OP
RLight
•
Senior Member
•
Posts: 4,414
Re: C-RAW gives no love for DLO...
Dareshooter wrote:
RLight wrote:
Dareshooter wrote:
The article from 2019 seems to imply that you can't use DLO at all which we know for certain is not the case. It doesn't state that it can be used but with diminished efficacy , not sure where your getting that from.
You can use chromatic aberration and diffraction correction, without DLO. But, when you enable DLO, it takes over these functions. I'm making an educated guess they apply when you tick that DLO box. It's an educated guess aided by the fact I've done some testing in the past on the subject which appears to support that hypothesis.
Yes I know this but that doesn't mean you can't use DLO with C- Raw and that's it's efficacy is reduced .It just does it all the stuff you mention in one hit and helps reduce any softening caused by the AA filter.
Again a guess; my testing shows the difference is very minimal. DLO as it is, is a bump in pixel quality, to reduce its effectiveness for a 40% savings in file size and buffer increase is a good trade. It is a trade though, not a freebie.
If you never touch DPP4 or DLO, it’s a duh. If you do? It’s still a good trade off, but a trade nonetheless.
It's a topic up for debate. My opinion is both are true; enabling DLO on C-RAW doesn't give full benefits, but, isn't fruitless either. Again, this is based off what I've read and tested thus far.
What I don't know, how much of a difference does it make? I'd need to test varying circumstances, lenses, exposures, repeatedly to figure that out without Canon telling me. Just sharing what I've read and what I've read does make sense as lossy compression is going to take perceptually irrelevant details away, but, said details may be relevant for aberration reversal to properly execute as I gather that may depend on some wavelength mathematics that I am not an expert on.