<<Why Adobe chooses to go right along with Panny and Oly, I don't know for sure.
Wow, I give Moose a 5 out of 5 lens cap rating for this post. That is the all
time most interesting analysis of the geometric correction options have ever
seen.
I had a notion that different algorithms were being used but not with such
substantial differences. I recall vaguely that in an old ver of DXA (?5 or so)
the crop wasn't automatic and one could fill in the gaps in PS, if the image
was amenable to that. I like that better. I pinged DXO on this again;
we'll see if they respond. Not sure why Adobe treats Panny/Oly files
differently than Canyon---in the latter can adjust the corrections. Focusing
distance can affect various aberrations and DXO does use them, but I don't see
much effect in Panny files and the distance has to be a manual input. Perhaps
they are getting lazy. Unlike Oly, Panny doesn't report that in exif. Oly
uses stepper motor counts in the CD method, which is fairly good except at the
extremes.
I thought His Mooseness was using primarily ACR due to better highlight
recovery. I like the idea of using PT lens in PS for some WA shots though
after porting the Tiff from DXO. I recall PT lens assumes a rather distant
subject, but shouldn't matter that much for WA.
Hats off, 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/
|