The Cost and Benefits of Lens Correction Using Software Techniques

Started Dec 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
Steen Bay Veteran Member • Posts: 6,974
Re: There are several pros and cons combined.

Paul De Bra wrote:

The most obvious reason for optical correction is that every captured pixel corresponds to a pixel in the resulting image. Software correction requires interpollation (beyond what is always needed witha bayer color scheme). Interpollation makes the image less sharp, especially near the edges where lenses are already struggeling.

Not sure that optical correction necessarily is better than software correction. If we want a rectilinear projection, then the final image will always be 'stretched' towards the corners, and the wider the FoV, the more the image will be stretched/corrected. Maybe it doesn't really matter much whether this 'stretching' is done by the lens itself or afterwards by the software?

But a disadvantage of optical correction is that its imperfections are harder to correct as they are not as "linear" as with a simpler design. This is especially the case for CA as corrections for distortion are already pretty good and can for instance correct moustache distorition quite well.

The simpler design of not correcting much in hardware makes it possible to produce cheaper lenses and because of the excellent results after software correction the lenses can still be sold for top dollar. So there is more profit to be made because the consumer is none the wiser.

It is obviously a matter of compromise. If software correction were the holy grail all new lenses would be fish-eye lenses and have the correction done in software. But this is not happening because the loss in resolutionat the edges and in the corners would be too great.

-- hide signature --

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow