Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lens correction in CS5 - why not in RAW converter?  (Read 15910 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2010, 11:48:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: loonsailor
Just to be clear, are you saying that ACR 5.3/LR 2.3 and later are doing DxO-type automatic correction of barrel, pincusion, etc. of some lens/ body combos?  This is the first I've heard about that.  How would one know it's happening, and for which lens/body combos?  Seems like something that Adobe would be bragging about it, or at least informing somehow that it was happening (and maybe allowing it to be enabled/disabled).


Yep...Panasonic/Leica cameras and the recent Canon S90 are examples of camera/lens combos where ACR/LR does automatic distortion, CA and vignette correction based on metadata about lens focal length of zoom and I think subject (focus) distance...as to why Adobe isn't "bragging about", well, since the auto lens correction is being applied only to a few cameras and the reason why it is being applied is that otherwise the resulting images would look like crap, Adobe didn't want to make a big thing out of the deal...but the capability is already there.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6051


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2010, 01:09:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
... things like refine edge will make a lot of photographers very happy. See Hair cut out Tutorial to see what this can do.
Not sure why would I, as a photographer, not as an illustrator or retoucher, would like to cut hair out, combine different backgrounds, etc. But, of course, I am speaking about myself only.

Quote
Then there is content aware fill, which is kind of handy.
Again, not sure how much I would like to alter photos (especially landscape ones) as a photographer. Being an illustrator, or "dreamscape" photoshopographer™,  is a different matter, of course.

Besides, I am not at all impressed with it and here is why:  

[attachment=21648:QmeqG.png]


Quote
... ACR is improved significantly and can make a big differnce to high ISO/poor lighting images.
And for that I will use Lightroom 3.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Adam L
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 187


WWW
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2010, 01:36:34 PM »
ReplyReply

HAHAHAHA, you would think that the Adobe 'boys' would have gotten that one right.   If you squint your eyes it could be Heidi Montag.   I'll add a couple smilies so as not to offend anyone.              
Logged

"That's a lot of money to move a few pixels around"
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6877


« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2010, 02:08:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic

Besides, I am not at all impressed with it and here is why:  
Just like HDR and DOF stacking, it'll take a couple of release before it works as expected!
     
Logged

Francois
loonsailor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2010, 02:22:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: francois
Just like HDR and DOF stacking, it'll take a couple of release before it works as expected!
   

Wow - photoshop reveals secret alien beings!  

It's pretty interesting what it does with her hair though.  It lengthens it on the left, and on the right it adds a few strands "behind" her.
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #45 on: April 22, 2010, 08:27:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Slobodan, one example of where content-aware fill can be useful to landscape photography is if you're doing some stitching. For example, if you're doing a standard horizontal stitch (say, 3 frames from left to right) you will usually have a crooked border across the top & bottom edges of the stitched image. Of course, you can eliminate these by cropping down. On the other hand, it can be useful to "fill in" the image areas, esp. if it's a relatively simple area such as sky.
Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #46 on: April 22, 2010, 11:37:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: madmanchan
Hi Slobodan, one example of where content-aware fill can be useful to landscape photography is if you're doing some stitching. For example, if you're doing a standard horizontal stitch (say, 3 frames from left to right) you will usually have a crooked border across the top & bottom edges of the stitched image. Of course, you can eliminate these by cropping down. On the other hand, it can be useful to "fill in" the image areas, esp. if it's a relatively simple area such as sky.
True. This is one place where the current healing brush fails miserably, it just can't handle filling in at the edge of the frame.

I still think the examples in the videos from a few weeks back are extreme to the point of being absurd. I don't think you replace that much of an image and not have it show (nor would I want to, at the point it's not really photography anymore IMHO).
« Last Edit: April 22, 2010, 11:38:12 AM by JeffKohn » Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2825



« Reply #47 on: April 22, 2010, 05:43:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic
Besides, I am not at all impressed with it and here is why:  

[attachment=21648:QmeqG.png]

And for that I will use Lightroom 3.
Slobodan,

That is hilarious. That is the funniest thing I've ever seen on this forum.

Bill
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4122



« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2010, 03:38:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Who cares? The camera guys will end up doing it in-camera because the customers need the correction, and Adobe will continue to make the money and everyone will be happy. My Nikon D3x already churns out Jpegs which are most of the time perfectly usable, with electronic "fill light", decent white balance, noise reduction and I think even chromatic aberration correction.

Quote from: opgr
I would like to strongly disagree.

A parametric implementation is simply a deferred pixel implementation. But ultimately we users are just looking at the pixel result. LR has already sacrificed some of the real-time preview capabilities in order to implement the desired functionality, but even so, we are still basing our input on the pixel based preview.

So, there is no such thing as "doing it parametrically". The parameters are always translated to pixelbased corrections. It is just a matter of whether that can be done:
1) in near real time,
and for the sake of this discussion:
2) whether there are easy inverse transforms for user input if applicable.

A simple example would be the fact that we are usually looking at a preview proxy which is reduced in size. If we then apply sharpening parameters how should the result be applied/displayed?



Having said that, here is why I am really opposed to the parametric argument against lenscorrections:

Lenscorrections are not the same as perspective corrections. The latter is not really a correction, and most users can easily live with perspective corrections being relinquished to later photoshop editing, as it usually is a specialized task.

Lenscorrections should, and this is very very important, should be done BEFORE any other processing, including and most importantly before DEBAYERING and before COLORMANAGEMENT! Otherwise chromatic aberrations will have been obfuscated by crosschannel processing which degrades debayer performance and makes lenscorrections nearly impossible in later stages. (in the same way as white-point corrections are near impossible in non-linear gammacorrected data).

It seems however that LR and related products (and yes, I am making a presumption here) do these corrections further down the pipeline. Well after Debayering and a lot of the other processing. It is ONLY IN THIS case that you run into inverse-transform problems that I have seen mentioned. I therefore make this presumption of processing order, and would therefore also like to propose that the entire problem is not one of parametric vs pixels, but one of processing order.


And I also believe that this should be discussed pretty damn heavily & transparent at Adobe and elsewhere, because as it currently is, the DNG "standard" is in a developmental stage but it seems that a lot of the definitions are being based on the Adobe-processing-paradigm. And I already have mentioned earlier that the colormanagement implementation of DNG is in serious need of reconsideration, and now the lenscorrection definitions may just go in the same direction, which in my not so humble opinion is more southward bound than is absolutely necessary.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2010, 07:01:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
My Nikon D3x already churns out Jpegs which are most of the time perfectly usable, with electronic "fill light", decent white balance, noise reduction and I think even chromatic aberration correction.


Cool, so that means you won't be shooting raw anymore, right? If so, this thread is indeed useless for you. The rest of us do still care about an optimal raw processing pipeline...
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4122



« Reply #50 on: April 26, 2010, 02:54:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Cool, so that means you won't be shooting raw anymore, right? If so, this thread is indeed useless for you. The rest of us do still care about an optimal raw processing pipeline...

Jeff,

 You have been sitting in the garage in your car and inhaling your own exhaust for too long. Open a window before bad luck bites you!

 In case you have forgotten, the camera guys have had embedded Raw conversion since Bayer matrices first shipped. It's there in every camera from cellphone up. And a quick look at a consumer Nikon or Canon shows that they do a pretty good job at it - good enough that even many serious amateurs are going to have trouble justifying $2K a seat to correct the distorsion of their eeeny teeny Powershot. Adjust wb and curves and distorsion and noise etc the camera may be able to do at shot or even after-shot now.

 Frankly, the in-camera Raw converter on the Nikon D3x is so good that on the latest batch of Paris fashion shows i shot I did not really *need* to go to Raw for any of the A4 samples I handed out. And I prefer in-camera Nikon color to ACR defaults any day of the week.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 03:01:09 AM by eronald » Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 26, 2010, 03:26:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
Jeff,

 You have been sitting in the garage in your car and inhaling your own exhaust for too long. Open a window before bad luck bites you!

 In case you have forgotten, the camera guys have had embedded Raw conversion since Bayer matrices first shipped. It's there in every camera from cellphone up. And a quick look at a consumer Nikon or Canon shows that they do a pretty good job at it - good enough that even many serious amateurs are going to have trouble justifying $2K a seat to correct the distorsion of their eeeny teeny Powershot. Adjust wb and curves and distorsion and noise etc the camera may be able to do at shot or even after-shot now.

 Frankly, the in-camera Raw converter on the Nikon D3x is so good that on the latest batch of Paris fashion shows i shot I did not really *need* to go to Raw for any of the A4 samples I handed out. And I prefer in-camera Nikon color to ACR defaults any day of the week.

Edmund

You realise that you can now match those in-camera colour choices in ACR, right?

It's also a bit rich (sorry, bad pun) to suggest it's $2k just for lens correction in a Powershot.  There are a lot of people shooting with lenses that won't be corrected in-camera and who want to shoot raw for all the other benefits who will love this - else the plethora of such software and plugins around wouldn't exist.

I think Jeff's point stands - you won't use it and that's fine, but many people will and they're here to discuss it.  If you have nothing to add beyond "I won't use it", you're not really adding a lot, are you?

If your contribution is, "Hey, take a look at in-camera correction" then that's worthwhile - I'm sure many people will - but if you really think that there's serious lens correction happening in the time it takes your camera to cook a JPG I think you're misleading yourself.  The results might be absolutely fine for you, but that doesn't mean they're being corrected.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4122



« Reply #52 on: April 26, 2010, 04:02:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Farmer,

 If people are going to buy $2K software

Quote from: Farmer
You realise that you can now match those in-camera colour choices in ACR, right?

It's also a bit rich (sorry, bad pun) to suggest it's $2k just for lens correction in a Powershot.  There are a lot of people shooting with lenses that won't be corrected in-camera and who want to shoot raw for all the other benefits who will love this - else the plethora of such software and plugins around wouldn't exist.

I think Jeff's point stands - you won't use it and that's fine, but many people will and they're here to discuss it.  If you have nothing to add beyond "I won't use it", you're not really adding a lot, are you?

If your contribution is, "Hey, take a look at in-camera correction" then that's worthwhile - I'm sure many people will - but if you really think that there's serious lens correction happening in the time it takes your camera to cook a JPG I think you're misleading yourself.  The results might be absolutely fine for you, but that doesn't mean they're being corrected.

Yes, actually there is some good work done in-camera. Leica is a good example, every M-series camera contains a database of mostly every M lens Leica ever made. I don't think Adobe has the resources to match this.

Let's be blunt, Photoshop is a very very good piece of software engineering but ACR is a "one size fits all".  My Nikon D3x is a good SLR, but my Phase back will kill it in decent light; and similarly Photoshop is good software, but a manufacturer Raw converter will usually beat it with little effort. Why should I believe that the guys at Adobe who use the same software model for zillions of cameras will defeat the guys who spent years of their life in making *their* camera special ?

 If I'm going to go to the trouble to resort to a Raw converter rather than take the Jpeg, why shouldn't I reach for the best ?

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 04:05:00 AM by eronald » Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #53 on: April 26, 2010, 04:59:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
Farmer,

 If people are going to buy $2K software



Yes, actually there is some good work done in-camera. Leica is a good example, every M-series camera contains a database of mostly every M lens Leica ever made. I don't think Adobe has the resources to match this.

Let's be blunt, Photoshop is a very very good piece of software engineering but ACR is a "one size fits all".  My Nikon D3x is a good SLR, but my Phase back will kill it in decent light; and similarly Photoshop is good software, but a manufacturer Raw converter will usually beat it with little effort. Why should I believe that the guys at Adobe who use the same software model for zillions of cameras will defeat the guys who spent years of their life in making *their* camera special ?

 If I'm going to go to the trouble to resort to a Raw converter rather than take the Jpeg, why shouldn't I reach for the best ?

Edmund

I think your perspective is too narrow.

Your Phase will kill your Nikon...in decent light.  Well, that's one situation, which means there is at least one situation in which the Nikon will do better.  The list of such comparisons goes on - each is a tool suited to a certain task.  If your Phase did everything, you wouldn't have a Nikon.

ACR might be "one size fits all", but it's very well configured and very configurable.  Manufacturers spend a long time making cameras and lenses, and a lot less time putting together the software packages.  They really only have one advantage - they know exactly what's happening in their cameras to create the raw, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing the best conversion.  They're doing *a* conversion, just as ACR (and other raw converters) does.

For your particular needs, it might not be worthwhile, but to dismiss it because it doesn't suit your subjective perspective is simply wrong.
Logged

NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 26, 2010, 05:15:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
Why should I believe that the guys at Adobe who use the same software model for zillions of cameras will defeat the guys who spent years of their life in making *their* camera special ?
I'll put it the other way around : how is it that the raw converter shipped with my camera (canon DPP), being made by guys who know perfectly the innards of it and should also know how to optimize output, sucks so much and smears details instead of reducing noise?  
And, using LR, I didn't even speak about usability...  

Michael often states in its reviews that producing cameras and producing software isn't the same job ; he may well be right.

And on the jpeg vs. raw debate, it just feels like a time warp, or is it a case of demonic possession? KR spirit, I urge you by the great manes of Nikonos and Canonet to leave this body!
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4122



« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2010, 05:38:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not dismissing it; I'm saying that ACR is expensive and not good enough:

- Case 1: I need decent Jpegs, nothing complicated for a batch of fashion show images (eg. 300 images ). Then the camera provides me with usable Jpegs *fast*.Photoshop cannot beat that because the in-camera Jpegs are pre-curved and pre-sharpened very nicely these days, and in-camera white balance determination is excellent on the high end Nikons.

- Case 2: I need to fine tune with Raw, color grade, noise reduce, sharpen ONE SELECTION. Then the camera manufacturer software does very good sharpening (they know the AA filter best) and also yields excellent color because they really know their sensor best .So the file gets converted in software X eg. C1 and then moved to PS for retouch. Kludgy but unavoidable.

Enough! ACR is a nice converter, but in-camera Jpegs are so good now that ACR is at best equivalent when set to defaults, and simply cannot and doesn't cut it in the cases when I really need to resort to Raw.

The truth is, the camera makers sold or gave away Raw converters before Adobe did, and have hugely improved their in-camera Jpeg pipeline, at the same time as Adobe has hugely improved ACR. But the camera makers have the convenience of the end-product on their side, and zero-time is a powerful argument.

For 5 or 6 years I did Raw systematically. Now I use the Jpegs, in 95% of cases, and you know what? I like the time I save.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 05:46:48 AM by eronald » Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #56 on: April 26, 2010, 05:54:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
Now, what I would really like to see in Photoshop is cutting-edge noise reduction and cutting-edge deconvolution tool and nice sharpening; and a really useful camera profiling tool, but in fact if you want these they are add-ons and you need to buy Focal Blade and Neat Image and Xrite Passport (which I helped design),

So you prefer a tool that you helped to design.  Fair enough.  Makes sense to me.

You're still dismissing ACR, regardless of your claim otherwise.  You've just systematically explained why you feel it's never useful - that's dismissing it as a viable tool.

I think you're wrong.

In *your* *subjective* experience, you don't need it.  Excellent.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4122



« Reply #57 on: April 26, 2010, 09:55:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Farmer
You're still dismissing ACR, regardless of your claim otherwise.  You've just systematically explained why you feel it's never useful - that's dismissing it as a viable tool.

I think you're wrong.

In *your* *subjective* experience, you don't need it.  Excellent.


My opinion is indeed subjective but not entirely dismissive. -  I do realize that ACR is almost an industry standard, a very useful universal piece of software and that many swear by it.
I also insist on using  Macs rather than Windows, but I do realize that most of the world's useful work gets done on Windows.

By the way, have you ever tried Raw Developer? It's a neat alternative universal Raw converter for those who don't want to upgrade their Photoshop license. I find the quality is quite good.

Edmund
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 09:56:37 AM by eronald » Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2825



« Reply #58 on: April 26, 2010, 11:34:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
Frankly, the in-camera Raw converter on the Nikon D3x is so good that on the latest batch of Paris fashion shows i shot I did not really *need* to go to Raw for any of the A4 samples I handed out. And I prefer in-camera Nikon color to ACR defaults any day of the week.
Edmund,

As you imply, if you get exposure, white balance, the tone curve, and color balance just right, in camera JPEGs are good enough for many purposes. However, white balance is much better accomplished with raw files and highlight recovery is essentially impossible with JPEGs since the white balance multipliers for the red and blue channels would blow those channels once white balance has been applied. Furthermore, shooting JPEG essentially limits you to Adobe RGB and does not allow you to capture the full color "gamut" of your camera. To capture the full range of colors of your camera, it is best to render into 16 bit ProPhotoRGB or other wide gamut space, and that option is not available with JPEGs. The ACR custom profiles allow you to match the Nikon color without much trouble. To each his own, but for these reasons I rarely shoot JPEGs.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2010, 12:06:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eronald
Yes, actually there is some good work done in-camera. Leica is a good example, every M-series camera contains a database of mostly every M lens Leica ever made. I don't think Adobe has the resources to match this.


Yeah, ironic that Leica writes to a DNG and ships their cameras with Lightroom, huh? Maybe Leica knows something you don't.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad