[Decapod] Depth of focus issue for thick books

Jonathan Hung jhung.utoronto at gmail.com
Thu Jan 14 20:26:31 UTC 2010


Hi Boyan,

For the instance where the image is only clear on one page but not on the
other, if I recall the conversation with Thomas correctly, it sounded like
this case would be very rare. Decapod is using the camera's auto focus and
auto exposure, and in most cases should focus properly even with a thick
book.

Even if it does occur, it may not have a negative effect on the outcome.
Images are converted to black and white - thus any blurriness from being out
of focus should disappear. However, the user would not know this and would
still want to recapture a blurry page.

One way to help the user determine if focus is an issue is to do the bitmap
conversion during the dewarp and split procedure. This way the user will see
a Black and White version which should remove any distracting noise from the
image.

Anyone else chime in with their thoughts?

- Jonathan.


On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:51 AM, Boyan Sheytanov <
boyan.sheytanov at asteasolutions.com> wrote:

Hi again!
>
> I thought things over a bit and here's what I reached at. If we are always
> working with the two images (left and right) as a pair (that's certainly the
> case in Capture, and it is making things easier in Remastering mode), then
> it's better not to split the image of the page spread in two and work with
> the grouped pair. If we have a single image, it won't be noticeable to the
> user since he cannot work with only one of the pages. And it would simplify
> code and markup. One point for working on the page spread level.
>
> On the other hand, what happens if a page spread captures the one half
> clearly and the other is defective (imagine a thick book when you capture
> the pages in the beginning or at the end - the page on the thick part would
> look differently). In this case the user might want to recapture the spread
> by repositioning the book but keep the good page. Is that making sense or am
> I trying to be a nasty user? As for duplicates, we might persist the indices
> of the pages that have been deleted and when the user recaptures the spread,
> ask him to choose whether to keep the original or update it with the newly
> captured (on second thought, that really looks kind of complex and
> confusing).
>
> Not sure if we want to provide such a sophisticated interface to the user.
> Might be a good idea to keep things simple (as in your design) as a start
> and if there is user feedback on inabilities to deal with single pages, add
> that feature at any later stage.
>
> Open to any thoughts on my chaotic ideas.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Boyan
>
>
> ---
Jonathan Hung / jhung.utoronto at gmail.com
Fluid Project - ATRC at University of Toronto
Tel: (416) 946-3002
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20100114/b3cdeb87/attachment.html>


More information about the fluid-work mailing list