A Logarithmic Image Prior for Blind Deconvolution
Blind Deconvolution consists in the estimation of a sharp image and a blur kernel from an observed blurry image. Because the blur model admits several solutions it is necessary to devise an image prior that favors the true blur kernel and sharp image. Many successful image priors enforce the sparsity of the sharp image gradients. Ideally the \(L_0\) “norm” is the best choice for promoting sparsity, but because it is computationally intractable, some methods have used a logarithmic approximation. In this work we also study a logarithmic image prior. We show empirically how well the prior suits the blind deconvolution problem. Our analysis confirms experimentally the hypothesis that a prior should not necessarily model natural image statistics to correctly estimate the blur kernel. Furthermore, we show that a simple Maximum a Posteriori formulation is enough to achieve state of the art results. To minimize such formulation we devise two iterative minimization algorithms that cope with the non-convexity of the logarithmic prior: one obtained via the primal-dual approach and one via majorization-minimization.
KeywordsBlind deconvolution Majorization–minimization Primal-dual Image prior Total variation Logarithmic prior
- Babacan, S. D., Molina, R., Do, M. N., & Katsaggelos, A. K. (2012). Bayesian blind deconvolution with general sparse image priors. In ECCV. Firenze: Springer.Google Scholar
- Keuper, M., Schmidt, T., Temerinac-Ott, M., Padeken, J., Heun, P., Ronneberger, O., & Brox, T. (2013). Blind deconvolution of widefield fluorescence microscopic data by regularization of the optical transfer function (otf). In 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 2179–2186).Google Scholar
- Krishnan, D., Tay, T., & Fergus, R. (2011). Blind deconvolution using a normalized sparsity measure. In 2011 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 233–240).Google Scholar
- Krishnan, D., Bruna, J., & Fergus, R. (2013). Blind deconvolution with re-weighted sparsity promotion. CoRR arXiv:1311.4029.
- Levin, A., Weiss, Y., Durand, F., & Freeman, W. T. (2009). Understanding and evaluating blind deconvolution algorithms. In CVPR (pp. 1964–1971). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Levin, A., Weiss, Y., Durand, F., & Freeman, W. (2011a). Efficient marginal likelihood optimization in blind deconvolution. In 2011 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 2657–2664). doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2011.5995308.
- Michaeli, T., & Irani, M. (2014). Blind deblurring using internal patch recurrence. In D. Fleet, T. Pajdla, B. Schiele, & T. Tuytelaars (Eds.) Computer Vision—ECCV 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8691 (pp. 783–798). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-10578-9_51.
- Möllenhoff, T., Strekalovskiy, E., Möller, M., & Cremers, D. (2014a). Low rank priors for color image regularization. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference, Energy Minimization Methods in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, EMMCVPR 2015 (pp. 126–140). Hong Kong, China, January 13–16, 2015.Google Scholar
- Möllenhoff, T., Strekalovskiy, E., Möller, M., & Cremers, D. (2014b). The primal-dual hybrid gradient method for semiconvex splittings. CoRR arXiv:1407.1723.
- Perrone, D., & Favaro, P. (2014). Total variation blind deconvolution: The devil is in the details. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).Google Scholar
- Perrone, D., Diethelm, R., & Favaro, P. (2014). Blind deconvolution via lower-bounded logarithmic image priors. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference, Energy Minimization Methods in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, EMMCVPR 2015 (pp. 112–125). Hong Kong, China, January 13–16, 2015.Google Scholar
- Shan, Q., Jia, J., & Agarwala, A. (2008). High-quality motion deblurring from a single image. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 27, 73.Google Scholar
- Strekalovskiy, E., & Cremers, D. (2014). Real-time minimization of the piecewise smooth mumford-shah functional. Proceedings of Computer Vision 13th European Conference ECCV 2014, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6–12, 2014 Part II (pp. 127–141).Google Scholar
- Strong, D., & Chan, T. (2003). Edge-preserving and scale-dependent properties of total variation regularization. Inverse Problems, 19(6), S165.Google Scholar
- Sun, L., Cho, S., Wang, J., & Hays, J. (2013). Edge-based blur kernel estimation using patch priors. In 2013 IEEE International Conference on Computational Photography (ICCP) (pp. 1–8).Google Scholar
- Xu, L., & Jia, J. (2010). Two-phase kernel estimation for robust motion deblurring. In Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Computer Vision: Part I ECCV’10 (pp. 157–170). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- Xu, L., Zheng, S., & Jia, J. (2013). Unnatural l0 sparse representation for natural image deblurring. In 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (pp. 1107–1114).Google Scholar
- Zoran, D., Weiss, Y. (2011). From learning models of natural image patches to whole image restoration. In Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV ’11 (pp. 479–486). IEEE Computer Society Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar