Distortion Correction ALWAYS enabled in NX1 + 16-50S

Look, it's just a trend right now. It's mostly evident, as stated above and in numerous threads, in m43 system where it's taken for granted. Just a short illustration, highly claimed panasonic 12-35/2.8 lens has around 5.6% distortion on the wide end but even respectable review sites do all tests with auto corrections turned on in LR and proudly proclaim that distortion is negligible. On the other hand, such a lens would be impossible to make so compact without sacrificing distortion. Also, go see raw files from gx7 on the wide end opened in raw therapee - it's a revealing experience.

Here is the kicker, the resolution, even in the corners, does not seem to suffer much from distortion correction. And we are talking about absolute corners here.

Samsung probably knows their target market (hint, not us) and are trying to protect them from unwise choices. I, however, think they should provide a method to unlock "advanced" mode that would allow fine tuning of every parameter available. Make it difficult, even silly (like having to put magic file in SD card root or something) but do make it available. Only good things would come of it.

ARSPR wrote:

A summary reply to all the posts here.

• Yes, I agree that I've been a bit over-expressive with my vocabulary. It's not a life-or-death matter...
• But I still think it's something completely incomprehensible about Samsung decision. I mean, you give the option to turn on/off the distortion correction in a "cheap amateurish" lens (50-200), but you don't give that option with a prime lens (16-50S). Are you nuts?
• (A bit offtopic but nevertheless... I've seen a quite a number of reviews, dpreview's one as example, where the reviewer complain about NX1 not offering any kind of control about the applied level of noise reduction, which can also "kill" (decrease) available detail. But IIRC nobody has complaint about distortion being on all the time... Aren't they similar processes?)
• Samsung is (IMO) absurd about the Distortion Correction decision. But they are not stupid (obviously). SRWs are free from this correction and they MUST remain in this way. The Distortion Correction, (like a future hypothetical NR setting), should be only applied to JPGs. If you shoot in RAW is because you want the MAXIMUM and UNADULTERATED information the sensor has received in order to perform whichever post-processing you desire. Applying any kind of in-camera correction to RAW data would be absolutely nonsense. Either shoot in JPG instead, or perform that correction in your post-process.

You keep getting your facts wrong. You can change the 50-200 because it's not a wide angle lens. The 50-200 may be a "cheap" lens but it's not wide angle. The auto correction only applies to wide angles. Distortion is much greater in wide angles so there's little reason to automatically do it for telephotos. Is that more clear?

I have no argument that it should be an option or a way within Lightroom etc. to overwrite the Samsung profile. But nearly everyone uses the distortion correction in LR anyway. I'd trust the company that actually makes the lens over a third party that can't get the processing of Samsung RAW files right the first time. That's one of many reasons I no longer use LR.

I've read complaints about the noise reduction in Samsung cameras but it doesn't apply to RAW so it's never been an issue for me. If I need jpegs, I create them myself. I know there are some people who need or want jpegs so it might be an issue for them which is why I said it isn't an issue for me. This is something that can be addressed via firmware.

wpstl wrote:

ARSPR wrote:

A summary reply to all the posts here.

• Yes, I agree that I've been a bit over-expressive with my vocabulary. It's not a life-or-death matter...
• But I still think it's something completely incomprehensible about Samsung decision. I mean, you give the option to turn on/off the distortion correction in a "cheap amateurish" lens (50-200), but you don't give that option with a prime lens (16-50S). Are you nuts?
• (A bit offtopic but nevertheless... I've seen a quite a number of reviews, dpreview's one as example, where the reviewer complain about NX1 not offering any kind of control about the applied level of noise reduction, which can also "kill" (decrease) available detail. But IIRC nobody has complaint about distortion being on all the time... Aren't they similar processes?)
• Samsung is (IMO) absurd about the Distortion Correction decision. But they are not stupid (obviously). SRWs are free from this correction and they MUST remain in this way. The Distortion Correction, (like a future hypothetical NR setting), should be only applied to JPGs. If you shoot in RAW is because you want the MAXIMUM and UNADULTERATED information the sensor has received in order to perform whichever post-processing you desire. Applying any kind of in-camera correction to RAW data would be absolutely nonsense. Either shoot in JPG instead, or perform that correction in your post-process.

You keep getting your facts wrong. You can change the 50-200 because it's not a wide angle lens. The 50-200 may be a "cheap" lens but it's not wide angle. The auto correction only applies to wide angles. Distortion is much greater in wide angles so there's little reason to automatically do it for telephotos. Is that more clear?

OK it's a way to make the decision, and quite possibly you are right. It's not about S vs non-S, but 16-50 vs 50-200. I would like someone with a 50-150S confirming it.

But I still don't agree with it...

I have no argument that it should be an option or a way within Lightroom etc. to overwrite the Samsung profile. But nearly everyone uses the distortion correction in LR anyway. I'd trust the company that actually makes the lens over a third party that can't get the processing of Samsung RAW files right the first time. That's one of many reasons I no longer use LR.

You are wrong. I DO NOT use automatic distortion correction (when available, I mean in my "old" Canon gear). I only use it when a) it's evident (let's say building photographs where there are a lot of straight lines which easily show the issue), b) I've also made other transformations like rotating or perspective ones. I prefer even slightly better image quality rather than perfect geometry you are NEVER going to notice unless you can compare in real time the photograph against your its target.

And LR does not overwrite anything... because LR (like any other "serious" postprocessing software) is mainly designed to work with raws. And RAWs, I expect, will remain free of ANY kind of correction for ever and ever. As I've previously said, the opposite decision would be plain nonsense.

But as I said in other post, the current problem with LR is that it still does not include profiles for S lenses.

I've read complaints about the noise reduction in Samsung cameras but it doesn't apply to RAW so it's never been an issue for me. If I need jpegs, I create them myself. I know there are some people who need or want jpegs so it might be an issue for them which is why I said it isn't an issue for me. This is something that can be addressed via firmware.

Of course Noise Reduction, Distortion Correction, even White Balance or whichever other effect you want, are only applied to jpgs... And of course, they being forced or they being opened as user preferences is just something addressable in firmware.

ARSPR wrote:

OK it's a way to make the decision, and quite possibly you are right. It's not about S vs non-S, but 16-50 vs 50-200. I would like someone with a 50-150S confirming it.

But I still don't agree with it...

I already did this which is why I stated it's only wide angle. It has nothing to do with S lenses. I said in a previous post, the option is disabled for the 16-50 PZ, the 16 2.4, 20, 12-24, none of which are S lenses. And, yes, I tried the 50-150. I didn't mention it specifically but I thought you could figure it out with the other list I'd made.

You are wrong. I DO NOT use automatic distortion correction (when available, I mean in my "old" Canon gear). I only use it when a) it's evident (let's say building photographs where there are a lot of straight lines which easily show the issue), b) I've also made other transformations like rotating or perspective ones. I prefer even slightly better image quality rather than perfect geometry you are NEVER going to notice unless you can compare in real time the photograph against your its target.

If you cared about quality, you wouldn't shoot jpegs. That makes more of a difference than the distortion correction.

And LR does not overwrite anything... because LR (like any other "serious" postprocessing software) is mainly designed to work with raws. And RAWs, I expect, will remain free of ANY kind of correction for ever and ever. As I've previously said, the opposite decision would be plain nonsense.

I meant "override", not overwrite. I suspect auto correction fixed my typo (that's a bit of a joke). Sorry for the confusion. I know LR doesn't overwrite.

But as I said in other post, the current problem with LR is that it still does not include profiles for S lenses.

The current problem with Lightroom is that it isn't that great. It may be for certain brands but the ones I shoot-including Samsung-are not among them. I switched to a workflow that eliminates LR and Camera RAW. I still use Photoshop with the 16 bit TIFFS I create from the RAW files.