Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > One major downside possible with camera-based lens correction

Reply
Thread Tools

One major downside possible with camera-based lens correction

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-18-2010
The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
charles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2010
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
>is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
>to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
>optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
>available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
>know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
>aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
>if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.



So what was the downside? If people want good looking jpgs and the
camera gives the m thaat way, what's bad?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2010
On Jun 18, 8:16*pm, charles <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. *That
> >is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
> >to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
> >optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
> >available to the raw images in any post-processing software. *I don't
> >know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
> >aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
> >if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.

>
> So what was the downside? *If people want good looking jpgs and the
> camera gives the m thaat way, what's bad?


Whooosh! You missed it, didn't you?
 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2010
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
>is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
>to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
>optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
>available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
>know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
>aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
>if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.


Seems like it should be possible to embed the lens profile and/or
correction parameters in the raw file. They do it with the white
balance, etc. so why not?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug McDonald
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2010
On 6/19/2010 2:34 PM, Paul Furman wrote:

>
> Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
> Adobe's. It's not a big deal generally but if it's important to you, use
> their raw converter.


Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.

Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2010
On 2010-06-19 21:16:44 +0100, Doug McDonald said:

> On 6/19/2010 2:34 PM, Paul Furman wrote:
>
>>
>> Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
>> Adobe's. It's not a big deal generally but if it's important to you, use
>> their raw converter.

>
> Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
> for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
> changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
> file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
> heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.
>
> Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.
>
> Doug McDonald


The debate over hardware is stupid, but this is a major software issue.
I'm all Nikon, a friend is all Canon, HW and SW. Both of us can produce
superlative images (mine is only a hobby, he's been living off Canon
images for decades). What gives?

--
Pete

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ofnuts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2010
On 19/06/2010 21:34, Paul Furman wrote:

> Because the camera manufacturer wants you to buy their software, not
> Adobe's.


Canon software is free, AFAIK.


--
Bertrand
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-19-2010
In rec.photo.digital RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. That
> is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
> to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
> optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
> available to the raw images in any post-processing software. I don't
> know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
> aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
> if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.


If that's what's worrying you, consider the even more awful
possibility of a camera whose images look their best on the camera's
lcd.

--
Chris Malcolm
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-20-2010
On Jun 19, 7:28*pm, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > The possibility the jpegs might be superior to the raw images. *That
> > is not to say the raws loose their inherent superiority when it comes
> > to dynamic range and manipulation flexibility, but that certain
> > optical corrections done by the camera to the jpegs might not be
> > available to the raw images in any post-processing software. *I don't
> > know if this has been seen, or if the situation is even possible (can
> > aberrations other than CA and distortion be corrected in-camera?) but
> > if it is, raws could become the second choice for best image quality.

>
> If that's what's worrying you, consider the even more awful
> possibility of a camera whose images look their best on the camera's
> lcd.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm
> Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.


They all do. The little 3" LCD image is hardly taxing to the average
12 megapixel camera.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-20-2010
On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:15:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>On Jun 19, 7:28*pm, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> If that's what's worrying you, consider the even more awful
>> possibility of a camera whose images look their best on the camera's
>> lcd.

>
>They all do. The little 3" LCD image is hardly taxing to the average
>12 megapixel camera.



Whoosh!

That one went right past you ....

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confusion about row-major and column-major Jef Driesen C++ 2 01-12-2006 03:02 PM
OT: Downside(s) of installing Windows Server instead of Windows? (Pete Cresswell) HTML 0 03-11-2005 11:00 PM
Firefox downside, maybe? Poly-poly man Firefox 11 02-14-2005 08:14 PM
NArray indexing order: row major vs column major ara howard Ruby 0 10-28-2003 04:16 PM
Major Major Problem With ASP.NET kokwooi ASP .Net 6 09-19-2003 08:52 AM



Advertisments