[bojan]

Hi Rally,
I have read the paper..
However, I am convinced that at the end, the algorithm reduces the compensation to X & Y only (because, camera rotation around all three axis + linear displacement can be closely approximated by liner displacement only.. but I might be wrong here, of course.. this will also depend on lens characteristics (actually, the lens is also the part of the equation, and the parameters will have to be "attached" to the particular lens), like cushion distortions and so on).
The paper also mentions the loss of higher frequencies from the image due to smearing, and this is why I think the current method (dynamic compensation during exposure - resulting in image that is not smeared) is possibly better.

Time will tell, anyhow, which method is better and more applicable to commercial production.
Very often absolutely brilliant ideas fade into oblivion because of commercial issues.. Classical example was Beta vs VHS (both are now history, of course)

EDIT:
As for astronomy... why would anyone want to have this in first place?
If mount is so shaky and/or prone to PE, it is better to replace it :-)
Astro-photography is not only about pretty pictures, it is about gathering scientifically accurate data (resolution is paramount here).. and no-one wants data to be "doctored" by too much post-processing...