A "Superb" Lens

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob Williams, Feb 27, 2008.

  1. Bob Williams

    Bob Williams Guest

    I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of
    confusion? Then with software, built into the camera, correct the
    imperfections "of that lens design"?
    If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some
    or most of them would be a big advance.
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Feb 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bob Williams

    Toby Guest

    "Bob Williams" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:N19xj.23401$...
    >I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    > Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    > determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of confusion?
    > Then with software, built into the camera, correct the imperfections "of
    > that lens design"?
    > If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    > Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some or
    > most of them would be a big advance.
    > Bob Williams


    The old adage stands: "Garbage in, garbage out". You cannot improve lens
    performance after acquiring the image. At best you can do what DxO software
    does, which is to compensate for vignetting, lens distortions and
    aberrations at each focal length of a given lens and at each aperture. I
    have it and it works quite well for what it does, but it makes no sense to
    try to incorporate it into the camera--much smater to make it a computer app
    as DxO has done, where it is easily updatable when new lenses come out or
    are added to the database.

    Toby
     
    Toby, Feb 27, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob Williams

    Pete D Guest

    "Toby" <> wrote in message
    news:47c52a4a$0$225$...
    >
    > "Bob Williams" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:N19xj.23401$...
    >>I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    >> Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    >> determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of
    >> confusion? Then with software, built into the camera, correct the
    >> imperfections "of that lens design"?
    >> If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    >> Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some
    >> or most of them would be a big advance.
    >> Bob Williams

    >
    > The old adage stands: "Garbage in, garbage out". You cannot improve lens
    > performance after acquiring the image. At best you can do what DxO
    > software does, which is to compensate for vignetting, lens distortions and
    > aberrations at each focal length of a given lens and at each aperture. I
    > have it and it works quite well for what it does, but it makes no sense to
    > try to incorporate it into the camera--much smater to make it a computer
    > app as DxO has done, where it is easily updatable when new lenses come out
    > or are added to the database.
    >
    > Toby

    But I want a Ferrari for the price of a <insert cheap, crap car from your
    country here>, sorry but ya's got's ta payfor what you want to have.....
     
    Pete D, Feb 27, 2008
    #3
  4. Bob Williams

    bugbear Guest

    Bob Williams wrote:
    > I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    > Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    > determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of
    > confusion? Then with software, built into the camera, correct the
    > imperfections "of that lens design"?
    > If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    > Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some
    > or most of them would be a big advance.


    Sounded reasonable to me, back in 2006.

    http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/b24d36c425621dd3

    BugBear
     
    bugbear, Feb 27, 2008
    #4
  5. Bob Williams

    Guest

    Re: A "Superb" Lens

    On Feb 27, 6:18 pm, Bob Williams <> wrote:
    > I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    > Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    > determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of
    > confusion? Then with software, built into the camera, correct the
    > imperfections "of that lens design"?
    > If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    > Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some
    > or most of them would be a big advance.
    > Bob Williams


    Look up "deconvolution", "Richardson Lucy"... You can do some clever
    stuff, and with things like chromatic aberration and barrel/pincushion
    distortion a lot can be done 'reasonably effectively'.., but when it
    comes to 'deeper' optical issues, you run into a problem. The
    algorithms can't tell what may be real data against what is lens-
    induced data, and as soon as those two things *overlap* (as they do in
    most images), you run into trouble - eg the 'echoes' you will see in
    most deconvoluted images.

    So these systems are great for some things, and particularly useful in
    specialist areas like astronomy (stars being effectively point sources
    with little overlap). Quite useful for CA, very useful for
    perspective distortion, somewhat useful for reducing blur to
    distinguish/resolve details that weren't clear in the original, but at
    the cost of artefacts..

    So can you achieve the equivalent of the finest Leica from a Helios
    and a bit of software?

    Nope.
     
    , Feb 27, 2008
    #5
  6. Re: A "Superb" Lens

    On Feb 27, 2:18 am, Bob Williams <> wrote:
    > I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    > Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    > determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of
    > confusion? Then with software, built into the camera, correct the
    > imperfections "of that lens design"?
    > If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    > Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some
    > or most of them would be a big advance.
    > Bob Williams


    To some degree, but software cannot remove all problems shooting
    general subjects.

    The fancy stuff NASA and astronomers use makes a lot of assumptions
    about what the objects in images are. IF you know exactly the
    properties of an object are, you can optimize software to correct very
    well for lens imperfections. But, the result will only work in
    photographing that particular class of objects.

    When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Nowhere
    more true than in image processing :-(

    As an example, a fuzzy outline on an object can look just like
    defocus. If you artificially sharpen it, then taking an image of a
    fuzzy object makes it look like it has a sharp edge!
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Feb 27, 2008
    #6
  7. Bob Williams

    RPS Guest

    Bob Williams <> wrote:

    : I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    : Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    : determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of
    : confusion? Then with software, built into the camera, correct the
    : imperfections "of that lens design"?
    : If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    : Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some
    : or most of them would be a big advance.

    I think what you are proposing is called "image processing" and digital
    cameras already do that.
     
    RPS, Feb 27, 2008
    #7
  8. In article <N19xj.23401$>,
    Bob Williams <> wrote:

    > I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    > Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    > determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of
    > confusion? Then with software, built into the camera, correct the
    > imperfections "of that lens design"?
    > If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    > Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some
    > or most of them would be a big advance.
    > Bob Williams


    First of all, the pattern of blur caused by the lens must be reversible.
    That's not always the case. Second, any processing of this kind
    destroys the precious S/N ratio. A lower S/N ratio means that the noise
    filter is going to do a lot more damage to the photo.

    Refocusing using a coded patterned aperture mask:
    http://www.merl.com/people/raskar/Mask/

    Refocusing using a microlens array:
    http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/lfcamera-150dpi.pdf

    --
    I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Feb 28, 2008
    #8
  9. Bob Williams

    Charles Guest

    On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:18:53 -0800, Bob Williams
    <> wrote:

    >I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    >Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    >determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of
    >confusion? Then with software, built into the camera, correct the
    >imperfections "of that lens design"?
    >If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    >Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some
    >or most of them would be a big advance.
    >Bob Williams



    Add Helicon Focus and multi-shot capture to the body.

    And a big processor and battery.
     
    Charles, Feb 28, 2008
    #9
  10. Bob Williams

    Toby Guest

    Re: A "Superb" Lens

    Don, I just want to say that I love your posts...always very informative and
    informed.

    Toby

    "Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:...
    > On Feb 27, 2:18 am, Bob Williams <> wrote:
    >> I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    >> Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    >> determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of
    >> confusion? Then with software, built into the camera, correct the
    >> imperfections "of that lens design"?
    >> If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    >> Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some
    >> or most of them would be a big advance.
    >> Bob Williams

    >
    > To some degree, but software cannot remove all problems shooting
    > general subjects.
    >
    > The fancy stuff NASA and astronomers use makes a lot of assumptions
    > about what the objects in images are. IF you know exactly the
    > properties of an object are, you can optimize software to correct very
    > well for lens imperfections. But, the result will only work in
    > photographing that particular class of objects.
    >
    > When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Nowhere
    > more true than in image processing :-(
    >
    > As an example, a fuzzy outline on an object can look just like
    > defocus. If you artificially sharpen it, then taking an image of a
    > fuzzy object makes it look like it has a sharp edge!
     
    Toby, Feb 28, 2008
    #10
  11. Bob Williams

    Bob Williams Guest

    Toby wrote:
    > "Bob Williams" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    > news:N19xj.23401$...
    >> I was just musing and wanted some input from this group.
    >> Could a manufacturer design a GOOD lens and run a series of tests to
    >> determine the exact nature of its problems e.g.,large circle of confusion?
    >> Then with software, built into the camera, correct the imperfections "of
    >> that lens design"?
    >> If so, then one cold produce a a killer lens on the cheap.
    >> Even if ALL the imperfections could not be resolved, removing even some or
    >> most of them would be a big advance.
    >> Bob Williams

    >
    > The old adage stands: "Garbage in, garbage out". You cannot improve lens
    > performance after acquiring the image. At best you can do what DxO software
    > does, which is to compensate for vignetting, lens distortions and
    > aberrations at each focal length of a given lens and at each aperture. I
    > have it and it works quite well for what it does, but it makes no sense to
    > try to incorporate it into the camera--much smater to make it a computer app
    > as DxO has done, where it is easily updatable when new lenses come out or
    > are added to the database.
    >
    > Toby
    >
    >

    Yes! DxO seems to do something like I envisioned.
    But to be generally useful, DxO would have to create correction
    algorithms for all major DSLR lens/camera combinations, a formidable
    effort indeed.
    Perhaps manufacturers could create DxO type algorithms for their own
    camera/lens combos. In this way, they could spend more time and effort
    developing optimum algorithms, than could DxO, who would have to do it
    for all major lens/camera combos.
    You are probably correct in that this could be achieved best by post
    processing the RAW image. But with Moore's Law type improvements in
    processing power we see today, it may soon be practical to do the
    processing in camera. thus relieving the creative photographer from
    having to be a photo editing guru as well.

    I had never heard of DxO so thanks for the tip.
    One can read about it here:
    http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/Thoughts35.html
    Bob Williams
     
    Bob Williams, Feb 28, 2008
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Beowulf
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,979
    Lionel
    Aug 24, 2003
  2. Marc
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    672
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    302
    Paul Heslop
    Sep 9, 2006
  4. S.
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    295
    Chris Hills
    Oct 22, 2006
  5. CHECK THIS OUT! (Superb)

    , Mar 27, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    445
Loading...

Share This Page