|
1
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
3
|
- Infinite resolution
- Infinite zoom control
- Desired object(s) are in focus
- No noise
- No motion blur
- Infinite dynamic range (can see dark and bright things)
- ...
|
|
4
|
- The “analog” camera has changed very little in >100 yrs
- we’re unlikely to get there following this path
- More promising is to combine “analog” optics with computational
techniques
- “Computational cameras” or “Computational photography”
- This lecture will survey techniques for producing higher quality images
by combining optics and computation
- Common themes:
- take multiple photos
- modify the camera
|
|
5
|
- Take several images and average them
- Why does this work?
- Basic statistics:
- variance of the mean decreases with n:
|
|
6
|
- We can artificially increase the field of view by compositing several
photos together (project 2).
|
|
7
|
- A few other notable examples:
- Obama inauguration (gigapan.org)
- HDView (Microsoft Research)
|
|
8
|
- What if you don’t have a zoom lens?
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
17
|
- Basic idea:
- define a destination (dst) image of desired resolution
- assume mapping from dst to each input image is known
- usually a combination of a 2D motion/warp and an average (point-spread
function)
- can be expressed as a set of linear constraints
- sometimes the mapping is solved for as well
- add some form of regularization (e.g., “smoothness assumption”)
- can also be expressed using linear constraints
- but L1, other nonlinear methods work better
|
|
18
|
|
|
19
|
- Performance degrades significantly beyond 4x or so
- Doesn’t matter how many new images you add
- space of possible (ambiguous) solutions explodes quickly
- Major cause
- quantizing pixels to 8-bit gray values
- Possible solutions:
- nonlinear techniques (e.g., L1)
- better priors (e.g., using domain knowledge)
- Baker & Kanade “Hallucination”, 2002
- Freeman et al. “Example-based super-resolution”
|
|
20
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
- Limited dynamic range
- 8 bits captures only 2 orders of magnitude of light intensity
- We can see ~10 orders of magnitude of light intensity
- Unknown, nonlinear response
- pixel intensity ¹ amount of
light (# photons, or “radiance”)
- Solution:
- Recover response curve from multiple exposures, then reconstruct the radiance
map
|
|
24
|
|
|
25
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
- Let g(z) be the discrete inverse response function
- For each pixel site i in each image j, want:
- Solve the over-determined linear system:
|
|
28
|
- Same trick works for
- field of view
- resolution
- signal to noise
- dynamic range
- Focus
- But sometimes you can do better by modifying the camera…
|
|
29
|
- Suppose we want to produce images where the desired object is guaranteed
to be in focus?
- Or suppose we want everything to be in focus?
|
|
30
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
32
|
- 4000 × 4000 pixels ÷ 292 × 292 lenses =
14 × 14 pixels per lens
|
|
33
|
|
|
34
|
- stopping down aperture = summing only the central portion of
each microlens
|
|
35
|
- refocusing = summing windows extracted from several
microlenses
|
|
36
|
|
|
37
|
- If you only want to produce an all-focus image, there are simpler
alternatives
- E.g.,
- Wavefront coding [Dowsky 1995]
- Coded aperture [Levin SIGGRAPH 2007],
[Raskar SIGGRAPH 2007]
- can also produce change in focus (ala Ng’s light field camera)
|
|
38
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
43
|
- Instead of coding the aperture, code the...
|
|
44
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
46
|
- Seeing through/behind objects
- Using a camera array (“synthetic aperture”)
- Levoy et al., SIGGRAPH 2004
- Removing interreflections
- Nayar et al., SIGGRAPH 2006
- Family portraits where everyone’s smiling
- Photomontage (Agarwala at al., SIGGRAPH 2004)
- …
|
|
47
|
- SIGGRAPH course notes and video
- Other courses
- MIT course
- CMU course
- Stanford course
- Columbia course
- Wikipedia page
- Symposium on Computational Photography
- ICCP 2009 (conference)
|