5 ms·

Umm you can't even see his fingerprints on that photo. It's way too blurry. Weird. Edit: The lines on his palm are very clear though in the whole picture: http

Umm you can't even see his fingerprints on that photo. It's way too blurry. Weird. Edit: The lines on his palm are very clear though in the whole picture: https://www.merseyside.police.uk/news/merseyside/news/2021/may/liverpool-man-latest-to-be-jailed-as-part-of-national-operation-venetic/ https://www.merseyside.police.uk/news/merseyside/news/2021/m... Maybe that was it. Those are also pretty unique.

pc86 5y ago
It's a pretty huge leap to assume that the image you see in a public news article online is the same image the police have access to without any form of recompression or artifacting.
- Kenji 5y ago
  The fingers are out of focus. No amount of image resolution will correct for out of focus optics at the time the photo was taken. The fingerprints are nowhere to be found in this picture. So clearly something is bogus about the claims in the article.
  - dTal 5y ago
    "Bogus" seems strongly worded when the article makes no hard claims, but it does call into question the implication we're all here for, which is that fingerprints were extracted from the photo. Although, come to think of it, it is in fact perfectly possible in theory to recover information from out-of-focus images. In practice it tends not to work well due to noise, but it's theoretically a reversible transform if you can deduce the blurring kernel. I highly doubt it would work well on a social media JPEG, however.
    - doetoe 5y ago
      A convolution is not generally reversible. Or are you thinking of something else?
- dTal 5y ago
  The blur is clearly optical.
danbruc 5y ago
You can remove blur from images with [blind] deconvolution. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_deconvolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_deconvolution
- dplavery92 5y ago
  Blind deconvolution is useful in astronomy and space domain awareness where you can make reasonable assumptions that the support for the signal pixels is limited against a blank background. This isn't the case in everyday terrestrial photography, and the Lena image on that wiki shows the sorts of results you get from applying a blind deconvolution algorithm naively to this sort of imagery.
  - trhway 5y ago
    > the Lena image on that wiki shows the sorts of results you get from applying a blind deconvolution algorithm naively to this sort of imagery. the edges seems to be restored fine on that image - this is exactly what you'd need for fingerprints. Also, the image have clear partial palm prints which police may have had in their db on this guy too.
- periheli0n 5y ago
  It wouldn’t even be blind deconvolution since they can use the cheese label as ground truth.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I wouldn't think so, since the level of blur is less or non-existent on the label. In infinitely long focal length, everything is the same level of focus.
    - periheli0n 5y ago
      Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to see a lot of motion blur on that label, an amount that could easily account for the blur on the fingertip, too. Given the ultra-short focal length of mobile cameras and the large focal depth that comes with it I would expect very little out-of-plane blur on the fingertips.

pc86 5y ago

It's a pretty huge leap to assume that the image you see in a public news article online is the same image the police have access to without any form of recompression or artifacting.

Kenji 5y ago
The fingers are out of focus. No amount of image resolution will correct for out of focus optics at the time the photo was taken. The fingerprints are nowhere to be found in this picture. So clearly something is bogus about the claims in the article.
- dTal 5y ago
  "Bogus" seems strongly worded when the article makes no hard claims, but it does call into question the implication we're all here for, which is that fingerprints were extracted from the photo. Although, come to think of it, it is in fact perfectly possible in theory to recover information from out-of-focus images. In practice it tends not to work well due to noise, but it's theoretically a reversible transform if you can deduce the blurring kernel. I highly doubt it would work well on a social media JPEG, however.
  - doetoe 5y ago
    A convolution is not generally reversible. Or are you thinking of something else?
dTal 5y ago
The blur is clearly optical.

danbruc 5y ago

You can remove blur from images with [blind] deconvolution. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_deconvolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_deconvolution

dplavery92 5y ago
Blind deconvolution is useful in astronomy and space domain awareness where you can make reasonable assumptions that the support for the signal pixels is limited against a blank background. This isn't the case in everyday terrestrial photography, and the Lena image on that wiki shows the sorts of results you get from applying a blind deconvolution algorithm naively to this sort of imagery.
- trhway 5y ago
  > the Lena image on that wiki shows the sorts of results you get from applying a blind deconvolution algorithm naively to this sort of imagery. the edges seems to be restored fine on that image - this is exactly what you'd need for fingerprints. Also, the image have clear partial palm prints which police may have had in their db on this guy too.
periheli0n 5y ago
It wouldn’t even be blind deconvolution since they can use the cheese label as ground truth.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I wouldn't think so, since the level of blur is less or non-existent on the label. In infinitely long focal length, everything is the same level of focus.
  - periheli0n 5y ago
    Maybe it’s just me, but I tend to see a lot of motion blur on that label, an amount that could easily account for the blur on the fingertip, too. Given the ultra-short focal length of mobile cameras and the large focal depth that comes with it I would expect very little out-of-plane blur on the fingertips.