RE: CA correction on the K-7
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. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of paul stenquist Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:56 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CA correction on the K-7 The new DA* lenses display much less CA on a digital sensor than do any of my A, M, SMC or FA lenses. Your concern smacks of deep paranoia. Paul On May 21, 2009, at 7:06 PM, JC OConnell wrote: Im afraid in camera correction may be an excuse for them to start putting out uncorrected lenses that require new bodies to perform properly. Wouldnt be that bad if the lenses got real cheap, but will they? JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Miller Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CA correction on the K-7 On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:57:37PM -0400, John Francis wrote: Apparently (from posts on the DPReview forum) this takes *several seconds* per exposure. Sounds hard to believe, but if this is true I guess it's not all that useful. Yeah, seriously. Although the in-camera raw conversion can still do it. If the feature turns out to be debilitating 3-4 seconds downtime after I click would definitely cause me to miss shots. On the other hand, maybe I can learn turn it on sometimes simply to force myself to be more deliberate in my shooting. :) -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ The Definitive Pentax P-TTL Flash Model Guide: http://pttl.mattdm.org/ -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: CA correction on the K-7
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. -- 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.
RE: CA correction on the K-7
things like geometry and CA can sometimes be easily corrected in software. It doesnt necessary mean you would need higher quality control standards to produce lenses with more geometry error or CA, and there is no need to do these these in camera processes on the fly, they could be background tasks, even intentionally delayed until the card is removed from the camera, or even done outside camera later . Look, if you can reduce the size, weight, cost of ALL the lenses, by having a single body feature to correct them may be a future path they or somebody else pursues. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Graydon Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:40 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CA correction on the K-7 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. -- 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. -- 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.
RE: CA correction on the K-7
I forgot to mention, doing the corrections in software vs optically in the lens itself may be able to significantly reduce the total number of lens elements needed, not only reducing lens cost and weight, it could IMPROVE final contrast and saturation and flare performance because of less elements used without the unnecessary optical corrections vs a conventional optically corrected lens. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of JC OConnell Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:55 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: CA correction on the K-7 things like geometry and CA can sometimes be easily corrected in software. It doesnt necessary mean you would need higher quality control standards to produce lenses with more geometry error or CA, and there is no need to do these these in camera processes on the fly, they could be background tasks, even intentionally delayed until the card is removed from the camera, or even done outside camera later . Look, if you can reduce the size, weight, cost of ALL the lenses, by having a single body feature to correct them may be a future path they or somebody else pursues. JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Graydon Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 8:40 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CA correction on the K-7 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: CA correction on the K-7
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. -- Graydon 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. Hasselblad just cheaped out on their 28mm for the H-series. Of course this is one case where their choice allowed a noticably cheaper lens than the competition. The Mamiya 28mm is significantly more expensive, but is also fully corrected and actually covers a 645 frame, the Hassy only covers a sub-645 sensor and only works on the vendor-locked H3D bodies, not the H1, H2 or Fuji GX645 (aka H1) bodies and thus only with Hassy/Imacon backs. -Adam -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
Re: CA correction on the K-7
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.
Re: CA correction on the K-7
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:57:37PM -0400, John Francis wrote: Apparently (from posts on the DPReview forum) this takes *several seconds* per exposure. Sounds hard to believe, but if this is true I guess it's not all that useful. Yeah, seriously. Although the in-camera raw conversion can still do it. If the feature turns out to be debilitating 3-4 seconds downtime after I click would definitely cause me to miss shots. On the other hand, maybe I can learn turn it on sometimes simply to force myself to be more deliberate in my shooting. :) -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ The Definitive Pentax P-TTL Flash Model Guide: http://pttl.mattdm.org/ -- 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.
Re: CA correction on the K-7
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 09:36:29PM -0700, Joseph McAllister wrote: I would guess that CA reduction and perspective correction could / would be done post capture, but prior to offloading the card. After all, all the information about the taking lens is there in the metadata. It's just a software routine with sub-routines for each lens model that it can cover. It can be done in the in-camera RAW converter, which is probably where I'll use it most often. It would be nice if over time Pentax did run through the older lenses CA / Distortion to update the firmware for A*, F*, FA*, then A, F, and FA. And so forth. And a way to tell the camera a bit more than the focal length. If So, apparently, there's no lens data in the firmware -- it's all communicated by the lens. And that communication started with the DA series, even though there weren't yet bodies with the ability do do something with the data. (So says JohnCPentax on the dpreview forums.) not in camera, then perhaps the Pentax software in computer could create a file from the corrections you would make to an images or three from one of these older lenses to correct for CA Distortion, which could then be loaded into the sub-routine cue of the camera's firmware. Sure -- there's software to do this already. Noteably DxO, but in the open source world, there's Fulla. http://wiki.panotools.org/Fulla -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ The Definitive Pentax P-TTL Flash Model Guide: http://pttl.mattdm.org/ -- 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.
RE: CA correction on the K-7
Im afraid in camera correction may be an excuse for them to start putting out uncorrected lenses that require new bodies to perform properly. Wouldnt be that bad if the lenses got real cheap, but will they? JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Miller Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CA correction on the K-7 On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:57:37PM -0400, John Francis wrote: Apparently (from posts on the DPReview forum) this takes *several seconds* per exposure. Sounds hard to believe, but if this is true I guess it's not all that useful. Yeah, seriously. Although the in-camera raw conversion can still do it. If the feature turns out to be debilitating 3-4 seconds downtime after I click would definitely cause me to miss shots. On the other hand, maybe I can learn turn it on sometimes simply to force myself to be more deliberate in my shooting. :) -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ The Definitive Pentax P-TTL Flash Model Guide: http://pttl.mattdm.org/ -- 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. -- 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.
Re: CA correction on the K-7
The new DA* lenses display much less CA on a digital sensor than do any of my A, M, SMC or FA lenses. Your concern smacks of deep paranoia. Paul On May 21, 2009, at 7:06 PM, JC OConnell wrote: Im afraid in camera correction may be an excuse for them to start putting out uncorrected lenses that require new bodies to perform properly. Wouldnt be that bad if the lenses got real cheap, but will they? JC O'Connell (mailto:hifis...@gate.net) Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom - Thomas Jefferson -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Matthew Miller Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 4:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CA correction on the K-7 On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:57:37PM -0400, John Francis wrote: Apparently (from posts on the DPReview forum) this takes *several seconds* per exposure. Sounds hard to believe, but if this is true I guess it's not all that useful. Yeah, seriously. Although the in-camera raw conversion can still do it. If the feature turns out to be debilitating 3-4 seconds downtime after I click would definitely cause me to miss shots. On the other hand, maybe I can learn turn it on sometimes simply to force myself to be more deliberate in my shooting. :) -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org http://mattdm.org/ The Definitive Pentax P-TTL Flash Model Guide: http://pttl.mattdm.org/ -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
CA correction on the K-7
Apparently (from posts on the DPReview forum) this takes *several seconds* per exposure. Sounds hard to believe, but if this is true I guess it's not all that useful. -- 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.
Re: CA correction on the K-7
On my Optio Z10 PS there are several functions that are / can be made after the fact, but must be made in camera. These are sharpening shake reduction and a handful of filters and corrections. I would guess that CA reduction and perspective correction could / would be done post capture, but prior to offloading the card. After all, all the information about the taking lens is there in the metadata. It's just a software routine with sub-routines for each lens model that it can cover. It would be nice if over time Pentax did run through the older lenses CA / Distortion to update the firmware for A*, F*, FA*, then A, F, and FA. And so forth. And a way to tell the camera a bit more than the focal length. If not in camera, then perhaps the Pentax software in computer could create a file from the corrections you would make to an images or three from one of these older lenses to correct for CA Distortion, which could then be loaded into the sub-routine cue of the camera's firmware. On May 20, 2009, at 20:57 , John Francis wrote: Apparently (from posts on the DPReview forum) this takes *several seconds* per exposure. Sounds hard to believe, but if this is true I guess it's not all that useful. Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com “If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn’t need to lug a camera.” –Lewis Hine -- 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.
