Mitsubishi develops "flutter shutter" for deblurring pics

Recent projects are really putting the hurt on bluriness. We saw camera shake take a big hit with the recent MIT project that uses a fancy algorithm to sharpen a picture, but does nothing for moving objects. This new tech from some Mitsubishi tackles the motion blur problem thanks to a relatively simple "flutter shutter" attachment on the actual camera. Their device uses a coded exposure sequence to cut a normal exposure into short burst, allowing processing software to sharpen any fast moving objects in the picture. The prototype is based on an 8 megapixel Canon PowerShot Pro1, but the method can apparently be applied to any camera, and would even work as a built-in feature on a consumer cam -- though it'll probably be a few years before it trickles down that far. In the more immediate future the tech seems a great fit for security cameras, since the system can help decipher blurry license plates. Senior research scientist Ramesh Raskar likened the method to a UV filter or a polarizing filter, and based on Mitsubishi's examples of the flutter shutter in action, the tech could really be a boon to all sorts of photography.

[Keith L. Dick @ Aug 31st 2006 3:43AM]

Not Sure I'm a gonna buy this one...

I can learn to have a steady hand...

[Mark @ Aug 31st 2006 4:07AM]

it's for motion blur, not camera shake, ie when something is moving past the camera at high speed

[LazyMegaMan @ Aug 31st 2006 4:32AM]

FINALLY! Some gadget info that's not about the camera ITSELF. I'm kinda tired of seeing new cameras or " camera teasers" posted here all the time. This post here is some real TECH. Anywho, how do people actually figure this kind of thing out? I mean do they just sit there with a barebone camera and think "Hmm....let's see what happens if we make the shutter flicker really fast instead of just once."? Is it trial and error?

[Aaron @ Aug 31st 2006 6:50AM]

LazyMegaMan brings up a good point. I'm glad the world has 6 billion people. Someone to work on everything you can think of. OK, maybe like 5 billion would be better, get rid of the weird people that put their lives into finding their inner wolf spirit and crap like that. But yeah. You get the idea.

[RickDom @ Aug 31st 2006 10:37AM]

How about actually moving the camera with the object? That's the biggest mistake people seem to make when they photograph something that's in motion. It's worked for years and you get a nice a blurred background and sharp moving object. Or you can use a high shutter speed. How about people actually learn photography and not have to use all this stuff as a crutch?

[TJ @ Aug 31st 2006 10:35AM]

heeeelll....CSI: Miami has had this technology since Epsisode 2..... LOL

[Jason Thomson @ Aug 31st 2006 10:55AM]

See ... this *could* be a good technology if it wasn't just for motion, but for shake. Exposures in low light (indoors, concerts, ballrooms) are maddening at times. If I didn't have to go over ISO 400 and below 60 for ss, AND not need a tripod ... well, I'd buy that.

[grimace @ Aug 31st 2006 10:54AM]

i'd look forward to it on p&s cam's, not everyone wants to lug around a nice dslr if you go out with friends & such.

[TJ @ Aug 31st 2006 10:54AM]

high shutter speed doesnt always work as well in low light even with higher ISO settings. not everyone has a camera with settings you can change ISO on also. this is gonna end up being for regular people cameras eventually. most people want pictures that arent blurry at all...not picking whats blurry in the picture...maybe you should take some classes guy.

[RickDom @ Aug 31st 2006 11:13AM]

The idea behind this is using a SHUTTER to take multiple captures for dSLRs. If you use a P&D digital camera (do any of them even have shutters?), they could just take multiple frames/exposures and do the processing that way.

And again, moving object, move the camera with it. But I suppose it figured and just looked at the pictures not thinking about a person moving (as the example they show is a train and a large object like that moving is not the same as someone moving their arm, that would be a far more practacle example of what this does)...I feel kinda dumb now.

[TJ @ Aug 31st 2006 11:21AM]

dude.....its PRACTICAL....now you can feel dumb ;)

[Eric @ Aug 31st 2006 4:15PM]

I wonder how many people know that Nikon is a sibsidiary of Mitsubishi. It has been throughout its existence. This could be very cool for Nikon's DSLRs.

[David Kaspar @ Sep 1st 2006 5:53AM]

@LazyMegaMan: First you have to realise that "As soon as the image is captured, high frequencies are lost and the damage is done". Then you need a "eureka moment" to try an extra shutter in front of the system. Then its all trial and error :-)

[Ryan @ Sep 2nd 2006 1:44AM]

Actually, this is brilliant. By using a chain code or something like it, they can positionally place different pixels at different locations and know when they were there. Then by working backwards, they can recover the fidelity that was lost. Instead of relying on the software to try and figure things out after it is all blury, they are in effect encoding the blur.

[free_mx_2000 @ Jun 8th 2007 7:08PM]

"Motion Blur Correction" involves 2 issues:
(1) Estimation of the PSF.
(2) Do deconvolution of the blurred picture using
the PSF.

"Flutter Shutter" is for (1).

I have sophisticated algorithm/code to do (2).
I am also thinking about (1), and my ideas will
be tested. In fact, there is a solution to (1)
in image processing. But it's complicated and
not reliable.

Nailong Wu