10-03-2012, 05:17 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1348653121' post='20382']
The criticism is basically that these corrections are lossy regarding border/corner resolution due to the necessary amount of image stretching and interpolation.
[/quote]
Optical correction is also lossy btw... (it can also introduce some nasty effects in the bokeh for example)
Would be nice if you could produce the resolution data for a distortion corrected / not corrected RAW file that we could see, how high those resolution losses really are. (numbers and 100% crop from sample picture)
If you shot RAW you could decide for yourself if you need distortion correction (buildings) or maximum corner resolution (landscapes).
I'm not happy with bad optical performance and the fact that Olympus so far is not able to automatically reduce CA really annoys me, but maybe electronic correction is the tradeoff that we have to make with small zoom lenses on cameras like this.
My new Sony RX100 makes quite nice almost distortion and CA free jpgs which is a very good thing and a huge improvement. I'm quite sure that looking at the real RAW data of those files would show us catastrophic distortion and CAs...
But electronic correction gives us a nice jpg file and a really small lens.
We didn't remove aspherical lens elements in old lenses just to see how those lenses perform "without cheating", so maybe with lenses that are only useable when mounted on a camera that provides the needed electrical contacts (like the all electronic µFT or NEX or Fuji X lenses) we should also look at the final result instead which now includes electronic correction?
Martin
The criticism is basically that these corrections are lossy regarding border/corner resolution due to the necessary amount of image stretching and interpolation.
[/quote]
Optical correction is also lossy btw... (it can also introduce some nasty effects in the bokeh for example)
Would be nice if you could produce the resolution data for a distortion corrected / not corrected RAW file that we could see, how high those resolution losses really are. (numbers and 100% crop from sample picture)
If you shot RAW you could decide for yourself if you need distortion correction (buildings) or maximum corner resolution (landscapes).
I'm not happy with bad optical performance and the fact that Olympus so far is not able to automatically reduce CA really annoys me, but maybe electronic correction is the tradeoff that we have to make with small zoom lenses on cameras like this.
My new Sony RX100 makes quite nice almost distortion and CA free jpgs which is a very good thing and a huge improvement. I'm quite sure that looking at the real RAW data of those files would show us catastrophic distortion and CAs...
But electronic correction gives us a nice jpg file and a really small lens.
We didn't remove aspherical lens elements in old lenses just to see how those lenses perform "without cheating", so maybe with lenses that are only useable when mounted on a camera that provides the needed electrical contacts (like the all electronic µFT or NEX or Fuji X lenses) we should also look at the final result instead which now includes electronic correction?
Martin