On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 09:17:03AM -0400, Adam Maas scripsit: > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 02:44:04AM -0400, JC OConnell scripsit: > >> Im not talking about the current or near future lenses, > >> Im talking about the long run. It only makes sense that > >> things that can be corrected in the body rather than > >> with optics may be cheaper way to go but you would have > >> to use new bodies only with those optically uncorrected lenses. > > [434 lines, snipped] > > > > Computationally correcting the optics will be expensive in terms of time > > for the camera to perform the processing (several seconds); the lens > > reviews will be harsh, so going first on this would be bad for sales; > > the ability to correct computationally will depend on *higher* quality > > control standards in manufacture, since the information provided on each > > lens will have to be very accurate or you're just having the camera > > apply funky blur. > > > > I don't think there's an economic win in there anywhere. Computational > > correction makes a lot of sense for those cases where the optical design > > can't manage to get things precisely right, either because it's a kit > > lens or no one wants a 10 k USD 12mm Ltd. so they didn't make it. > > Note both Panasonic and Hasselblad are already doing this. In > Panasonic's case, without any noticeable hit to processing speed. > > Panny's choice to do this comes primarily down to getting the most > lens possible in a compact package. They're choosing speed and > resolution over distortion correction and fixing the latter in-camera > (or at the RAW conversion stage). This is what let them do the > 24-60mm-e f2-f2.8 zoom in the LX3 and allowed the G Vario 14-45 OIS > for the G1 to be so small and still contain IS.
Note that the LX3 is a fixed lens; they can (don't know if they are, but they can) do the correction in hardware, rather than having to do it in software. For fixed lenses, this technique is obviously a good one; you can make sure the individual camera+lens works to spec and it will stay that way, plus you can build your correction circuitry into hardware and have it not be the rate limiting step. For interchangeable lenses, I suspect the value of the technique depends on how close the image you're starting with is; the results from a lot of astronomy effectively synthesize the existence of a lens, for instance, and while effective and useful it's not likely to catch on in hand-held devices. So while I expect to see more of this, I *don't* expect to see glass being removed from lenses because it's cheaper to fix in it processing. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
