Timeline for Could a computer unblur the image from an out of focus microscope?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2020 at 15:06 | vote | accept | user273872 | ||
| Aug 8, 2017 at 5:44 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhysics/status/894796311463067648 | ||
| Aug 3, 2017 at 22:09 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | The fact that a question would be on-topic on another site doesn't make it off-topic here. Not even if it would be better on some other site. The question can be put into physics terms by asking about light contributions at places other than the focal plane. There is also a nice connection to experimental analysis of data near the bounds of limited acceptance when you have re-distributing effects that are conservative only over all phase space (something that came up explicitly in my dissertation work, for instance). | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 21:14 | comment | added | user541686 | I'm surprised people are suggesting Stats.SE or Math.SE... it's quite clearly a classical signal-processing question. Should be on DSP. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 13:28 | comment | added | leftaroundabout | @HotLicks it's actually not a highpass filter you want but a high shelf filter, which may be considered “unfiltered signal plus some high-passed boost”. The low-frequency components are after all unaffected by blurring/low-pass filtering. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 5:14 | comment | added | Keith McClary | @HotLicks There are "better" algorithms, but I think they always have some built-in criteria for "goodness" that they are optimising, which leads to artefacts. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 2:17 | comment | added | Hot Licks | Consider that an image blurred due to simple poor focus is like an electronic signal sent through a "low pass" filter. It is possible to reverse this (to a degree) by running the signal through the corresponding "high pass" filter. This will, of course, always be imperfect, and it has the nasty effect of amplifying any noise in the signal. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 1:46 | comment | added | Bai Li | If this was possible, would it also be possible for a nearsighted person to mentally correct the unfocused image without wearing glasses? | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 18:30 | answer | added | Octopus | timeline score: 38 | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 17:41 | answer | added | Mikhail | timeline score: 17 | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 16:36 | comment | added | Paul Sinclair | When the Hubble telescope was first launched and they found that the mirror was flawed, they did exactly this for a year or two until corrective optics could be installed. | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 16:07 | comment | added | mathreadler | Maybe signal processing or math.stackexchange could help if you want more technical details of how to do it. | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 14:53 | answer | added | Count Iblis | timeline score: 16 | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 14:39 | comment | added | Yashas | I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this has everything to do with image process and computer graphics. | |
| S Aug 2, 2017 at 14:00 | history | suggested | stafusa |
Added tags
|
|
| Aug 2, 2017 at 13:37 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 2, 2017 at 14:00 | |||||
| Aug 2, 2017 at 12:55 | history | protected | Qmechanic♦ | ||
| Aug 2, 2017 at 12:16 | answer | added | Peter Green | timeline score: 17 | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 10:13 | review | Close votes | |||
| Aug 3, 2017 at 16:48 | |||||
| Aug 2, 2017 at 8:40 | answer | added | sammy gerbil | timeline score: 84 | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 8:38 | answer | added | stafusa | timeline score: 33 | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 8:12 | comment | added | user273872 | I'm less interested in the algorithm part and more interested in the physics bit, I only used the computery wording I did because I couldn't think of a more physicsy way to word things. Optics has always confounded and confused me. | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 7:50 | comment | added | user107153 | I think this should probably be on cross-validated. But I think the answer is 'no, but if you know the characteristics of the blurring process (which is the physics bit) you can do some clever tricks to make the image seem less bad'. | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 7:31 | history | asked | user273872 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |