« Ctein Dye Transfer Update | Main | Nikon D90 on the L Train »

Saturday, 06 December 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df351e888f8834010536455683970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Panasonic LX3 Barrel Distortion Controversy:

Comments

if you are not happy w/ SilkyPix and ACR then go w/ Rawtherapee and PTLens instead.

I did consider this in my search for a carry around camera. It came down to the G10 vs the LX3. At the time, ACR supported neither camera and I didn't know if it ever would correct the barrel distortion, but I thought about having to be tied to a particular RAW processor because of the barrel distortion issue and decided to go with the Canon G10. I also doubted that DNG conversion would correct it in the event that I wanted to convert in the future. And worse, what about 20 years from now? I thought it was more likely that Canon files could be worked on than LX3 files, especially with the requirement for distortion correction. If I shot JPEGs, it wouldn't matter, but it is an issue for RAW. I think the smaller the sensor, the more important it is to shoot RAW. I do have an LX3, and otherwise, it is a great little camera.

"Barrel distortion", heh.

Here's a page I found with some interesting information relevant to Adobe support for the LX3 as well as the G1 and other recent Panasonic cameras.

http://fourthirds-user.com/2008/11/panasonic_lumix_g1_files_now_supported_by_adobe_camera_raw.php

There would be a lot to say about this, both from ethical and technical points of view, but it's already been said everywhere (except in 90% of the LX3 reviews, curiously).

The bottom line is that eventually the news is slowly spreading and Panasonic is probably going to lose a lot of its face for this issue. With a different marketing they could have been seen as innovative, but they choose the shame of being deceptive.

Just a correction. The Adobe/Panasonic wrestle is solved since the release of ACR 5.2. Panasonic won and ACR silently performs what Adobe calls "lens compensation". The same "compensation" is applied to DGN conversions too, not without side effects (file size and loss of data integrity), but these are temporary, until the DGN specification will be updated to hold metadata about lens correction.

Priceless--I almost fell off my chair. That's a good one:
"not that Mr.Woolford gives a damn because he is quite used to his to his own considerable barrel distortion as I am used to mine!)"

This wouldn't be the first time that Leica has not copped to engineering-based quality issues.

There was that whole fracas about the IR-induced color shifts with the M8 which they did not own up to until it blew up in their (and MR's) faces on the Net.

'Course, Canon wouldn't cop to the AI-servo AF problems on the 1D MkIII (which are still there, BTW) until Rob Galbraith did an incredible job of documenting the problem (even though pros were returning their MkIII with these AF issues before Galbraith's articles hit the Net).

It is always better to be honest with your customers, confront the brutal facts when there are quality problems, and deal with them in a fact-based, data-driven, and timely manner, and remain focused on providing value to customers.

Obfuscation always leads to distrust and loss of brand equity.

What's so nice about your site is not just your musings and comments. No, Mike, you seem to have a collection of very interesting and thoughtful friends such as Mr. Power, Ctein, John Camp, etc. whose contributions I find as valuable as your own. Thanks for giving them a platform to speak from.

Didn't Nikon do the same thing and call it a value added feature? As well they should.

If you are designing a lens I would imagine that it is easier to correct some aberrations if you don't have to correct them all. If Leica said something like "we left the barrel distortion in so we could make a really flat field with lot's of sharpness in the corners!" it wouldn't be a bug it would be a feature.

But the Panasonic LX1 did the same thing...corrected for CA and barrel distortion in software and the Venus 1 JPEG engine. They were straightforward in describing this in the sales material at the time, I seem to remember, and nobody seemed to care. I remember opening an LX1 RAW file in Raw Shooter Essentials and seeing tons of CA (the worst I've ever seen). Raw Shooter Pro (which was bought out by Adobe and used as the basis for Lightroom) corrected automatically for this stuff. The current Lightroom may have had that capability stripped out or changed, but personally I think that Panasonic's approach is a completely valid (and smart) systems approach, rather than an attempt to hoodwink the consumer. Adobe just has to get its act together, or, more likely, make a decision to spend the money to put this capability (back) into their software.

I seem to remember reading at the birth of the 4/3 system that correction for lens distortion was built in to the body (isn't that why there are firmware updates for new lenses?), but in that case the correction needs to be applied before raw output.
Maybe this is just another nasty example of the camera manufacturers making life hard for raw software writers.

While I understand the convenience of using ACR my personal experience has been that with Fuji, Pentax, Olympus and Sony the raw conversion results have had better colour and overall look when using the manufacturer software - such a pity that Fuji's "Hyper-Utility" is so horrible.

Cheers, Robin

When I first heard of lens-defect correction via DxO/PTlens, I expected that all camera/lens makers would eventually do this, first via software and later directly in-camera. Just like fly-by-wire allowed aerospace engineers to relax static stability and produce more maneuverable planes, software lens correction will allow camera/lens designers to produce lighter lenses that take better pictures. Isn't that what we are after?

I've been doing a similar processing route to Mark with my LX3 and SilkyPix, although I also white balance mine before creating the TIFF. Upshot is, the results are good.

Quite frankly, I don't care if it's a hidden feature, in the specs or whatever - the results I get from this camera are very nice and I can create prints that at 8x10" are every bit as good as those from a DSLR.

Mark wrote: "(automatically corrected for barrel distortion not that Mr. Woolford gives a damn because he is quite used to his to his own considerable barrel distortion as I am used to mine!)."

Mike, one of the reasons why I keep reading your site is not just because of your photographic knowledge, but because your writers come up with bon mots like this. Thanks for the chuckle.

--Peter

Half of me thinks it's a little dishonest of Panasonic not to mention this. The other half thinks that they probably played their marketing cards about right, 90% of people will never be the wiser.

For the remaining 10% it looks like it might be the camera that forces some progress onto Adobe et al.: I read their statements about the DNG converter (which essentially develops the raw file) as saying that the current thing is a kludge which they hope to remove by adding distortion correction information to the next version of the DNG standard. And pretty soon after that it will surely become a universal feature, I can't wait!

I presume I'm not the only one whose impression of a photo is significantly coloured by the way I first see it. I find it hard to do digital B&W because I see the preview in colour. And I think I'd make better decisions in lightroom if I didn't have to see barrel distorted images, ever. A lot of the time it doesn't matter but for geometrical compositions it really does.

I've been using an LX3 for a while, and I'm so impressed by the image quality that I've even learned to put up with the egregious SilkyPix. It's a brilliant camera, especially with an adapter tube on the front to act as a hood and to give you something solid to hold on to (you can get cheap ones). I can see why people might get steamed up about the secrecy, and the delay in getting ACR sorted, but really... It's not a real-world problem.

By the same token, being a bottom feeder price wise, I use cheap lenses on my cheap DSLR that give a lot of distortion (e.g. EF-S 17-85mm -- argh!). I was beginning to consider the benefits of buying more expensive lenses, when I was delighted to discover that Breezebrowser (which I use for raw conversion) already has built-in lens correction. Yess!! It works very well indeed, and has saved me from temptation.

Mentioning the barrel distortion correction in the camera's marketing would probably just confuse the majority of customers, who don't have that much technical knowledge. Should they cater to the vocal minority of pixel-peeping tech geeks?
I wouldn't waste my time shooting RAW with this camera anyway. At the end of the day it's a real nice, high quality snap shot camera and that's how I'd use. The jpegs look good to me.

Nope, can't see a problem with this myself - I run all my Ricoh GX100 files through LensFixCI by default anyway. The good news about the megapixel race (how often do you hear that?) is that this kind of software-based correction is almost unnoticeable, which can't be said when it's applied to 5/6 mp images.

For $25 PTlens seems like a pretty straightforward way to deal with the issue. It also has the added bonus of working with a ton of other cameras.

http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/index.html

If optical aberrations are well characterized, they can be corrected in software, but always at some cost. For example, before it had its "corrective lenses" fitted, the Hubble Space Telescope's spherical aberration was corrected in software at the cost of some light gathering power. For the HST, this was a significant loss so they fixed it in hardware, at great expense. For a camera, it may be a net advantage since leaving some aberrations in the lens may allow the relaxation of other design parameters such as lens size or, most likely, cost.

I for one am pretty excited about this technique moving into the mainstream since it gives lens designers a whole new dimension; in effect, it the camera, lens, and software to be optimized as a system instead of treating camera and lens separately. It's somewhat analogous to the flexibility to do away with the mirror in the µ 4/3 system, which I hope will eventually result in entirely new camera forms.

"In the good old days I would have been happy with this level of definition from a medium format camera. And even with a view camera I doubt if I could have gotten this delicacy of tone and color from color film. Particularly considering this picture was made by the light of a single floor lamp, hardly ideal."

With the recent post from Jim Richardson in mind, this quote sounds like an endorsement for the LX3.

Yes, it has a fault, but what camera/lens combo doesn't? Are we getting so sensitive of details that we can't enjoy a camera for what it brings to the table without slamming it for a correctable problem?

Well said Mr. Power and may Woolley and you enjoy your well earned "barrel distortion".

Michael said:

"I for one am pretty excited about this technique moving into the mainstream since it gives lens designers a whole new dimension; in effect, it the camera, lens, and software to be optimized as a system instead of treating camera and lens separately. It's somewhat analogous to the flexibility to do away with the mirror in the µ 4/3 system, which I hope will eventually result in entirely new camera forms."

It may also allow camera manufacturers to lock you into their own lenses, as some, like Leica, already attempt to do. If the software doesn't recognize your Zeiss replacement for that crappy Canon wide, then you may be stuck with the crappy Canon wide. And software can only fix so much: if the basic information isn't there, there's not much software can do. Unless, of course, they actually come up with the much-anticipated, but oft-delayed, Ansel Adams - Robert Mapplethorpe software toggle, now promised for the A2000.

JC

Something that a lot of people seem to ignore is that this entire "Leica," body and lens included, costs about one-tenth the price of one of those famous Leica lenses that supposedly corrects the barrel distortion through engineering.

It's a 24mm (eq) lens. There will be distortion. Unless, that is, you're willing to pay $3000 or more for a point-and-shoot camera (I'll bet you're not).

For five hundred bucks, I've got the best compact camera I've ever used, and which has amazing image quality. To be fair I'm not a big RAW user, so this whole issue means nothing to me. But still. It's a 24mm lens! There will be distortion!

In response to Improbable:

"I presume I'm not the only one whose impression of a photo is significantly coloured by the way I first see it. I find it hard to do digital B&W because I see the preview in colour. And I think I'd make better decisions in Lightroom if I didn't have to see barrel distorted images, ever. A lot of the time it doesn't matter but for geometrical compositions it really does."

The beauty of LCD viewfinders is that they do allow you see the preview in B/W if that's what you're shooting. Moreover the LX3 allows you to see the scene in 3 variations of B/W. This little noted feature is revolutionary to those of us from medieval times who would try to envision B/W through optical viewfinders using devices like blue filters, etc. Ironically one of the reasons I committed to digital in about 1998 was because digital color was so much more subtle and lifelike than film color. That plus the fact that I could have complete control of color printing without committing to a color darkroom. The upshot is I rarely shoot B/W any more after decades of shooting only that. But one of these days I would like to go back to a B/W series viewing everything through my B/W viewfinder.
The second point is the LX3 and I assume the G1 too automatically correct the BD and the CA in the viewfinder. You only see the naked truth if you open up a raw file in a 3rd party raw converter. I don't have Lightroom but I assume when you view an JPEG you'd only see a corrected image for BD and CA and the same for a RAW image assuming you had ACR v.5.
Which reminds me of my third point: it is pretty pissy of Adobe not to allow people with CS3 to upload their new ACR v.5. No, you have to have CS4. I looked CS4 over and for my own purposes didn't see the need to upgrade. But if I want to see my LX3 raw files in Bridge I will be more or less forced to upgrade to CS4. Grrr!

Mark

Let's see if I understand this correctly:

1. Nikon denies access to Adobe for some proprietary WB information and Adobe goes nuts.

2. Panasonic requests Adobe to incorporate proprietary lens-correction and Adobe goes nuts.

It looks to me that our problem isn't with camera manufacturers, but with Adobe itself.

Hasselblad took this route with the H3D and its 28mm lens.

Shouldn't raw be raw?

I would want to do some things, noise reduction in particular, before any geometric distortion , linear chromatic aberration, or vignetting was corrected. The whole point of a raw file is to have access to the data before it is demosaiced, so I sure would be upset if the raw image had any corrections applied. Also until Adobe figures out how to correct so called moustache distortion, I would rather they not try.

That's all well and good provided you are ABLE to take advantage of the automatic correction. The point of keeping such corrections out of software is that it makes the camera software independent.

I use Bibble raw converter in Linux. As far as I can see there isn't a lens correction profile for the LX3 so there goes the raw workflow and I'd be stuck shooting JPEGs.

Glad this came up actually, because I WAS seriously considering an LX3 to take traveling next month.

>Why not fix barrel distortion with software?

You don't want to do this because to remove the distortion you need to perform a subpixel transformation of the image, which essentially cuts the resolution in half. If you translate a pixel something other than a full pixel value (i.e. an integer value 1,2,3...) it will be interpolated, between the two full pixel coordinates.

Performing a sharpen after the subpixel transformation will help give the appearance of sharpness, but will not restore the detail that was lost.

I'm certain that we have a software engineer reading this site, who can give a more detailed explanation.

For me it boils down [again] to the whole thing about camera makers using proprietary, that is not publicly documented file formats. If a camera maker is able to compensate for deficiencies in the lens, that is OK as long as they [a] are open about it and [b] make it possible for camera owners to either apply this compensation or not in the raw converter of our choice. Not all shots may need such a correction.

I'm a bit baffled at the claim that Panasonic is being dishonest by not advertising their product's flaws. I don't recall many camera makers doing that. I could see a complaint if they were massaging the data in the RAW files, but obviously they aren't. And I certainly wouldn't want my cameras producing worse JPEGs in the name of "honesty".

I was delighted to discover that my Panasonic G1 magically corrects lateral chromatic aberration (in JPEGs) when used with some of my old OM lenses. Am I supposed to be outraged that they don't give me the blatant fringing that I've come to expect when using the lenses on my E-1?

My Nikon P5100 compact camera has a shooting menu "distortion control" option for correcting barrel distortion. It works quite well. The downside is that if it is enabled, you lose the "continous" and "auto bracketing" modes.

Ken said:
"Let's see if I understand this correctly:"

It is a very common point of view, but consider this:

1. Nikon denies access to all raw converters besides its own (that the company sells) to essential WB information, and users goes nuts that their camera is not immediately supported. Some smaller converter writers go over the danger of a DMCA trial and reverse-engineer it, others use an SDK that basically renders the file in one way, while Adobe contacts Nikon and tried to get a solution that would allow its own development algorithms to work. (And users are mad at Adobe because it is one of the last ones to be able to render Encrypted Nikon files. Now, all raw converters can benefit from the new "mini-sdk" that Nikon issued after Adobe's pleas.

2. Panasonic requests all raw converter manufacturers to incorporate proprietary lens-correction that is not readily transposable in their raw converting software, and all users go nuts because support for the LX3 raw files is not immediate. Adobe has to find an interim solution for the universal raw format that allows other raw converter manufacturers that rely on it to be able to develop the files converted to DNG. Users are mad that due to this unforecasted change, their files have to be 3 times as big as an interim solution. The DNG specification will evolve to take in account lens correction algorithms, and all raw manufacturers will be able to benefit from it.

It looks to me that our problem isn't with camera manufacturers, but with the understanding of the casual photographer himself of all the aspects, including legal and technical ones, that are present when developing raw files.

Especially when FUD spreads in large online forums, where Engineers are forced to go out of their programming schedule to try to educate users about the misconceptions that are sometimes so prevalent. Eric "bibble" Hyman has to do it, Thomas Knoll, Zalman Stern, and Eric Chan from Adobe do this, and I'm sure many others.

Leica in the M8 does vignetting correction for any lens that they currently make. The cognoscenti (addicts) then enjoy faking the codes to permit other non-Leica lenses to draw on the same corrections. Making the corrections in the original raw files is a definite improvement over making them after they have been perceptually encoded and reduced in size. As others point out above, this is not a new development. Now I wonder what else is getting corrected inside the M8 when the lens detection is enabled.

scott

Let's be clear about this: the LX3 is a fixed-lens camera. It is possible for a third-party software manufacturer to characterize the lens themselves and then apply the transformations. It's simply a matter of them (meaning Adobe) not wishing to spend the rather paltry $$$ to do this. As I mentioned before, Raw Shooter Premium (which was bought out by Adobe and used as the basis for Lightroom) did exactly this for the LX1.

This controversy is a perfect example of people seeing digital cameras simply as electronically augmented mechanical devices.

Digital PS cameras make no bones about being about being wholly digital devices. Capturing light on a chip is an analog to digital conversion. As such integration of the lens and processing software into an optical subsystem is necessary.

The close coupling of optics and digital processing in larger format cameras is already far along. We all see the benefits of this in noise processing, improvements in dynamic range, etc. Better lens integration will result in further improvements that cannot be matched analog cameras.

Better digital cameras will not result from emulating analog cameras. They must be evaluated and developed as distinct imaging technologies.

David Long said, "I'm a bit baffled at the claim that Panasonic is being dishonest by not advertising their product's flaws. I don't recall many camera makers doing that."

Canon isn't shy about publishing MTF charts for their wide angle lenses, which are mostly awful in the corners, and said charts are for theoretically perfectly manufactured lenses.

All the camera manufactures who advertise aberration correction as a feature are essentially advertising their product's flaws, Nikon and Leica seem to do well with that.

I think it boils down to Panasonic and Leica historically having consumer and professional/gear snob/Rolex wearing markets respectively. Now, many traditional of Leica's potential customers (the gear snob portion's tech geek subset) have noticed that the Panasonic cameras seem to be about the same except for the conspicuous lack of the very expensive red dot feature, warranty and bundled software, and are subjecting them to Leica grade nitpicking.


I recently had this letter in the British pro photo mag BJP:

It's fun to read lovably snide comments such as that the excellent Mamiya 28mm lens "does not require correction in software". It's clearly a dig at Hasselblad, who have integrated their lenses and cameras, thus locking out competition and stifling flexibility. How wise a choice that was is a big question, but couldn't one say that since for example distortion and colour fringing is easy to correct in software, if one does so, it allows a lens design potentially to be that much more powerful in other areas which can't be corrected, such as resolution?

"it is pretty pissy of Adobe not to allow people with CS3 to upload their new ACR v.5. No, you have to have CS4. I looked CS4 over and for my own purposes didn't see the need to upgrade. But if I want to see my LX3 raw files in Bridge I will be more or less forced to upgrade to CS4. Grrr!"

Well, back at them,; get Elements 6.

I miss very little from Photoshop.

Bron

It seems to me that this also raises the issue of resolution at wide angle. When I correct barrel distortion in Photoshop I get a curved image frame and it is necessary to crop for a rectangular frame. If this is routinely done in the camera or in post processing many pixels are compressed and averaged while others are cut off.So what is the real resolution of an LX-3 wide angle image?

Mark, you are mistaken. You can see your LX3 images in CS3 (or CS2, or even CS) if you first convert them to DNG using DNG Converter 5.2. This is free. You are not forced to upgrade to PS CS4.

Ken N, you misunderstood both situations.

For #1, Nikon used to encrypt WB metadata, which upset photographers (not Adobe). The issue was resolved when Nikon chose not to encrypt the data in future models. We have a good relationship with Nikon that continues through today.

For #2, Panasonic asked Adobe to implement their desired level of lens compensations. We agreed, but it took some time to do so (that's why we had to wait till Camera Raw 5.2 and Lightroom 2.2, instead of CR 5.1 and LR 2.1). We also have a good relationship with Panasonic that continues through today.

In general, if photographers are upset that they are not given an option to turn off lens compensations, they should make a request to Panasonic, not Adobe.

Eric Chan

p.s. I am an engineer on the Camera Raw team at Adobe.

May I kindly answer to those who are apparently happy to be cheated? Because that's the point. The camera is fine, it's the lie around it that sucks.

Panasonic website, still today, promises you a 10MP camera with a "low-distortion, high-resolution lens". Note, *lens*, not *camera*. They also say that you can record pictures in RAW to make your own decisions about processing.

What they give instead is a lens with severe distortion and vignetting fixed by software; this fixing involves a significant cropping, so that at full wide angle what you have is a 8MP camera that gets blown to 10. And then they try to force independent developers to play with them in order to hide the truth. Either you use "hack category" software or there is something that goes on behind your back, out of your control. There is a third case actually, the developer doesn't accept Panasonic dictats and refuses to reverse engineer the RW2: no support at all.

This is deceptive marketing and we should just pretend respect instead. Anybody, even the JPEG shooters. I really don't understand people justifying Panasonic from any point of view.

Really a 24mm lens has to have huge distortion or cost 3000$? Ask Ricoh, please. History repeats, when one criticized the Yashica T4 for its distortion and vignetting the same arguments were used by fanboys. Still Olympus managed to make the cheaper Mju II (stylus epic) lens, faster, with less distortion and just as sharp (I had the T4 and loved it nonetheless, the metering made the difference for me).

And are we all so stupid that can't accept/understand what distortion correction is? It doesn't make sense either. They brag about CA removal, if we are supposed to be able to understand that one, then distortion is an easy task. And other brands put the option (note *option*) to correct lens defects in camera and/or in RAW developping software. Nobody is confused, so that's not the reason. They just cheat, and cheat so well that they leave some distortion, so that reviewers have something to measure and not raise the suspect.

I really like the camera, I want one, but the idea of giving my money to folks like this hurts. Badly. It feels like encouraging dishonesty.

Dear Harry,

This is incorrect. Remapping pixels doesn't cost you anywhere near half your resolution. Even Photoshop is quite smart about doing this, and it doesn't have access to the RAW data (and remember the RGB image you are looking at is not equivalent to the sensor pixels; it is an image that is calculated in a complex fashion from those pixels).

Worst-case scenario would be that if you were correcting 5% distortion (or 5% chromatic aberration) which would be visually HUGE, it would cost you 5% of your resolution. That's invisible. Real-world software transforms don't even lose you that much.

If you don't believe the effect is insignificant, play with the correction tools in Photoshop (which can't do this anywhere as well as a RAW converter) and see for yourself.


~ pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

Dear Hugh,

The purpose of RAW is not to give YOU access to the sensor pixels. You wouldn't know what to do with them if you had them. It's to give software that can convert them to a viewable RGB image access.

The few converters I've played with (I mostly use ACR) give you access to the conversion settings. If you don't like the default distortion and chromatic aberration corrections that the metadata instructs the program to use, adjust the controls to provide ones of your own! Nothing is getting done behind your back. And having the software automatically apply corrections there is no different than the myriad number of correction applied by default to color temperature, color balance, curve shape, tone and contrast settings.

You don't have to accept those defaults. I don't. I've changed the default settings for ACR to better match my taste. What is important to realize, though, is that you NEVER get an unmanipulated image; the art of using RAW is to learn how to manipulate it the way you want.


~ pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

I think Panasonic needs to adjust their attitude a bit here. I don't see *anything* wrong with having well-characterized lenses that require some post-processing to remove CA and simple distortion.

Indeed, my usual walking-around lens is the Canon EF-S 17-85. It's a lens that sets new records for CA and barrel distortion, but they're all well corrected by any number of tools. And it's *very* sharp once you correct it.

The problem is that by trying to keep a lid on this (entirely sound) engineering decision, Panasonic is causing problems for its customers.

Aperture won't be supporting these cameras anytime soon because it doesn't do lens correction at all. The impression I get is that Panasonic won't license the details of the new raw format to anyone that will produce uncorrected output. So the only players that actually have honest raw converters for this are those that reverse-engineer the formats. I think most of these are derived from dcraw.

If Panasonic were to simply publish the correction parameters, this whole issue would go away overnight.

Zandr says: "The impression I get is that Panasonic won't license the details of the new raw format to anyone that will produce uncorrected output."

Wrong. Capture One (which comes with the D-Lux 4) gives you the option of fully-corrected TIFFs or uncorrected DNGs.

Maki, I don't understand the argument. ACR leaves some distortion, Capture One doesn't. This isn't a "cheat." It gives you options.

When the M8 first came out, only Capture One could read its DNGs. Adobe was right around the corner, and Apple just behind them. Do you really think that Panasonic doesn't want Mac users to be able to read RW2 and RWL files? Mac outsells Windows in some parts of the photo market, and Panasonic isn't about to snub those users. It will just take a few weeks for Apple to update OS X with RWL/RW2 recognition.

Meanwhile, Adobe is working on updating the DNG specification to accommodate the new RAW format in mosaicked instead of linear DNGs. What's the big deal?

As far as I'm concerned, this is a big move forward in optical design. Complaining about it is like complaining that the automobile shouldn't be allowed to replace the horse. You can mount good arguments against progress, but you can't stop it.

"...those who are apparently happy to be cheated?"

Count me in that group, as opposed to those who want to correct BD and CA individually for every friggin RAW file they process. Does the concept of "work flow" ring a bell?

If I were Panasonic (or any other manufacturer looking at this issue) I would seriously consider putting these corrections in-chip, before the data is written out to file. Then users would be none the wiser and they'd get the results I was after. This is particularly relevant for fixed lens designs, which are an integrated system.
As Ctein points out, RAW isn't raw anyway.

Howard and Dave, please, read carefully what I wrote.

The "cheat" is when they tell we're getting a 10Mp camera with a low distortion lens. It isn't so, period. At 24mmeq and short focus distances it is an upsampled 8MP camera with a semifisheye lens. When someone promises you a thing and gives another that's a cheat, I don't know how else I should call it. I feel insulted when someone does this to me, don't you?

I don't know what C1 does, I've read that it doesn't support the LX3 at all and never will because of an agreement between P1 and Leica. However I know as a fact that both the in-camera conversion and Silkypix leave some distortion, which is a nonsense unless they are trying to mask things. They could have gone for full correction and brag about it. And then, possibly, leave the *option* to disable this stuff for those who don't need it. That would have made everybody happy instead of only some: instead they (try to) force independent developer to negate that option too.

As for workflow, I definately don't want to fix BD and CA manually in every file. Actually I'd like Silkypix to fix CA too (that's the one that always sucks); better yet CA only, in most of my pictures I just don't want to correct BD at all since it isn't noticable and fixing it robs resolution for nothing. I want that option, but it should be an option.

The comments to this entry are closed.