- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
On the original thread it was suggested I start another one. This is it, with some quotes from the original to kick it off.
Original thread here: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=101428
Canon has updated it's free Raw processing software, Digital Photo Professional, to incorporate customised lens correction data for all its EF and EF-S lenses. It works with almost all EOS cameras, and wipes out key optical shortcomings like chromatic aberration, distortion, and vignetting with a mouse click. The Full Monty is on DPP v3.5, shipped with the 50D and 5D/2.
Sorry it's a bit wordy
What do you think?
Cheers,
Richard.
----------------------------------------------------
Here are the original posts:
HoppyUK
Please bear with me on this - I'd really like to know what you think of Canon's DPP v3.5 free Raw processor, which automatically corrects Canon lens problems like chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting.
What does this mean for the future of 'standardised' post processing software? I think it's very clever and see a major divergence coming up. DPP v3.5 was shipped with the 50D and 5D/2 and works with just about any Canon EOS Raw file and any Canon lens (not sure if update downloads are available yet).
What it does is correct chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting with a mouse click (in adition to noise, dynamic range and the other usual stuff). You can then work futher on the image in all the usual ways, with Photoshop etc. It does this via sets of pre-programmed data for just about every Canon EF and EF-S lens ever made - at all focal lengths and aperture settings.
So, if you feed it an image from a lens like the EF-S 18-200mm or 17-85mm, which is quite likely to have a fair bit of CA, distortion and vignetting, it comes out dramatically improved. You can't do this anything like as well, or nearly so easily, with any other software package. It can't be long before this is all done in-camera and you will get extremely high quality JPEGs straight out of the box.
Canon isn't alone. Nikon has something similar going on in-camera with the D3, D700 and D300 cameras. Panasonic is also doing the same thing in some of it's compacts. No doubt other makers, too. DPReview has some convincing examples in its camera and lens tests but I've found info on this hard to find.
What we are seeing here is individual manufacturers developing really useful new brand-specific image enhancement software features. Stuff that they are very unlikely to release to third parties because it locks you further into their brand, with corresponding commercial advantages. Take it a step further and Canon will be able to produce superior image quality from cheaper, smaller 'less good' lenses. Sigma etc just won't be able to follow, because the cameras will not be programmed to process their images anything like so well, leaving them out in the cold.
What do you think? Has anybody tried it?
Thanks,
Richard.
-------------------------------------------------------
StewartR
I think this deserves a thread of its own. It's a fascinating development.
You've highlighted the issue that the likes of Sigma and Tamron will be put under pressure by this, because cameras and software produced by camera manufacturers won't correct for the deficiencies in 3rd-party lenses. But it's not as if all lenses are equal anyway. When you're considering buying a new lens, this is just one more difference to take into account.
However, to my mind the really interesting issue is what this does to Adobe. Most serious photographers use Lightroom and/or Photoshop for the bulk of their PP needs. But now all of a sudden Canon are saying that you'll get better results if you use DPP as your RAW converter than if you use any Adobe product. Adobe are going to have to try to copy it - which will cost them money, because they don't have the same data on all the lenses that Canon do. Perhaps Adobe will just buy DxO instead. This might be a good time to hold shares in DxO.
---------------------------------------------
pxl8
WRT lens data and DPP I suspect it's just held as separate files that anyone could make, install and use with the right information. A bit of reverse engineering and Sigma, Tamron, etc. could provide data. Much the same as DXO have their own lens correction data and Adobe have provided profiles that emulate the Canon picture styles.
DPP undoubtedly does the best conversion of raw data but is lacking in just about every other area and is slow and cumbersome to use. Canon seem to be keeping it locked as a raw processor whereas other apps are addressing a much wider range of functionality photographers need and when it comes to choosing processing/storing/keywording/etc in a single app usually wins out.
------------------------------------------------------------
HoppyUK
Thanks for your comments Stewart and pxl8 Glad I'm not the only one that sees this technology as very significant. It's in its infancy, and who knows where it will go. I will admit it's the main driver behind me now wanting an EF-S 18-200mm lens as the ultimate walkabout! My other lenses might never see the light of day again This could damage Canon's business. Maybe they're treading carefully at first?
It will surely be built in to Canon DSLRs soon where the camera will know what the lens and settings are, and a highly optimised file will pop straight out with no user input at all. This is what is happening to an extent inside my Lumix FX500 (I can't find out exactly what it's up to) and the LX3 is also doing something. This is surely a killer feature that will have Sigma etc completely stumped - whatever data they generate will never be incorporated into Nikon/Canon etc cameras.
Sure Adobe etc could copy it, but they'd have to do every Canon and Nikon lens for sure, not to mention the massive range of other glass their professional user base shoots on. I doubt that they will go there, as even then their data will also never get incorporated into a camera body, and their expertise is stictly in post-processing, and image manipulation in particular. Does Adobe care what software is used for Raw conversion? I guess ARC is offered as a conveniece more than as a vital commercial hook.
What really interest me is this: we've always had cameras and lenses of course, and there has always been some limited communication between the two. What this 'communication' now amounts to is a big new element in the chain, where the camera and lens have become engaged in a lot of active and 'smart' debate.
Canon's DPP v3.5 comes bundled with the 50D and 5D/2, or it should be available as an upgrade download. Or an official copy costs £12 from Robert Scott Associates. I'd really like to hear from Nikon users who have some similar lens correction facilities built in to the D3, D700 and D300 (I think).
As suggested, I'll start another thread on this.
Thanks again,
Richard.
----------------------------------------------------
pxl8
Originally Posted by HoppyUK
"Does Adobe care what software is used for Raw conversion?"
I'm betting yes, they want people to buy Lightroom, their own raw conversion utiility which shares the same code as ACR and was built upon RawShooter which Adobe bought a couple of years back.
----------------------------------------------------
Original thread here: http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=101428
Canon has updated it's free Raw processing software, Digital Photo Professional, to incorporate customised lens correction data for all its EF and EF-S lenses. It works with almost all EOS cameras, and wipes out key optical shortcomings like chromatic aberration, distortion, and vignetting with a mouse click. The Full Monty is on DPP v3.5, shipped with the 50D and 5D/2.
Sorry it's a bit wordy
What do you think?Cheers,
Richard.
----------------------------------------------------
Here are the original posts:
HoppyUK
Please bear with me on this - I'd really like to know what you think of Canon's DPP v3.5 free Raw processor, which automatically corrects Canon lens problems like chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting.
What does this mean for the future of 'standardised' post processing software? I think it's very clever and see a major divergence coming up. DPP v3.5 was shipped with the 50D and 5D/2 and works with just about any Canon EOS Raw file and any Canon lens (not sure if update downloads are available yet).
What it does is correct chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting with a mouse click (in adition to noise, dynamic range and the other usual stuff). You can then work futher on the image in all the usual ways, with Photoshop etc. It does this via sets of pre-programmed data for just about every Canon EF and EF-S lens ever made - at all focal lengths and aperture settings.
So, if you feed it an image from a lens like the EF-S 18-200mm or 17-85mm, which is quite likely to have a fair bit of CA, distortion and vignetting, it comes out dramatically improved. You can't do this anything like as well, or nearly so easily, with any other software package. It can't be long before this is all done in-camera and you will get extremely high quality JPEGs straight out of the box.
Canon isn't alone. Nikon has something similar going on in-camera with the D3, D700 and D300 cameras. Panasonic is also doing the same thing in some of it's compacts. No doubt other makers, too. DPReview has some convincing examples in its camera and lens tests but I've found info on this hard to find.
What we are seeing here is individual manufacturers developing really useful new brand-specific image enhancement software features. Stuff that they are very unlikely to release to third parties because it locks you further into their brand, with corresponding commercial advantages. Take it a step further and Canon will be able to produce superior image quality from cheaper, smaller 'less good' lenses. Sigma etc just won't be able to follow, because the cameras will not be programmed to process their images anything like so well, leaving them out in the cold.
What do you think? Has anybody tried it?
Thanks,
Richard.
-------------------------------------------------------
StewartR
I think this deserves a thread of its own. It's a fascinating development.
You've highlighted the issue that the likes of Sigma and Tamron will be put under pressure by this, because cameras and software produced by camera manufacturers won't correct for the deficiencies in 3rd-party lenses. But it's not as if all lenses are equal anyway. When you're considering buying a new lens, this is just one more difference to take into account.
However, to my mind the really interesting issue is what this does to Adobe. Most serious photographers use Lightroom and/or Photoshop for the bulk of their PP needs. But now all of a sudden Canon are saying that you'll get better results if you use DPP as your RAW converter than if you use any Adobe product. Adobe are going to have to try to copy it - which will cost them money, because they don't have the same data on all the lenses that Canon do. Perhaps Adobe will just buy DxO instead. This might be a good time to hold shares in DxO.
---------------------------------------------
pxl8
WRT lens data and DPP I suspect it's just held as separate files that anyone could make, install and use with the right information. A bit of reverse engineering and Sigma, Tamron, etc. could provide data. Much the same as DXO have their own lens correction data and Adobe have provided profiles that emulate the Canon picture styles.
DPP undoubtedly does the best conversion of raw data but is lacking in just about every other area and is slow and cumbersome to use. Canon seem to be keeping it locked as a raw processor whereas other apps are addressing a much wider range of functionality photographers need and when it comes to choosing processing/storing/keywording/etc in a single app usually wins out.
------------------------------------------------------------
HoppyUK
Thanks for your comments Stewart and pxl8 Glad I'm not the only one that sees this technology as very significant. It's in its infancy, and who knows where it will go. I will admit it's the main driver behind me now wanting an EF-S 18-200mm lens as the ultimate walkabout! My other lenses might never see the light of day again This could damage Canon's business. Maybe they're treading carefully at first?
It will surely be built in to Canon DSLRs soon where the camera will know what the lens and settings are, and a highly optimised file will pop straight out with no user input at all. This is what is happening to an extent inside my Lumix FX500 (I can't find out exactly what it's up to) and the LX3 is also doing something. This is surely a killer feature that will have Sigma etc completely stumped - whatever data they generate will never be incorporated into Nikon/Canon etc cameras.
Sure Adobe etc could copy it, but they'd have to do every Canon and Nikon lens for sure, not to mention the massive range of other glass their professional user base shoots on. I doubt that they will go there, as even then their data will also never get incorporated into a camera body, and their expertise is stictly in post-processing, and image manipulation in particular. Does Adobe care what software is used for Raw conversion? I guess ARC is offered as a conveniece more than as a vital commercial hook.
What really interest me is this: we've always had cameras and lenses of course, and there has always been some limited communication between the two. What this 'communication' now amounts to is a big new element in the chain, where the camera and lens have become engaged in a lot of active and 'smart' debate.
Canon's DPP v3.5 comes bundled with the 50D and 5D/2, or it should be available as an upgrade download. Or an official copy costs £12 from Robert Scott Associates. I'd really like to hear from Nikon users who have some similar lens correction facilities built in to the D3, D700 and D300 (I think).
As suggested, I'll start another thread on this.
Thanks again,
Richard.
----------------------------------------------------
pxl8
Originally Posted by HoppyUK
"Does Adobe care what software is used for Raw conversion?"
I'm betting yes, they want people to buy Lightroom, their own raw conversion utiility which shares the same code as ACR and was built upon RawShooter which Adobe bought a couple of years back.
----------------------------------------------------
My car can do twice the speed limit (though I don't do it often 
). But for sure, I get absolutely no pleasure from using Photoshop, despite the fact that I like the results, it's amazingly clever and cost a lot of money 
