Hasselblad 20-35 Test Images

[Doppler9000]

Fuji’s 14 mm f/2.8 - Optically perfectly corrected on edge to edge sharpness, distortion and chromatic aberrations but with a truckload vignetting. So the vignetting part had to be corrected through lens corrections. On the other hand some of my Fuji zoom lenses require to be corrected on barral distortion and chromatic aberrations, less on vignetting.

Boosting gain to correct vignetting increases noise. Correcting geometry in software results in a loss of resolution.

 

[TechTalk]

Boosting gain to correct distortion increases noise.

How does boosting gain correct distortion?

Correcting geometry results in a loss of resolution.

Correcting distortion improves image geometry. Optical designers balance the trade-offs needed to optimize lens designs which achieve a desired set of specifications and performance levels using all of the tools at their disposal.

 

[Doppler9000]

How does boosting gain correct distortion?

I meant vignetting, of course, not distortion

 

[Doppler9000]

Correcting distortion improves image geometry. Optical designers balance the trade-offs needed to optimize lens designs which achieve a desired set of specifications and performance levels using all of the tools at their disposal.

Correcting distortion in software reduces resolution. For some applications this may be okay, for others, it is not, so some optics are not designed using the tool of software correction. Designers use the tool set that help meet their design goals and might not include all of the tools at their disposal.

 

[TechTalk]

I meant vignetting, of course, not distortion

A degree of under-correction of vignetting has been utilized by optical designers to improve edge sharpness long before software correction of lenses was available.

 

[TechTalk]

Correcting distortion in software reduces resolution. For some applications this may be okay, for others, it is not, so some optics are not designed using the tool of software correction. Designers use the tool set that help meet their design goals and might not include all of the tools at their disposal.

Naturally, optical designers use whatever tools allow them to achieve a desired set of specifications and performance levels. On that I hope we can all agree.

In recent years, software lens corrections have been added to their tool set. If minimum distortion is important, software correction of any residual distortion would seem both likely and welcome. It's always a set of trade-offs to meet a set of goals.

 

[Doppler9000]

Naturally, optical designers use whatever tools allow them to achieve a desired set of specifications and performance levels. On that I hope we can all agree.

In recent years, software lens corrections have been added to their tool set. If minimum distortion is important, correction of any residual distortion would seem both likely and welcome.

Of course. I just wanted to make the point that for some high-performance applications, the tradeoffs that come with software correction degrade performance too much for it to be viable. I suspect the number of these applications will decline as time goes on.

 

[TechTalk]

One benefit of software corrections is that the user generally has some control over how or when they're applied to an image.

 

[SrMphoto]

Boosting gain to correct vignetting increases noise. Correcting geometry in software results in a loss of resolution.

The final, corrected result is what matters. A lens that has zero distortion and zero vignetting may actually produce worse results.