Introduction
This article is from the series “Small unscientific tests” is devoted to the simple of single lens, which is called the “monocle”. As is known, the soft image monocle, due large spherical and chromatic aberration, very difficult to reproduce using computer simulation. More or less acceptable imitation can create with a rather laborious manual work, and taking into account the nature of light, and features of the plot, and the size of the alleged fingerprint, as well as many other factors. The use of any formalized procedures invariably leads to a result very far from that draws the original monocle.
However, one thing – a statement of this fact by words, and quite another thing – a demonstration of images to illustrate this idea. Not being an expert in computer imaging, I still dare to compare photos taken with this monocle, images, simulations, obtained by the use of the most famous (and simplest) way. This comparison was aimed primarily at identifying the most obvious differences. Therefore, the conclusions arising from it do not claim nor to any community, nor to the ultimate truth.
Photos taken with the actual lens
Photo 1. Monocle, f = 85 mm, f/4.0
This photo was taken with the help of improvised monocle, produced on the basis of the lens Helios-44-2. Circular diaphragm was installed in front of the lens. Even in this small web-image can be clearly seen that the drawing monocle is composed of two main elements: the softness and shine bright areas. Then the effect of the emission is due to halos surrounding the bright pixels.
* * *
Photo 2. Lens Pentax FA 50/1.4 SMC
This image served as the source material
for subsequent computer experiments.
* * *
The results of computer processing
Photo 3. Computer soft-effect
This image has a monocle only indirectly related. It shows how the picture might look like after the computer mitigation. Typical procedure leading to such an effect is to create two layers. The top layer makes translucent.
Sometimes it is slightly higher contrast and / or sharpness. The lower layer is eroding
using the filter Gaussian Blur. As a result, the image is softened, but in the bright areas are not there any additional lights.
It is worth mentioning that a similar procedure can in fact be realized and purely photographic means. However, to fulfill it can be only for stationary objects. It is about shooting a scene in the two expositions. During the first exposure the lens focus on the subject, and during the second – a little rasfokusiruyut. By varying the degree of defocusing and the ratio of exposures can be very interesting effects, including a quite good imitation of a monocle.
A more detailed examination of this issue is beyond the scope of this article.
* * *
Photo 4. Soft-effect based on the Median filter
To obtain this image was used almost exactly the same procedure to mitigate that and Photo 3. The difference consisted in using the filter, Median filter, instead of Gaussian Blur. Sometimes, even the direct application of this filter to the original image can convey a very bad effect monocle. However, such cases are very rare.
A comparison Photo 3 and Photo 4 shows that in this case, the overall picture image became a little more “monoklevym. Nevertheless, the effect of lights to make, continue, could not.
* * *
Photo 5. An attempt to simulate the effect of radiance
For this image I used the procedure described in the article Vitaly Abramov “Monocle means Photoshop». In a nutshell the essence of this procedure is as follows. With Maximum filter in a new layer created as prototypes for future light halos, and general mitigation. Next psevdooreoly smoothed and after data layers mix into the resulting image.
In my case, the application of this procedure, although it created some semblance of shining, but led to a manifestly inadequate mitigation. So I resorted to computer soft-additional effect. The result speaks for itself. Despite the shining lights and mitigation, the image is quite different from a photograph taken of a real monocle. The image also appeared some artifacts, which I specifically did not retouch. It is, for example, on an orange oval, inside of which were the figures in 2170. However, despite all its imperfections, the method of Vitaly Abramov quite interesting and useful. Moreover, in other hands it could well lead to better results. However, in order to get a first glimpse of the essence of the issue, I think it is suitable, and my results.
Findings
It should be stressed that no firm conclusions from my experiments should not be. It is no accident I put them in the description section “Small non-scientific tests. ;-)
I pursued only one purpose: to provide the interested reader to the initial information and materials for reflection. It is from these positions and should be read this publication.