Reading mode: Light Dark

Software correction of lens aberrations

Go to last post
Godfrey said:
amalric said:
Godfrey said:
If you open a .ORF file made with any of the lenses using Olympus Studio 2 and turn on the lens correction function, you can see that even Olympus knows this to be true.
Click to expand...
So what?
Click to expand...
So your statement is obviously incorrect. That's what.
Click to expand...
Wrong : never said that I opposed in-camera CA correction, just the opposite. Shows you don't pay attention.

Distortion correction and resolution loss are quite a different matter for µ4/3 whatever other costly lenses you might have. Quite unrelated.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
amalric said:
Godfrey said:
amalric said:
amalric said:
If you open a .ORF file made with any of the lenses using Olympus Studio 2 and turn on the lens correction function, you can see that even Olympus knows this to be true.
Click to expand...
So what?
Click to expand...
So your statement is obviously incorrect. That's what.
Click to expand...
Wrong : never said that I opposed in-camera CA correction, just the opposite. Shows you don't pay attention. ...
Click to expand...
Your statement was:
amalric said:
... That is also why Oly sees 4/3 as the natural upgrade path: after all it has some 30 excellent lenses, which don't need digital correction. ...
Click to expand...
Since Olympus' own, custom developed software for processing their native raw files, with their lenses, with their cameras, can find adjustments for each and every one of them that reduces chromatic aberration and improves on geometric correction, then your statement is obviously incorrect. Whether you "like" , "want" or "oppose" in-camera CA correction, or any other form of software lens or image correction, is completely irrelevant.

Pay attention to your own words sometime. ;-)
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com
 
Godfrey said:
Since Olympus' own, custom developed software for processing their native raw files, with their lenses, with their cameras, can find adjustments for each and every one of them that reduces chromatic aberration and improves on geometric correction,
Click to expand...
Yes, show us dramatic distortion in HQ and SHQ lenses. Or even Standard lenses, equivalent to µ4/3.
Godfrey said:
then your statement is obviously incorrect. Whether you "like" , "want" or "oppose" in-camera CA correction, or any other form of software lens or image correction, is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...
That's a mere projection of your own self-conceit. The argument of proprietary software is ridiculous. I'd rather use any PP software of my choice for marginal/corrections, than made/ to use specific proprietary stuff for heavy distortion correction..

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
John Bean (UK) said:
As far as real-world picture making is concerned I still maintain my position that only the end result has any importance to the user, no matter how it was achieved by the lens design - both optical and digital.
Click to expand...
Only with uncorrected lens RAW end result also depends on the other variable user has to contend with - RAW converter of choice supporting auto corrections and doing it well. Which may or may not be the major bummer depending upon user's chosen workflow and tools.

--
http://pbase.com/klopus
 
BTW, when priced at the same retail outlet, the price factor is 2x, not 3x. $170 & $180 vs. $350.

Two things to consider. First, Nikon and Canon have a economies of scale advantage. One reason to go with these makers. Second, how do these lenses compare in final image quality?

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
Andrew Westlake said:
Andrew Westlake said:
As an academic exercise, your point is well made and accepted. It falls into the same category as comparing similar lenses with differing optical formulae to compare how their internal configurations affect the final outcome. However it is just academic, since it is changing the intended imaging process and frustrating the designer's intent.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I know that. I just find it interesting that the anti-correction camp only ever consider the wide angle case with these m43 zooms, whereas in fact across most of the range relatively little correction is either needed or used - and better results than many conventionally-designed lenses can be achieved even before correction.
Click to expand...
And I would add that with the 14-140HD lens and the intent of its typical mate the GH1, the in-camera distortion correction is a great approach. Who the heck wants to do distortion correction on their video footage. And wouldn't that be a pain in the rear when you zoom?

Oh, I know. Folks will say "video - schmideo" I shoot stills. That's fine. But lots of others shoot video as well and they are a big part of the market. How nice that in-camera correction takes care of things so nicely - especially when properly supported by 3rd party software.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
amalric said:
It will leave the rest to undiscriminating people as the OP, who enjoy their poison, and refuse to know the tradeoffs. Everybody's happy and cash flows.
Click to expand...
So, do you get the bitterness and cynicism for free when you invest in an Olympus 4/3 system? :D
 
Jay Turberville said:
BTW, when priced at the same retail outlet, the price factor is 2x, not 3x. $170 & $180 vs. $350.
Click to expand...
Jay, I think I already quoted from the "same retail outlet", Amazon, that at that moment actually had 14-45 in stock (quite a rare feat for the Paansonic m43 stuff):
  • 14-45 - $470
  • Canon 18-55 IS - $130
  • Nikkor 18-55 VR - $180
This makes Pana as 3.6x more expensive vs Canon and 2.6x more expensive vs Nikon. That's 3x on average :)
Jay Turberville said:
Two things to consider. First, Nikon and Canon have a economies of scale advantage. One reason to go with these makers.
Click to expand...
You may also consider availability which won't be in favor of m43.
Jay Turberville said:
Second, how do these lenses compare in final image quality?
Click to expand...
Klaus at Photozone.de tested all lens above in an utmost pedantic German fashion, take a look. You'll see that while 14-45 is better in certain aspects it's not like it's 3x or even 2x better. Though to me personally size makes it 10x better :)

--
http://pbase.com/klopus
 
klopus said:
klopus said:
BTW, when priced at the same retail outlet, the price factor is 2x, not 3x. $170 & $180 vs. $350.
Click to expand...
Jay, I think I already quoted from the "same retail outlet", Amazon, that at that moment actually had 14-45 in stock (quite a rare feat for the Paansonic m43 stuff):
  • 14-45 - $470
  • Canon 18-55 IS - $130
  • Nikkor 18-55 VR - $180
Click to expand...
klopus said:
This makes Pana as 3.6x more expensive vs Canon and 2.6x more expensive vs Nikon. That's 3x on average :)
Click to expand...
Amazon is an aggregator of retailers for the most part. The actual end retailer could be quite different depending on the item.

It's a good point about the availability. That's probably why the high price there and the lower price at B&H. The store is likely charging a premium since the item is scarce. The low Canon price seems more like the B&H "import" or non-USA price.

Using the same retail outlet probably gives a better idea of what the wholesale price differences are.
klopus said:
klopus said:
Two things to consider. First, Nikon and Canon have a economies of scale advantage. One reason to go with these makers.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
klopus said:
You may also consider availability which won't be in favor of m43.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But then most people buy the "kit" zoom as well ... a kit. So the whole comparison doesn't mean a whole lot really. Better to compare equivalent upgrade or specialty lenses.
klopus said:
klopus said:
Second, how do these lenses compare in final image quality?
Click to expand...
Klaus at Photozone.de tested all lens above in an utmost pedantic German fashion, take a look. You'll see that while 14-45 is better in certain aspects it's not like it's 3x or even 2x better. Though to me personally size makes it 10x better :)
Click to expand...
No, and I doubt it would be. Typically you pay a pretty significant price increase for even small improvements in quality or lens speed. my 14-50mm Leica is much bigger than my 14-45mm Olympus. It is better corrected optically and has IS. It's a bit faster too. But at the wide end it isn't as sharp and is only marginally sharper in the middle and at the long end. But that lens is a lot more expensive. Far more expensive than the Olympus counterpart without IS. But that's the pattern with Panasonic lenses. They are not bargain priced. And this has little or nothing to do with the whole lens correction approach. It's been that way with Panasonic from the beginning.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
Aka, please re-read my statement, I am saying the lens as compared as a lens, if I do include the imaging soft part, then its not longer just the lens right, and that's why I keep saying the system need ANOTHER LINEUP OF LENS ... I am not saying those kit zoom not performing or not perform up to their required spec. Its just different need from different people and that the Mfr should see that .. Those soft correction required lens is just not for all of us.

I do not blame the soft correction, I do blame the Mfr for making that a required part of it all. And I am seeing it also from a point of final imaging , but to get to that final image any photographer might choose to utilize different tool, so the point is to allow that liberty .. For those who find it OK, just stay with those lens, for those needing, preferring proper optical performance, another lineup of lens should be provided. The 4/3 had multiple lineup of lens to satisfy different customer need, the M4/3 is no different ( unless the Mfr see it only as one system that fit for only one market )

--
  • Franka -
 
Maybe time for a new acronyme, SCOLA , since many new CSC lenses seems depending upon this feature.

Maybe old lenses, eg. those for classical Four Thirds could be profiled, using Adobe, Apple or DxO software, and enter those measurements into a lens library,

so that these old lenses produces even better results after lens correction, such as with the Panasonic/Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH.

Made a quick search and found this feature widely proliferated already.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34804349
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34802032
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/AdobeLightroom3/page6.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonynex7/page15.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/page4.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_m_9-18_4-5p6_o20/page4.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_45_2p8_o20/page3.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1/page17.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/page19.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP1/page21.asp

--

Ludwig Wittgenstein; British philosopher born in Austria; a major influence on logic and logical positivism (1889-1951):

“What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top