Timeline for Could a computer unblur the image from an out of focus microscope?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2020 at 15:06 | vote | accept | user273872 | ||
| Aug 6, 2017 at 14:48 | comment | added | Stefan Monov | @jamesqf: Yes, one can, though the process is generally known as "image upscaling without blurring". See my question here. It cannot actually "extract" more detail, but it can estimate the missing detail. | |
| Aug 4, 2017 at 19:41 | comment | added | John Dvorak | Then yes, unblurring would be as easy as rendering the holograph with the right virtual camera. | |
| Aug 4, 2017 at 19:39 | comment | added | John Dvorak | @PM2Ring if you can capture phase information, you can record enough information to capture the full scene in 3d. You can do that if you don't mind losing color by photographing with coherent light, and adding an undisturbed second ray to provide interference, then using the same ray again to reproduce the original waveform. It's called holography, and it's surprisingly simple for what it does. Now, doing that with three different lasers at once is much harder... | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 17:50 | comment | added | jamesqf | This leads to another question: given a well-focussed microscope image, could one apply some sort of image enhancement to extract more detail? | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 15:31 | comment | added | corsiKa | Would the resulting image still be of scientific value, though? I feel like it would always be an asterisk on the work. | |
| Aug 3, 2017 at 13:59 | comment | added | PM 2Ring | It would make the unblurring process much easier if camera image sensors could capture phase information, but I guess that's not so easy with incoherent light. :D | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 22:59 | comment | added | slebetman | Great link. I didn't realize you can use a Weiner filter to unblur an image. I use it to smooth out position value from motion sensors. I guess the two applications are similar: to figure out the "real" value from a noisy input. | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 20:18 | comment | added | Octopus | @R to my understanding, yes it is. Actually it is a set of parallel PSFs to explain the entire 3D field. You can unblur a specific plane assuming you have a table of the predictable ray paths for that plane. | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 18:37 | comment | added | R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE | Is the blurring from incorrect focus actually a planar PSF? I expected it to be more complicated. | |
| Aug 2, 2017 at 14:10 | history | edited | sammy gerbil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 214 characters in body
|
| Aug 2, 2017 at 13:54 | history | edited | sammy gerbil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 291 characters in body
|
| Aug 2, 2017 at 8:40 | history | answered | sammy gerbil | CC BY-SA 3.0 |