Those types of artifacts have a sort of "signature" if you will. I meant what artifacts/problems to look for in terms of using deconvolution "deblur tool" for video.
Your example was blurry overall so it's very unlikely to be the case of "regular lens blur" - which can be "undone" to an extent if you know the specific parameters "Regular" lens blur would have a radial effect where there will be concentric gradations in the magnitude of blur, but the degree of blur can shift as the DP focuses/defocuses on subjects, especially with shallow DoF shots, so you really have to examine on video, not a still.
#Warpsharp davinci software
Did you know Adobe admitted the Photoshop demo a few months back was actually faked? It's the same crap, different pile, as software like focus magic, topaz infocus, etc. not that useful in real world video cases. Deconvolution approach usually only work well when you know the specific parameters (or they can be calculated) like motion vectors, lens parameters, focal length, shutter speed, diffraction coefficients, pan speed etc. They both have problems, but I would say the deconvolution approach looks worse, because the wrong data was dialed in. Did you compare them by flipping back & forth? Notice the problem areas, like edge outlines, things like specular highlights are accentuated the wrong direction? Look at the "American" text, notice the ringing pattern halos are worse overall.
If this was regular lens blur, I assume halos would not be ran into because the radius would be constant (or would it?)Īrtificially-produced blur can be undone with 99% crispness but real-life blur such as the "Read Me" example I posted above that was taken with an unfocused camera could not be. I know it's not directional blur, but I don't know what type of blur this is because I can't figure out if this is an upscaled DVD or just a blurry overzoomed master. Grain is also added, to simulate the perception of texture (for example, compare the hair, pants, wood counter, etc.) Dayum! That is impressive! How did you do that?Īnd no, I don't know what to look for. You normally wouldn't sharpen this much using avisynth (halos too, but they are more natural looking), it's just done that much for comparison purposes. Here is extreme example comparing them 1280x720, and pointing out the deconvolution errors. They won't give you the typical deconvolution artifacts which make everything look artificial (they look like halos but much worse, often you will get "ghosting" artifacts as object edges are interpolated incorrectly - the directional blur isn't calculated correctly) Do you know what to look for? Dedicated video sharpeners will oversharpen if settings are too strong (oversharpen halo artifacts), but they are natural looking - edges retain their natural relationships.