Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hi TerryI look at the situation 2 ways. I'm pretty convinced the reason that we see the soft corner problems on the legacy wide angle lenses is related to the complications that the M8/M9 with the short register distance and the need for micro lenses. If the only way to go wide in this format is to make lenses with corrections then I'm OK (the tradeoff being avoiding a hugely expensive sensor). Technically, I could be way off base and I'm not a physicist but I do think physics is involved. I'm specifically talking about the 7-14 here. I'm not sure where the crossover point (what focal length) lens design gets easier.
ExactlyJono - It has expanded beyond m4/3 to compacts because I've heard the same complaints about the LX3/d-lux4.
The thing many people fail to catch with many of the P&S and even some high priced cameras like an M8 or M9 and probably the X1 is that some vendors process lens corrections in their processing even for RAW files while other vendors provide information in the RAW files that can be used in post processing to make the corrections but if not used you see the lens' flaws (distortion or CA). In the M8 and M9 coded lenses give you better results because Leica can process in corrections based on the known characteristics of the lens. No one will ever know how really good or bad the X1 lens is since you can't remove it from the processed image. If Oly or Panny had processed in the corrections into the RAW file you would have no idea how good or bad the distortion or CA was unless you tested the lens by itself. I think that with known lenses they should process in the correction so that no matter what post processing software you use the images will appear to be optically the same.
Well, I quite agree with you about the facts of the case, but NOT the interpretation.To expand on this a little . It is VERY difficult and expensive to build any wide angle without barrel distortion . I would most likely say you can't and it does not matter who makes the lens. There will always be some barrel. In this 4/3rds camera we can't expect near perfect lenses for this so as John said many of these corrections are wrapped up in the DNG or Raw extension they use and only raw programs that can see those corrections take advantage of them. Let's face it one reason they give you there raw processing programs for free or small cost. When you jump to a 3rd party you are on your own but obviously some programs will support those corrections.
Now just a case in point the Hassy 28 and Mamiya 28mm we have the same issues with very expensive lenses but we have dedicated software that does correct for barrel distortion and other lens aberrations. Now case in point Leica is claiming it does not need these in there S2 well I'm the first one to throw up a red flag and say sure it don't need it in a dedicated software package but it is wrapped up in the DNG so other programs can see it just like the 4/3rds lenses obviously the corrections will be far less but they are still there ( I am still waiting for a REAL answer here because I am not buying the claim). All my life or career i have never seen a wide angle lens have no barrel distortion ever. Hassy and Mamiya admit it and have there own software to correct it. So it depends on how some OEM's work which is fine but the bottom line is there is some correction for it either in the raw file extension or in a software package. In this case Aperture is not recognizing those corrections than that is a Apple downfall for not supporting these certain cameras.
My morning mantra. So where the hell is my GF-1 already. LOL
Basically, the narrower the angle of view and the smaller the maximum aperture, the easier it is to design.I'm not sure where the crossover point (what focal length) lens design gets easier.
My point is that if you use a DAM (like Lightroom) and you use your GF1 raw files in it (and you don't archive them as TIFF or JPG).Not sure I read you correctly though , still half asleep.
The real issue is programs like Aperture just don't update often enough to keep supporting the onslaught of new camera's. Otherwise it's a great program
The digital world has changed but I do agree in principle as to what Adobe tried to accomplish was get a standard like DNG for all these OEM's . But I think many OEM's thought it was self serving as well.
Well, I don't need to 'get the right message to the manufacturers' - if I want to do that, I send them an e-mailThen what good does it do to start threads calling the lens the most underrated m4/3 lens. Not sure how that gets the right message to the manufacturers.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=33244076
No guarantee Guy, but if ANY raw files can be converted, then DNG will be possible.Yea Jono but who is to say DNG will still be around 20 years from now also.
But saying that DNG isn't perfect doesn't suddenly make a format which is exclusive to a single camera from a single manufacturer okay.That may change but Hassy and Phase shooters can convert to DNG and actually i can convert today with corrections I think to a DNG. Have to check that with Doug but I can output to DNG raw file.
DNG was the theory to be the best raw extension issue is not everyone bought into that theory and we have what we have today but yes it maybe the standard today but may not be saying much since not everyone jumped on it.
I'm not against the corrections Guy - I'm not against corrections in the S2 or the Hassleblad or anything else. What I'm against is sticking the corrections into some obscure file format.But back on point with these little 4/3rds camera's those corrections are built in and no getting around it since there is no way they can make a lens with no barrel distortion at these costs
HI JohnWhile I can see the argument for embedding the corrections in the raw files, the notion that DNG is the guarantee of usability 20 or 30 years from now, is harder to buy into. I think the best bet for you grand children is to print on the new archival papers and pigment inks if the images are important enough. Let's face it technology is changing at such a fast pace that none of us can predict what will work 20 or 30 years from now. When I started in the computer business, computer memory was an acoustic delay line that filled a large room, then came drum memory, followed by fixed drive heads over a magnetic platter, followed by magnetic core memory and so on. I was just reading about developments to use flash memory as an imaging sensor with much higher sensitivity and 200 mega-pixel density. I'm sure our forefathers (maybe some of us there ) thought film archival would be the answer but in 20 or 30 years where will they go to get it processed?
I don't think you are using the correct version of the DNG converter. 5.5 does put the lens correction parameters in, at least for my G1, and I'd imagine for the EP-1 and all other m43 cameras as well. The whole point of the new DNG version and converter version was to support the opcodes for these cameras. I suspect you are using an older version of the DNG converter. I don't have an EP-1 though so I can't be sure, apologies if you've already tried.Terry - you're right, it's in the DNG standard, but converting E-p1 files to DNG using Adobe converter doesn't embed these lens corrections.
I didn't think it did. the older version produced the huge, horrible, demosaiced linear dng files - I thought the next version produced ordinary DNG files, but without the correction?I don't think you are using the correct version of the DNG converter. 5.5 does put the lens correction parameters in, at least for my G1, and I'd imagine for the EP-1 and all other m43 cameras as well. The whole point of the new DNG version and converter version was to support the opcodes for these cameras. I suspect you are using an older version of the DNG converter. I don't have an EP-1 though so I can't be sure, apologies if you've already tried.
Why? Leica are sorting out the vignetting and colour shift with IR for the M8 and M9, and these are written into the RAW file without doing the demosaicing. Or am I missing something here?Also, the m43rds standard includes specifications for how lenses pass corrections to the camera as well as the correction algorithms to apply. Andy Westlake at DPR has in fact verified identical corrections being applied by Lightroom/ACR, Silkypix, and in camera JPEG.
Providing corrections to the RAW file in the camera (specifically distortion and CA) is a truly awful idea. Then you'd be stuck with the camera's demosaicing algorithm. No the corrections should be metadata just as they are being implemented.
Well - if they are going in to the DNG files, then I quite agree (I was under the impression that they were specific to the proprietary RAW file).I think the hoopla about opcodes somehow being some mysterious evil force that will cause compatibility problems in the future is a bit silly. They are no different than unusual RGGB arrays, different sensor black points between manufacturers, different hot-pixel methods, or any of a long list of other meta-data that is already handled by DNG and RAW converters.
I understand why the manufacturers don't like it, but it can't be necessary to make a new file format for every camera (surely).I will completely agree and stand up and shout from the top of every mountain that more camera manufacturers should use DNG as their default RAW file format. However, I'm also cognizant of some manufacturers concern that Adobe's control of the DNG format can stifle innovation (witness how long it took DNG to support lens corrections even though they were in the market place for years prior).
Ken
Hi TerryI thought the problem is that Apple doesn't have support for the opcodes in the DNG. So, the information may indeed be there but it isn't used.
Thanks John,Brian,
Not sure what happened to your post asking for a link to the FLASH memory article but here it is: http://gizmodo.com/5377487/flash-memory-sensors-100x-smaller-than-ccds-better-at-low-light