Linear Moose writes:
I happened to have some shots of engineering drawings taken at a
meeting With
GM1 and 12-32 @ 32 mm, close focus.
I've got a lot going on today and tomorrow before we head out, so I
don't know
if I'll be able to post examples.
Quick summary:
LOTs of barrel distortion without correction.
ACR correction using data from the lens itself is much better, but
distortion is
still evident.
Manual correction added in ACR gets quite close.
The DxO lens module correction is just about perfect.
Hmmm, very interesting. Thanks for the quick post before you leave.
I recall you wrote that turning off the whole distortion module in DOP
led to a result similar
to metadata use in ACR---very odd as I don't recall that effect at all
with Canyon lenses--but no metadata available either.
The lene profiles in ACR with Canyon lenses seem to allow for 0-approx
80% correction and DOP from 0-100%--at the
price of more pixel torture and change in FOV. An easy price to pay in
many circumstances. DOP certainly quick and effective for this full
correction and the converter itself is not bad. The degree of
correction should be up to the photog and not determined by arbitrary
metadata with the lens.
The Marnie shot I had started working on pursuing a similar analysis
had many straight lines but was taken at much longer distance wiht the
12-32.
PTLens has profiles for most of the 4/3 and µ4/3 lenses, which I
haven't tried
yet.
I believe it is optimized for focus distances over 10 ft--not sure how
it would perform at near MFD.
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|