Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 60

Thread: RAW Truth

  1. #1
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    RAW Truth

    Just as a point of illustration.. no wars started here

    here is a shot taken with RAW on a E-p1 with 17mm lens

    first taken through the hell known as Olympus Master.. the software that comes with the camera

    second is taken through Aperture using a wee applescript i wrote to spoof the file to look like it came from a e-30

    ignore the tonal stuff.. but just look at the distortion in the vertical pillars... the camera manufacturers are doing a lot in RAW that programs like Aperture don't recognise... or even have the tools to deal with... this may explain why aperture doesn't support the latest cameras like the e-p1 and the LX 3

    the futures bright .. but the futures wonky

    K

  2. #2
    Ranger 9
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    Welcome to the world of "opcodes" -- special flags that can be written into raw files to trigger software features such as distortion correction.

    Obviously Aperture doesn't read E-P 1 opcodes, at least not yet.

    I wonder if you can try putting the same file through an opcode-enabled application such as Lightroom (maybe the downloadable demo version?) or the latest Camera Raw...? Do you still see the same types of bending you get in Aperture?

  3. #3
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: RAW Truth

    ranger...

    maybe if i have time i will try other routes. I am not excessively bothered by the distortion.. but was surprised at how pronounced it was... which was my reason for highlighting it.

    My worry is that even if aperture could read the information i don't think it has the tools to deal with it

    ps thanks for the B/W printer feedback to Cam... I appreciate your comments


    cheers
    K

  4. #4
    photoworkplace
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    I have no 4/3rds camera (yet)
    But I do have a question
    I would have expected in the optically uncorrected raw image their would be more of the image, so that correction can take place while maintaining the same field of view, but that does not seem to be the case.
    Is there any cropping taking place?
    There seems to be more room on top on the second one than the first (above the head of the guy with the newspaper), compared to the bottom of the both images (looking at there shoes)
    Last edited by photoworkplace; 8th October 2009 at 18:11.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: RAW Truth

    Adobe products handle this just fine. If you were to bring the raw either into Camera Raw or Lightroom, it will automatically be corrected.
    For me, Aperture is a victim of bad timing. When I needed to make the LR/Aperture decision they didn't support two of my three cameras. A year later I went out and bought Aperture thinking I was going to give a go to switch over. So, glad I didn't because they haven't dealt with micro 4/3 and it has been 1 year since the launch of the G1.

  6. #6
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    I am thinking of ditching Aperture for LR simply because Apple seemingly has no interest in timely support of cameras. They still do not support the DLux4/LX3, or E-P1, or G1. I am happy with the application otherwise, and prefer the UI to LR, but I pretty much gave up shooting raw with the DLux4 because it was too much of a pita to use another program. Same when I had the E-P1.

    Aperture seems to be a red-headed stepchild at Apple. FinalCut has had multiple updates while Aperture sits in a state of suspended animation (pun intended).

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: RAW Truth

    Probably because the LX3/D-lux4 have lens corrections.

  8. #8
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    As does the E-P1. And the G1 I believe. What I fail to understand is how LR can support them but Aperture doesn't. I could see it if every main software package said, "nope, we can't handle the in-camera lens correction, but it seems that only Apple throws up their hands. Frustrating and I can swap my Nik plugins from Aperture to LR if I want to switch. I do prefer the Aperture interface, but hate having a more convoluted workflow. I'm about to consolidate my various libraries from the past 4 years so now is the time to switch if I'm going to...

  9. #9
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: RAW Truth

    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.
    V/r John

  10. #10
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    of course you could always use dcraw to convert your file to a tiff and see what it is like natively...

    also, this is lens dependent and is not in my opinion a camera issue. I've used stuff like PTLens for some time which already has a database of lenses that it can work with (reading the exif of JPGS too)

    What I think it means is that you need to consider carefully lens testing results in future ... was it 'inadvertently' post processed?

    is that a problem?

    If the designers of lenses can make better / cheaper lenses with some compromises which need to be fixed in software (or can be fixed in software for less than re-balancing other design equation parameters) then isn't that just a benefit of digital?

    I get better pictures out of my 1940's Vaskar lensed Bessa 6x9 film camera by using PTLens ... sharper edges. Seems like only a good thing to me.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: RAW Truth

    Yes, this has been a pain for me too... the 20mm f1.7 is much better with the E-P1, and also check out PhotoAcute if you want a distortion/CA corrected DNG file for your favoured raw converter.

    Unfortunately, I think PhotoAcute only runs on Windoze.

    Cheers

    Brian

  12. #12
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: RAW Truth

    morning....

    in response to photoworkspace - yes the second image was cropped - I went back and did the Olympus Master version purely to show the lack of distortion.

    to the rest of you

    I am an Aperture user by default.... I worked at Apple over the period when Aperture was first launched and have had to present it at trade fairs and other events as well as write demos.

    I still like its workflow and am annoyed like you that it doesn't support the latest cameras - but I am guessing that this is a result of the the way that Apple handle the RAW processing at the core of the OS and that they didn't build in the algorithms to correct distortion. I reckon that any camera out there that uses this sort of correction will have problems with Aperture, and indeed iPhoto

    Adobe on the other hand because they have to develop for both windows and Mac had to develop ACR as their RAW engine and had the foresight to build these sort of control s in there

    cheers
    K

  13. #13
    ChrisJ
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    It raises the question as to why Olympus haven't reduced this distortion optically which in a single focal length lens they could and IMO should have done. These lenses aren't cheap in all other 'normal sized' optics this problem is addressed in lens which makes the lens design more complicated (and expensive).

    As some of you may know I've been working with the old Pentax Auto 110 lenses none of which including the 18mm f2.8 have this problem so it can't be a small size thing.

    May be our wrath should be directed more at Olympus for not giving us a higher quality lens the price would suggest were getting, rather than Adobe.

    Chris

  14. #14
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: RAW Truth

    Chris, I generally agree with you - I know that other people say 'get over it' and accept that these lenses have been 'designed' to be easy to correct... but that sounds like apologetic / marketing BS to me - I'd like to see the 20mm f1.7 become the minimum standard of IQ for m4/3rds from any manufacturer!

    Cheers

    Brian

  15. #15
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: RAW Truth

    This throws up another issue that may or may not be a problem.

    If deficiencies in the optics of a lens are corrected in the camera by means of software, then presumably all the manufacturers of a system - in this case Olympus and Panasonic at the moment, will have to agree on a common way to deal with these corrections.

    They will have to recognise which lens they are dealing with and apply appropriate corrections, despite each manufacturer having their own processing engines.

    Maybe its the lens that tells the camera body what corrections to apply, otherwise you would have to update the camera firmware everytime a new lens came out.

    Think what I am trying to get at is that there is a danger that unless the whole thing is tightly controlled you could end up with a situation where a lens from one manufacturer worked better on their camera than it would on another from supposedly the same system.

    Olympus and Panasonic can manage this at the moment - but if more manufactures join micro 4/3 then it will probably get hard to maintain compatibility. It also may be a barrier to third parties producing lenses for the systems as they may not wish to share information at this level.

    Anyway... nothing to lose sleep over.. just some thoughts

    K

  16. #16
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: RAW Truth

    I think the design does allow for both distortion and CA 'parameters' to be supplied by the lens and stored in the raw file - but even Olympus and Panasonic haven't seemlessly coordinated their approach...

    As you say, other manufacturers may face an artificial barrier... or, maybe they will just produce good optics

    Cheers

    Brian

  17. #17
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: RAW Truth

    This was supposedly done with the new DNG standard and the opcode specification.

    Quote Originally Posted by kevinparis View Post
    This throws up another issue that may or may not be a problem.

    If deficiencies in the optics of a lens are corrected in the camera by means of software, then presumably all the manufacturers of a system - in this case Olympus and Panasonic at the moment, will have to agree on a common way to deal with these corrections.

    They will have to recognise which lens they are dealing with and apply appropriate corrections, despite each manufacturer having their own processing engines.

    Maybe its the lens that tells the camera body what corrections to apply, otherwise you would have to update the camera firmware everytime a new lens came out.

    Think what I am trying to get at is that there is a danger that unless the whole thing is tightly controlled you could end up with a situation where a lens from one manufacturer worked better on their camera than it would on another from supposedly the same system.

    Olympus and Panasonic can manage this at the moment - but if more manufactures join micro 4/3 then it will probably get hard to maintain compatibility. It also may be a barrier to third parties producing lenses for the systems as they may not wish to share information at this level.

    Anyway... nothing to lose sleep over.. just some thoughts

    K

  18. #18
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RAW Truth

    HI Kevin - Brian - Terry - Nostatic and others.
    I'm also an Aperture user, like Nostatic I've been considering changing to lightroom because of this.
    But I still like Aperture better - both the interface and the raw processing. I was hoping that this issue would be fixed with Snow Leopard, but apparently not. Changing to Lightroom is a huge task, if I thought it was better I would embark on it . . . but I don't.

    Chris - I understand that it's easier, cheaper and SMALLER to design lenses without having to deal with the correction, but to put it in the software instead. However, IMHO it would be better if this correction was done when the RAW file was produced rather than as instructions for the processor (even better if there was an option to switch it off).

    Leica have added vignetting and IR correction to the DNG files, which can then be opened by any DNG aware program, which, to be honest, is one of the biggest reasons my Olympus E-P1 is in Cornwall with Silas and not sitting in my camera bag.

    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'd be quite happy if Olympus and Panasonic output DNG files with compliant lens corrections which compliant software would deal with (in which case Apple would really have to get up off their backside and provide proper core support). At the moment it seems to be entirely proprietary and unregulated, and I don't think one can blame Apple for not immediately coming up with support for something that looks like a moving target.

    I think this is a serious issue, It's really a deal killer with me and m4/3 (incidentally, just in case someone doesn't realise, this is NOT an issue with 4/3 cameras and lenses, only m4/3). Not just because I can't use Aperture, but because it really does seal you in with converters which will deal with the problem.

    What happens in 5 years? I want to keep my library as RAW, I DON'T want to have to convert everything to tiff (which also rules out C1). To me that means subscribing to DNG - with the E3 and the Sony I can convert the files to DNG and still get the benefit of the camera specific profiles in Aperture (or lightroom) - with m4/3 I can't do that and keep the lens corrections.

    For me that means no m4/3, really it's as simple as that.
    Last edited by jonoslack; 9th October 2009 at 03:45. Reason: adding response to Terry's post

    Just this guy you know

  19. #19
    Senior Member kevinparis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    5

    Re: RAW Truth

    Just as an aside - we have to remember that in relative terms the modern lenses we are talking about are really inexpensive compared to their forefathers.

    Just for a giggle i googled some old price lists. I found a Minolta one from 1970 - when a 35mm 2.8 lens would cost 125 dollars. (I a sure i could find other price lists - but thought Minolta was a good middle of the road reference point)

    using this page http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

    I discovered that in todays money that would be nearly 700 dollars

    The inverse of that is that the 300 dollars you pay today for the 17mm is only 50 dollars in 1970 money.

    I know there are other variables to take into account - but it does put things into perspective

    Anyway - the conversion website is fun...

    K

  20. #20
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Mosley View Post
    Chris, I generally agree with you - I know that other people say 'get over it' and accept that these lenses have been 'designed' to be easy to correct... but that sounds like apologetic / marketing BS to me - I'd like to see the 20mm f1.7 become the minimum standard of IQ for m4/3rds from any manufacturer!

    Cheers

    Brian
    Then 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/re...ssage=33244076

    I 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 has 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.
    Last edited by Terry; 9th October 2009 at 04:00.

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: RAW Truth

    Jono - It has expanded beyond m4/3 to compacts because I've heard the same complaints about the LX3/d-lux4.

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    I 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.
    Hi Terry
    I'm sure you're right here - I think it's the RIGHT way to design lenses. The mistake is not to process the corrections into the RAW file BEFORE sending it to the conversion software (as leica do). What would be even better would be if they ditched these proprietary raw files altogether and used DNG (which will support this sort of thing)

    Just this guy you know

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    Jono - It has expanded beyond m4/3 to compacts because I've heard the same complaints about the LX3/d-lux4.
    Exactly
    Which is why I'm no longer using my othewise lovely d-lux4

    Just this guy you know

  24. #24
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    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.

    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  25. #25
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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
    Well, I quite agree with you about the facts of the case, but NOT the interpretation.

    If the lens correction is in a PROPRIETARY raw file, then, if you want anyone to be able to see your pictures in the future, you are forced to archive material as a .TIFF or .jpg file . . . which is fine if you want to use C1 or another 'converter' and process your files (as long as they support the lens correction information . . do they? I think not at present)

    If you want to use a DAM like Lightroom or Aperture and only output files as and when you need them for specific purposes, then it really isn't safe to use these crazy proprietary files. It's a little different with Hassleblad and Mamiya; being professional it's likely that support will always be available (although it might be expensive if either of them go tits up!)

    If Olympus and Panasonic were to put the lens corrections into DNG files within the Adobe specification (whatever the current version is). THEN it's okay to blame Apple for not supporting them. It would also be okay (by me at least) if they did the corrections before writing the DNG files (lets face it, who doesn't want barrel distortion corrected) - one could then convert them to useable dng files for archiving.

    I think we live in a crazy world where there is a new file specification for every camera which comes out - it's getting more and more unmanageable, and it's only a case of laziness and greed on the part of the manufacturers. (Olympus Studio is by no means cheap). If you think I'm paranoid try finding something that'll read some of the older computer file formats which were used by thousands and thousands of people.

    It's ironic that Adobe is, in a way, supporting this madness by being so quick to support the odd file formats.

    Just this guy you know

  26. #26
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: RAW Truth

    If the lens correction is in a PROPRIETARY raw file, then, if you want anyone to be able to see your pictures in the future, you are forced to archive material as a .TIFF or .jpg file . . . which is fine if you want to use C1 or another 'converter' and process your files (as long as they support the lens correction information . . do they? I think not at present)

    No not really I can certainly take my Phase files and work with them in ACR or LR . I just don't have a way to correct for barrel or lens corrections.

    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.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  27. #27
    Ranger 9
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    I'm not sure where the crossover point (what focal length) lens design gets easier.
    Basically, the narrower the angle of view and the smaller the maximum aperture, the easier it is to design.

    If you need only a very narrow angle of view, and don't care about having a large aperture, an extremely simple optical design called a "telescope objective" (cemented doublet) can give excellent results. The old Leitz 400mm f/6.8 Telyt, which was famous for its sharpness back in the day, was designed this way: just two pieces of well-chosen glass in a long tube.

    The wider, the faster, the zoomier... the harder it gets.

  28. #28
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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.
    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).

    Then, when someone finds your archive of your GF1 raw files in 20 years (like your grandchild perhaps) then the chances of them being able to do ANYTHING with them is pretty much zero.

    Other Proprietary formats (Nikon / Canon / Sony / Olympus full 4/3) aren't so bad, because you can convert them to a .DNG file which contains all the instructions.

    As for Aperture, I quite agree, but although it's fine having an onslaught of new cameras, it certainly isn't fine to have an onslaught of new file formats. Adobe may be self serving, but there is no other choice at present than DNG.

    Just this guy you know

  29. #29
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: RAW Truth

    Yea Jono but who is to say DNG will still be around 20 years from now also. 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.


    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
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  30. #30
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    Then 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/re...ssage=33244076
    Well, I don't need to 'get the right message to the manufacturers' - if I want to do that, I send them an e-mail

    That thread was to express that (prior to the 20mm f1.7 landing) the 17mm f2.8 was my preferred m4/3rds lens, due to the size, fov and speed.

    Thanks for the special attention though Terry, a bit creepy, but flattering

    Cheers

    Brian

  31. #31
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Yea Jono but who is to say DNG will still be around 20 years from now also.
    No guarantee Guy, but if ANY raw files can be converted, then DNG will be possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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.
    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.

    I would have said that, if someone comes across a disk full of DNG files in 20 years it's probable that they'll be able to do something with them.
    If they come across a disk full of GF-1 raw files it's almost inevitable that they won't be able to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    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
    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.

    The solution for the little micro 4/3 cameras (I'll reiterate that it doesn't affect ordinary 4/3) is for the corrections to be baked into the RAW files (just like they are in the jpgs) NOT added as instructions to the raw processor. Either that or to use proper DNG files

    Just this guy you know

  32. #32
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: RAW Truth

    While 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?
    V/r John

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    While 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?
    HI John
    i agree with every word . . . but the fact that nothing is perfect is no reason to accept something which is clearly a catastrophe.

    Just this guy you know

  34. #34
    Member kwalsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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 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.

    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.

    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 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

  35. #35
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: RAW Truth

    I 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.

  36. #36
    Senior Member barjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Galveston, TX
    Posts
    947
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    171

    Re: RAW Truth

    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-mem...r-at-low-light
    V/r John

  37. #37
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RAW Truth

    Hi Ken
    Thank you - great post. I'm afraid I'm a bit proneto 'go off on one' about this and all!

    Quote Originally Posted by kwalsh View Post
    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.
    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?

    Maybe I'm wrong - I'd be interested to know, as it definitely does change things.

    Quote Originally Posted by kwalsh View Post
    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.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by kwalsh View Post
    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.
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by kwalsh View Post
    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
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    I 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.
    Hi Terry
    Well, I guess we need to know the truth about this one - I'm not defending Apple for being:
    1. terribly slow
    2. completely silent
    about their updates.

    So, the question is:
    Do the lens correction opcodes go into DNG files converted from raw?

    Just this guy you know

  38. #38
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,603
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: RAW Truth

    Not all the distortions from the Oly-D 17/2.8 are correctable.

    While the barrel distortion can be minimized in the post processing, nothing can be done about the field distortion this lens has.

    Incredibly, Panasonic lenses (all of them) have minimal field distortion compared to the Oly-D.

    It is an over priced, poorly constructed lens (compared to the Pana 20) for what it can do.

  39. #39
    Senior Member Brian Mosley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by barjohn View Post
    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-mem...r-at-low-light
    Thanks John,

    Sorry, I just googled it - didn't want to drift OT (for once! )

    Cheers

    Brian

  40. #40
    Senior Member nostatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    socal
    Posts
    1,037
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    Jono, I think you're right that part of Apple's tardiness is due to the low-level support for RAW (ie in the OS instead of the app). This feature is part of what makes creating on Apple so easy in some respects...most of the pro apps and all of the iLife apps are able to access quite a bit of data from other programs within each individual program. And that is super...well, unless you want to actually use the raw files from your damn camera.

    I believe that correction data is the future, and you'll see more and more of this. Unfortunately, I think it will also provide another excuse for manufacturers to retain their propreitary formats to help ensure compatibility. Then the third party converters will be playing catch-up constantly. Surprisingly Adobe is pretty good about this, and Apple isn't. But Apple is known for doing some odd things. For instance, up until the most recent version of FinalCut you were very limited in what formats of video you could import. Given the myriad frame rates and compression schemes perhaps that isn't that odd...except that iMovie, the consumer app, would ingest damn near anything.

    I'm on the fence still. I did a shoot today and pulled all my 5D2 files right into Aperture, did a quick web output so that people could see proofs, and I'll start rating shots and outputting for a piece I'm doing in FinalCut. Very quick and easy. But if I'd also shot raw with my DLux4, I'd have to implement other steps just so that I could have the files to work with. Not quick and easy.

    I suppose it comes down to a couple of choices. APerture does support the Canon .cr2 files (but not the sRAW files), and would support files from the forthcoming S90 (I'm assuming). So I can get rid of cameras and keep Aperture, or I can get rid of Aperture and use whatever cameras I want (for today at least).

    Such is living digital...

  41. #41
    ChrisJ
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    I was interested to see just how much distortion there is in the kit 14 - 44mm lens (I don't have the 17mm f2.8).

    All were shot in Raw with a tripod the tripod was in exactly the same position during the shots.

    First up is a shot with my usual workflow Photoshop CS4 Raw Converter (with op codes). Reduced to 800px and saved as a Jpeg.



    The the same file opened in Photomatix Pro (no op codes) the downside is that Photomatix treats it as a single shot HDR, Reduced to 800px and saved as a Jpeg.



    Finally a Pentax Auto 110 18mm lens opened in Photomatix Pro exactly the same procedure as the Panasonic lens shot above.



    This, to me begs the question - if Pentax in the late 1970's can make an 18mm lens without distortion then why can't Panasonic produce a 17mm lens without distortion for a reasonable price in 2009?

    Chris

  42. #42
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    Chris

    two thoughts ... the pentax 110 wasn't cheap then and its not a zoom

  43. #43
    Senior Member pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southport, Australia
    Posts
    1,429
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    If they come across a disk full of GF-1 raw files it's almost inevitable that they won't be able to.
    then include a copy of dcraw.exe in there and you'll be right... With so many platforms moving towards hypervisor type environments and downloadable versions of DOS or even Win 3.1 I think you'll be able to execute an x86 bit of code for several decades to come.

    The solution for the little micro 4/3 cameras (I'll reiterate that it doesn't affect ordinary 4/3) is for the corrections to be baked into the RAW files (just like they are in the jpgs) NOT added as instructions to the raw processor. Either that or to use proper DNG files
    firstly I agree with the preference for storage of the opcodes as metadata not as changes to your RAW ... surely it would cease to become RAW then?

    does anyone else except Leica mung (and essentially irrevocably alter) their RAW by doing this? As far as I know DNG is just a 'container' file not unlike TIFF and that the RAW data is essentially stored there anyway ... only the headers and arrangement of tagged fields is altered.

    no?

    Perhaps I'm speaking too much like an archival librarian here but we go to great lengths here for making sure that our data and meta data are preserved, and we're thinking in hundreds of years here in our planning at least.

  44. #44
    ChrisJ
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by pellicle View Post
    Chris

    two thoughts ... the pentax 110 wasn't cheap then and its not a zoom
    The 1983 price of the 18mm Pentax Auto 110 lens was 20.00, this was gleaned from a reprint of an old review in Camera magazine a copy for download here.

    http://www.pentax110.co.uk/html/brochures.html

    its the 1983 review which has the prices.

    using this inflation calculator

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/histori...ion-calculator

    Makes it 52.00 in todays terms, not what I would call expensive.

    True the kit lens is a zoom, but people are reporting the same with the new 17mm f2.8 a directly comparitive lens(Unfortunately I don't have one to test). I realise the 17mm f2.8 has auto focus and an aperture system so lets triple it to 156.00 that's still just over half of what they are selling the new lens at.

    The point remains if Pentax could produce an 18mm lens in 1983 with no distortion for a cheap price, why can't panasonic do it now without having to resort to deforming the image in software? Or are they just using technology to sell cheap lenses at expensive prices?

    The older I get the more cynical LOL.



    Chris
    Last edited by ChrisJ; 10th October 2009 at 10:52. Reason: additional last line

  45. #45
    Member kwalsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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?

    Maybe I'm wrong - I'd be interested to know, as it definitely does change things.
    Well it certainly does include the correction metadata for my G1 files, I'd be surprised if it didn't for the EP-1. Of course the next question is does your RAW converter actually then apply the corrections specified in the DNG metadata. LR/ACR certainly do but perhaps others don't. You might search for threads on DPR by Andy Westlake, he's done a lot of tests with m43 corrections and you might find an answer in his posts.


    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?
    So the difference here is that color shifts and vignette don't require demosaicing to apply. They don't use neighboring pixels or change the shape of the image, just the values of individual pixels. Lens distortion and CA correction do change the image shape and neighboring pixels so you have to demosaic to apply the correction.

    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).
    Yeah, that's why I said "more" and not "all". It seems like 90% or more could do DNG straight from the camera and DNG already supports maker-notes and all sorts of ways for manufacturers to innovate. Heck, if they really came up with something new that DNG didn't support they could use proprietary in that case until DNG caught up and then do a firmware update. Or modify DNG themselves as a propsal. The proprietary non-sense is getting old!

    So, the question is:
    Do the lens correction opcodes go into DNG files converted from raw?
    As far as I can tell the answer is yes. Whether your RAW converter of choice actually uses them yet is another question!

    Happy shooting!

    Ken

  46. #46
    Member kwalsh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    147
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisJ View Post
    The point remains if Pentax could produce an 18mm lens in 1983 with no distortion for a cheap price, why can't panasonic do it now without having to resort to deforming the image in software? Or are they just using technology to sell cheap lenses at expensive prices?
    Well, to play devil's advocate I wonder what the CA and field distortion of that lens are. The theory behind software corrections is that you remove constraints from the lens that are easy to correct in software (distortion, vignetting and certain kinds of CA) and thus get more freedom to optimize other parameters than can only be done optically (sharpness, field distortion, bokeh, etc.). It isn't necessarily always about making it cheaper. Now, whether that is actually what Panasonic is doing is a whole different question!

    The older I get the more cynical LOL.
    Some call this "experience".

    Ken

  47. #47
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisJ View Post
    The point remains if Pentax could produce an 18mm lens in 1983 with no distortion for a cheap price, why can't panasonic do it now without having to resort to deforming the image in software? Or are they just using technology to sell cheap lenses at expensive prices?

    The older I get the more cynical LOL.



    Chris
    But isn't this part of the problem that Leica had in making a rangefinder. Light hitting film is different than light hitting a sensor and m4/3 similarly to a rangefinder has a very short distance from the back of the lens to the sensor. Leica partially fixed it with offset micro lenses and a crop sensor. It was another few years before they we able to get from crop sensor to full frame.
    I am not a physicist but I would guess you have two choices have a sensor based solution or a combined lens/software solution.

  48. #48
    ChrisJ
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by kwalsh View Post
    Well, to play devil's advocate I wonder what the CA and field distortion of that lens are.

    The theory behind software corrections is that you remove constraints from the lens that are easy to correct in software (distortion, vignetting and certain kinds of CA) and thus get more freedom to optimize other parameters than can only be done optically (sharpness, field distortion, bokeh, etc.). It isn't necessarily always about making it cheaper. Now, whether that is actually what Panasonic is doing is a whole different question!quote

    Some call this "experience".

    Ken
    The idea behind showing the Pentax lens picture against the Panasonic lens picture was to demonstrate the Pentax lens has no (or very little) distortion, both lenses were set at 18mm and I've yet to see any CA from any of the Pentax 110 lenses and I've tried to force it by shooting against dark trees a bright sky for instance and even with pixel peeping I can see none. Though I can see some vignetting in the 18mm.

    I'm not against software correction, how can I be I use Photoshop every day, but my main point was my last one, we are getting optically poor quality lenses that need all these corrections, but we are being charged top dollar for them.

    Chris

  49. #49
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisJ View Post
    The idea behind showing the Pentax lens picture against the Panasonic lens picture was to demonstrate the Pentax lens has no (or very little) distortion, both lenses were set at 18mm and I've yet to see any CA from any of the Pentax 110 lenses and I've tried to force it by shooting against dark trees a bright sky for instance and even with pixel peeping I can see none. Though I can see some vignetting in the 18mm.

    I'm not against software correction, how can I be I use Photoshop every day, but my main point was my last one, we are getting optically poor quality lenses that need all these corrections, but we are being charged top dollar for them.

    Chris
    When you look at the shot bigger what's happening in the corners? That has generally been the problem with these wider lenses. For instance my 28 cron and 12mm voigtlander were both problematic in the corners, something I didn't have an issue with on the M8.

  50. #50
    ChrisJ
    Guest

    Re: RAW Truth

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    But isn't this part of the problem that Leica had in making a rangefinder. Light hitting film is different than light hitting a sensor and m4/3 similarly to a rangefinder has a very short distance from the back of the lens to the sensor. Leica partially fixed it with offset micro lenses and a crop sensor. It was another few years before they we able to get from crop sensor to full frame.
    I am not a physicist but I would guess you have two choices have a sensor based solution or a combined lens/software solution.
    It's true Terry, the Pentax 110 lenses would not work well on a full frame sensor, but here we're talking about the G1 with a half frame sized sensor which is easier to design lenses for than a full frame.

    I've lived through this debate before in the 1950's when the magazines were saying how poor IQ is with 35mm compared to 120 film. In the 1950's it was probably true, by the 1980's less so.

    Panasonic/Olympus and even Pentax have put their faith in smaller sensors ultimately performing as well as full frame, just as in the 1960's and '70's it was easier to design lenses for 35mm than for the 645 (120 film) format which was (is) reflected in the price of lenses for the two formats.

    Why Leica is going the full frame route only Leica can answer, as the trial between a G1 and a Canon full frame sensor in Amateur Photographer shows with every generation small sensors are getting better and better, and now that Fuji is joining the m43 bandwagon with their excellent Super CCD SR sensor (which apparently increases dynamic range) we may not need a full frame sensor at all.

    Sensors are developing at a much faster rate than film ever did, there are some technologies that have'nt even been tried yet, it won't take 30 years this time for major improvements - you heard it here first .

    Chris

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •