> Hello Andras,
>
> did some test with your 'duster' and with a very similar own algorithm, see
> http://www.ciselant.de/projects/antidust/
>
> Your duster seems to miss some pixels and/or areas of dust.
> Maybe test if you hit enough random choosen pixel to calcuate the
> interpolation and iterate some times over the nx,ny loops (rembering the
> already interpolated pixels).
Great! Yes, I should make the radius larger as well. To be honest,
I've never actually tested the code with slides taken out of a dog's
mouth... the defects I have are usually quite small.
It seems mine gives fewer artefacts in smooth regions (sky) why yours
looks better in detailed areas (buildings), where mine tends to create
random noise.
Have you got any ideas as to how we can detect obscured pixels more
reliably?
Andras
===========================================================================
Major Andras
e-mail: and...@users.sourceforge.net
www: http://andras.webhop.org/
===========================================================================
