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!
That was not the intention and it was an offshoot of that test.Why would you want to disable the lens correction only to have to do the corrections yourself later?
I have just checked the converted pics I made, with a RAW vue on Vuescan, and I can confirm that there is a larger FOV than what Silkypix shows. Not much, maybe the equivalent of some 1mm of FL.Just use a RAW converter that doesn't support the embedded lens correction metadata, like Vuescan, ufraw or dcraw.
Yes, same for the 14-45: not really 12mm, but 13mm. There's a frame of about 15 pixel width around the 14mm field of view when I process the same image at 14mm in VueScan vs Lightroom.I have just checked the converted pics I made, with a RAW vue on Vuescan, and I can confirm that there is a larger FOV than what Silkypix shows. Not much, maybe the equivalent of some 1mm of FL.
I agree.Wow. that's actually quite a significant difference in my opinion! Look at the handrail in the distance (across the lake) on the left...
This example of the 7-14 processing is with the Lumix G 7-14/4, right? Not the Olympus ZD 7-14/4 ... ?? The latter inserts no lens correction metadata, only the former.Wow. that's actually quite a significant difference in my opinion! Look at the handrail in the distance (across the lake) on the left...
So is silkypix the only post processor that takes the lens into account? Anyone had a chance to try adobe camera raw 5.3??
Correct, Godfrey !This example of the 7-14 processing is with the Lumix G 7-14/4, right? Not the Olympus ZD 7-14/4 ... ??