physically tested to get a very accurate measure of it's PSF. The better the PSF (and noise) is known, the better the original image can be recovered from the recorded image. The process is to divide the recorded image by the PSF (deconvolved in the frequency domain) to recover the original image. The recovered image will never be the same as the original unless you have a perfect measurement of the PSF and no noise. But it will be an improvement.

So your question is 'why hasn't it been incorporated into other products today?' Well it has, sort of.

The problem with incorporating this process into general software is that the PSF and noise is unknown for any given recorded image. These various software applications that purport to use deconvolution rely on what's called "blind deconvolution", even though they don't advertise this. They use basic estimates of an unknown PSF, either fixed or derived iteratively, to deconvolve with the recorded image. Gaussian-like functions are used with varying spreads to estimate a PSF. Some just refer to those as different model selections. Blind Deconvolution has not been highly effective as a general image restoration method for a number of reasons. The PSF of camera systems are complex with a number of lens characteristics contributing to image blurring, sensor characteristics and unknown noise characterization. Improvements in the deconvolution algorithms, such as Weiner deconvolution, Richardson-Lucy deconvolution, Van Cittert deconvolution, etc., has improved the process but is mainly used in more complex, specialized software.

The concept is well known, but good implementation is difficult requiring a good measure of the PSF and is computationally intensive since it's usually done in the frequency domain. Blind Deconvolution in general photography provides very limited benefits and creates very messy results when overdone.

Referring back to the OP, if simple sharpening can't fix it, the delete key is your best friend.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

How about a realistic and helpful answer without "snark"?

In reality, a serious focus image can not be magically restored by any practical and economical process and I am certain that most of us regular photograher do not have the assets and space-age technology of Nasa at our disposal.

There are a number of software that have a "sharpening" program that can enhance a slightly soft image by adding contrast, creating a "line" around some elements in an image, and some will automatically enhance some detail via an algorithm. Photoshop, Topaz, and Inpixo are a few I have had experience with, and have achieved somewhat decent results. Experienced retouchers can add detail manually- which requires a higher level of expertise.

Obviously, most photograher will cull bad shots in the camera right on the spot or discard them during editing. Nobody's perfect, however, and even experienced pros and advanced amateurs can come up with a blooper on an irreplaceable shot so some enhancement is better than nothing.

Some folks, mistakingly sharpen everything and/or tend to overhsparpn to the point where the images look like cutouts- not good!

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

I use delete
Bud

delder Loc: Maryland

Great Response to the NASA capabilities in Image recovery.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

2nd Principle of Thermodynamics... An out of focus image has less information/more entropy than a focused one. It is impossible to bring it back because it was not recorded in first time.

If a *very little* out of focus, Topaz sharpen or PS can create artificial edges and textures that seem to refocus the image. If printed and not pixel peeped, you might get away with it.

If it is really out of focus, then cull it and call it a lesson on how not to miss focus

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

Maybe not today, but with AI and computational computing its coming along with holographic photography...

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

:) :) :)

delder Loc: Maryland

I actually saw some AI art that was generated from verbal commands and approached basic photographic quality.
A combination of AI art and Photography PP could help in developing another Sharpening program.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Yes, but it would *not* sharpen the image... It would simply create a new image which is different from the real image but when blurred would look the same as the blurred original... I'm I clear?

Remember the 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics and the Information theorems... It is not a technology problem, it is a fundamental one.