This topic is in the 2019 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2019Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
p.2 #1Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
suteetat wrote:
Of course, I would prefer optical correction only if possible
Even if the images in the end aren't as good as a lens with software corrections?
Of course, I would prefer optical correction only if possible
Even if the images in the end aren't as good as a lens with software corrections?
Apr 06, 2019 at 05:02 PM
p.2 #2Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
RobCD wrote:
Even if the images in the end aren't as good as a lens with software corrections?
You may have misunderstood my 'if possbile'. I definitely prefer optical correction lens only but generally they are much bigger, heavier and cost significantly more if they are well corrected enough to the point where I don't need software correction.
The possible is not meant for if I can disable software correction on any lens, I would disable it.
Sorry if it is not clear in my post.
suteetat wrote
Of course, I would prefer optical correction only if possibleYou may have misunderstood my 'if possbile'. I definitely prefer optical correction lens only but generally they are much bigger, heavier and cost significantly more if they are well corrected enough to the point where I don't need software correction.
The possible is not meant for if I can disable software correction on any lens, I would disable it.
Sorry if it is not clear in my post.
Apr 06, 2019 at 05:57 PM
p.2 #3Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
It's not Nikon that's forcing the correction: it's Adobe. As a Capture One Pro user (vastly superior for RAW conversion), I pondered why LR users were seeing lens profiles applied with the 24-70 f/4 while C1 had nothing. Now it makes sense. In C1, you can turn off or modify the extent of correction, once the version they create on their own gets released, as they've done for that 24-70. It takes them a few months to get these updates out, alas..
.
.
Apr 28, 2019 at 04:42 PM
p.2 #4Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Another note: It gets lost in the lingo about "optical" vs "software" correction: ALL optical designs are compromises of mutually contradictory project objectives, from size and cost to MTF and distortion. When it was all in the optics, designers would decide what parameters were highest priority and "oh well" about the rest. What the advent of advanced software capabilities does is allow them to achieve extraordinary performance on certain key priorities, knowing that it's possible to correct others (like barrel/pincushion and chromatic aberration) after the fact.
Meanwhile, mirrorless allows even greater advances, especially for wide lenses that no longer require a reverse-telephoto construction to get around the mirror box. We actually win.
Meanwhile, mirrorless allows even greater advances, especially for wide lenses that no longer require a reverse-telephoto construction to get around the mirror box. We actually win.
Apr 28, 2019 at 07:44 PM
p.2 #5Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Craig Collins wrote:
It's not Nikon that's forcing the correction: it's Adobe. As a Capture One Pro user (vastly superior for RAW conversion), I pondered why LR users were seeing lens profiles applied with the 24-70 f/4 while C1 had nothing. Now it makes sense. In C1, you can turn off or modify the extent of correction, once the version they create on their own gets released, as they've done for that 24-70. It takes them a few months to get these updates out, alas..
Actually it's not clear if the decision to make the built-in lens profile corrections mandatory was Adobe's or Nikon's - Nikon's own raw processor forces it as well. See my Capture NX-D screenshot here - notice the circled option is checked and can't be changed. It may very well be Nikon asked Adobe to make the corrections mandatory, perhaps even as a condition for sharing the technical details of how to find and decode Nikon's embedded correction profile.
As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their use to be optional. Adobe is actually the same for the profiles they provide themselves for other camera models/systems that don't have embedded profiles.
It's not Nikon that's forcing the correction: it's Adobe. As a Capture One Pro user (vastly superior for RAW conversion), I pondered why LR users were seeing lens profiles applied with the 24-70 f/4 while C1 had nothing. Now it makes sense. In C1, you can turn off or modify the extent of correction, once the version they create on their own gets released, as they've done for that 24-70. It takes them a few months to get these updates out, alas..
Actually it's not clear if the decision to make the built-in lens profile corrections mandatory was Adobe's or Nikon's - Nikon's own raw processor forces it as well. See my Capture NX-D screenshot here - notice the circled option is checked and can't be changed. It may very well be Nikon asked Adobe to make the corrections mandatory, perhaps even as a condition for sharing the technical details of how to find and decode Nikon's embedded correction profile.
As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their use to be optional. Adobe is actually the same for the profiles they provide themselves for other camera models/systems that don't have embedded profiles.
Apr 28, 2019 at 09:46 PM
p.2 #6Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
I can't see Nikon being able to bend Adobe to their own will. What's in it for Adobe? The information is obviously not encrypted in the raw file (Nikon has been burned before on that front). I am guessing Adobe viewed it as competitive advantage not to have to back calculate the corrections across all possible apertures and focal lengths, and have a solution long before the competition. Nikon has obviously figured out all required corrections since they already apply them to the EVF. The deal probably involves Nikon handing over the corrections for each and every Z mount lens they ever make, possibly also future F mount lenses.
snapsy wrote:
Actually it's not clear if the decision to make the built-in lens profile corrections mandatory was Adobe's or Nikon's - Nikon's own raw processor forces it as well. See my Capture NX-D screenshot here - notice the circled option is checked and can't be changed. It may very well be Nikon asked Adobe to make the corrections mandatory, perhaps even as a condition for sharing the technical details of how to find and decode Nikon's embedded correction profile.
As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their...Show more →
snapsy wrote:
Craig Collins wrote
It's not Nikon that's forcing the correction: it's Adobe. As a Capture One Pro user (vastly superior for RAW conversion), I pondered why LR users were seeing lens profiles applied with the 24-70 f/4 while C1 had nothing. Now it makes sense. In C1, you can turn off or modify the extent of correction, once the version they create on their own gets released, as they've done for that 24-70. It takes them a few months to get these updates out, alas..As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their...Show more →
Apr 28, 2019 at 11:55 PM
p.2 #7Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Has anyone looked at how the 24-70/2.8 corrections compare to the 24-70/4. I am curious how Nikon approached those decisions.
Apr 29, 2019 at 12:49 AM
p.2 #8Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Rustybug asked an interesting question and one I hadn't even thought of. Does the image in the VF show the corrected or uncorrected image? One would hope the corrected image as that would mean you wouldn't miss out on incorrect composition due to distortion adjustment. If it is the uncorrected image shown in the VF, what is shown on image review, corrected or uncorrected? Which also begs the question, if it is corrected, then how did we get the lens algorithms into the camera? Surely Nikon didn't have the algorithms perfectly set up way back at the last firmware update as that would suggest that the 14-30 was done and dusted way back then? What kept them from releasing the lens if the distortion, vignetting, CA etc were already perfected, they can only do this if the lens design is completed. Why has it taken until mid April to release the lens if they had the algorithms set up at the last firmware update?
Apr 29, 2019 at 01:03 AM
p.2 #9Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
I looked for that yesterday when I was taking some shots. The image in the EVF is definitely corrected for both vignetting and distortion. This was particularly clear when I was measurbating with the 14-30 in front of a brick wall.
The lens algorithms are surely parametrized (most probably polynomial fits to the actual distortion and intensity distribution) and the parameters are likely written in the firmware and then copied to the raw file. Remember that Nikon dslr's have a separate firmware and distortion correction updates.
The 14-30 distortion parameters were likely known as soon as the optical formula was fixed, which is well ahead of the start of production. They had plenty of time to get it into the firmware.
The lens algorithms are surely parametrized (most probably polynomial fits to the actual distortion and intensity distribution) and the parameters are likely written in the firmware and then copied to the raw file. Remember that Nikon dslr's have a separate firmware and distortion correction updates.
The 14-30 distortion parameters were likely known as soon as the optical formula was fixed, which is well ahead of the start of production. They had plenty of time to get it into the firmware.
Apr 29, 2019 at 01:32 AM
p.2 #10Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Ok, with the above post in mind, I did my own little experiment. Looking through the VF, you definitely see the corrected image, not the uncorrected on. This is good news for compositional reasons, obviously. No missing out on things you thought you included in the image, 
.
Set up is a newspaper that I had taped to the wall over a year ago for "testing purposes" and I had just left it there. It's horse race guide that I used as we don't read that part so I could use it without issue.
Camera on tripod and sensor plane about 300mm from the subject so very close to MFD which is 280mm
Here is a completely uncorrected image.
Z7 + 14-30 f4s
Corrected as best I can using Capture One Pro
The corrected image shown above is near as damn it to what I see in the VF when I composed the image. The image in the VF shows a tiny bit more, maybe one letter more of print, but you must remember, this is adjusted manually using Capture One Pro which does not have the algorithm corrections for this lens yet.
As you can see, it is very sharp to the corners even after correction, but we are talking at this very close focus distance. Things will obviously be different at a different distance.
It still begs the question. Nikon must have the correction algorithms already loaded into the camera, or does the lens have them in some sort of memory that the camera uses when the lens is attached? If they have been loaded into the camera via firmware, then the last firmware update was many months ago and Nikon must have had the lens design completed way back then. SO, did it take that long for them to finalise production and get it to market? If so, it just goes to show how much time it tkes to get these lenses from idea to design, to finished design, to mock up, to production, to market etc.
.Set up is a newspaper that I had taped to the wall over a year ago for "testing purposes" and I had just left it there. It's horse race guide that I used as we don't read that part so I could use it without issue.
Camera on tripod and sensor plane about 300mm from the subject so very close to MFD which is 280mmHere is a completely uncorrected image.
Z7 + 14-30 f4s
Corrected as best I can using Capture One Pro
The corrected image shown above is near as damn it to what I see in the VF when I composed the image. The image in the VF shows a tiny bit more, maybe one letter more of print, but you must remember, this is adjusted manually using Capture One Pro which does not have the algorithm corrections for this lens yet.
As you can see, it is very sharp to the corners even after correction, but we are talking at this very close focus distance. Things will obviously be different at a different distance.
It still begs the question. Nikon must have the correction algorithms already loaded into the camera, or does the lens have them in some sort of memory that the camera uses when the lens is attached? If they have been loaded into the camera via firmware, then the last firmware update was many months ago and Nikon must have had the lens design completed way back then. SO, did it take that long for them to finalise production and get it to market? If so, it just goes to show how much time it tkes to get these lenses from idea to design, to finished design, to mock up, to production, to market etc.
Apr 29, 2019 at 01:51 AM
p.2 #11Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
GroovyGeek wrote:
I can't see Nikon being able to bend Adobe to their own will. What's in it for Adobe? The information is obviously not encrypted in the raw file (Nikon has been burned before on that front). I am guessing Adobe viewed it as competitive advantage not to have to back calculate the corrections across all possible apertures and focal lengths, and have a solution long before the competition. Nikon has obviously figured out all required corrections since they already apply them to the EVF. The deal probably involves Nikon handing over the corrections for each and every Z mount lens...Show more →Actually it's not clear if the decision to make the built-in lens profile corrections mandatory was Adobe's or Nikon's - Nikon's own raw processor forces it as well. See my Capture NX-D screenshot here - notice the circled option is checked and can't be changed. It may very well be Nikon asked Adobe to make the corrections mandatory, perhaps even as a condition for sharing the technical details of how to find and decode Nikon's embedded correction profile.
As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their use to be optional. Adobe is actually the same for the profiles they provide themselves for other camera models/systems that don't have embedded profiles.
What's in it for Adobe is not having to expend the time and expense of creating the lens profiles themselves.
I can't see Nikon being able to bend Adobe to their own will. What's in it for Adobe? The information is obviously not encrypted in the raw file (Nikon has been burned before on that front). I am guessing Adobe viewed it as competitive advantage not to have to back calculate the corrections across all possible apertures and focal lengths, and have a solution long before the competition. Nikon has obviously figured out all required corrections since they already apply them to the EVF. The deal probably involves Nikon handing over the corrections for each and every Z mount lens...Show more →
snapsy wrote
Craig Collins wrote
It's not Nikon that's forcing the correction: it's Adobe. As a Capture One Pro user (vastly superior for RAW conversion), I pondered why LR users were seeing lens profiles applied with the 24-70 f/4 while C1 had nothing. Now it makes sense. In C1, you can turn off or modify the extent of correction, once the version they create on their own gets released, as they've done for that 24-70. It takes them a few months to get these updates out, alas..As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their use to be optional. Adobe is actually the same for the profiles they provide themselves for other camera models/systems that don't have embedded profiles.
What's in it for Adobe is not having to expend the time and expense of creating the lens profiles themselves.
Apr 29, 2019 at 04:41 AM
p.2 #12Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Lance B wrote:
Rustybug asked an interesting question and one I hadn't even thought of. Does the image in the VF show the corrected or uncorrected image? One would hope the corrected image as that would mean you wouldn't miss out on incorrect composition due to distortion adjustment. If it is the uncorrected image shown in the VF, what is shown on image review, corrected or uncorrected? Which also begs the question, if it is corrected, then how did we get the lens algorithms into the camera? Surely Nikon didn't have the algorithms perfectly set up way back at the last firmware...Show more →
The EVF/LCD preview includes the corrections and is likely supplied to the camera by the lens itself (ROM). Aside from compositional aids the real-time corrections are important for video as well.
Rustybug asked an interesting question and one I hadn't even thought of. Does the image in the VF show the corrected or uncorrected image? One would hope the corrected image as that would mean you wouldn't miss out on incorrect composition due to distortion adjustment. If it is the uncorrected image shown in the VF, what is shown on image review, corrected or uncorrected? Which also begs the question, if it is corrected, then how did we get the lens algorithms into the camera? Surely Nikon didn't have the algorithms perfectly set up way back at the last firmware...Show more →
The EVF/LCD preview includes the corrections and is likely supplied to the camera by the lens itself (ROM). Aside from compositional aids the real-time corrections are important for video as well.
Apr 29, 2019 at 04:45 AM
p.2 #13Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
snapsy wrote:
Lance B wrote
Rustybug asked an interesting question and one I hadn't even thought of. Does the image in the VF show the corrected or uncorrected image? One would hope the corrected image as that would mean you wouldn't miss out on incorrect composition due to distortion adjustment. If it is the uncorrected image shown in the VF, what is shown on image review, corrected or uncorrected? Which also begs the question, if it is corrected, then how did we get the lens algorithms into the camera? Surely Nikon didn't have the algorithms perfectly set up way back at the last firmware update as that would suggest that the 14-30 was done and dusted way back then? What kept them from releasing the lens if the distortion, vignetting, CA etc were already perfected, they can only do this if the lens design is completed. Why has it taken until mid April to release the lens if they had the algorithms set up at the last firmware update?Ah, I see. I did suggest that as one of the options in my post above, that the lens corrections are provided by the lens itself.
Apr 29, 2019 at 05:08 AM
p.2 #14Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Lance B wrote:
SO, did it take that long for them to finalise production and get it to market? If so, it just goes to show how much time it tkes to get these lenses from idea to design, to finished design, to mock up, to production, to market etc.
Per a lens factory tour and interview article I read a year or more ago, Nikon's lead time on lens production requires the order, to the glass production facility for optical glass, specific to a lens, to be made a year in advance of the actual lens assembly/production.
SO, did it take that long for them to finalise production and get it to market? If so, it just goes to show how much time it tkes to get these lenses from idea to design, to finished design, to mock up, to production, to market etc.
Per a lens factory tour and interview article I read a year or more ago, Nikon's lead time on lens production requires the order, to the glass production facility for optical glass, specific to a lens, to be made a year in advance of the actual lens assembly/production.
Apr 29, 2019 at 06:50 AM
p.2 #15Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Which is potentially coupled with the much larger expense of unhappy customers. It is one thing to have it loaded by default and make the customer work a bit to disable it by burying it deep in a submenu. The need for DNG conversion and direct flag editing onin the DNG is a whole other level of commitment to Nikon. Up to now they have borne the expense of creating lens profiles for every Nikon Canon Sony Fuji Pentax etc lens under the sun. Why the change of heart? Ether Nikon paid them a healthy chunk of change to ensure that the PS raw conversion is optimized for their hardware or there is something else at play.
snapsy wrote:
Actually it's not clear if the decision to make the built-in lens profile corrections mandatory was Adobe's or Nikon's - Nikon's own raw processor forces it as well. See my Capture NX-D screenshot here - notice the circled option is checked and can't be changed. It may very well be Nikon asked Adobe to make the corrections mandatory, perhaps even as a condition for sharing the technical details of how to find and decode Nikon's embedded correction profile.
As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their use to be optional. Adobe is actually the same for the profiles they provide themselves for other camera models/systems that don't have embedded profiles.What's in it for Adobe is not having to expend the time and expense of creating the lens profiles themselves.
snapsy wrote:
GroovyGeek wrote
I can't see Nikon being able to bend Adobe to their own will. What's in it for Adobe? The information is obviously not encrypted in the raw file (Nikon has been burned before on that front). I am guessing Adobe viewed it as competitive advantage not to have to back calculate the corrections across all possible apertures and focal lengths, and have a solution long before the competition. Nikon has obviously figured out all required corrections since they already apply them to the EVF. The deal probably involves Nikon handing over the corrections for each and every Z mount lens they ever make, possibly also future F mount lenses.snapsy wrote
Craig Collins wrote
It's not Nikon that's forcing the correction: it's Adobe. As a Capture One Pro user (vastly superior for RAW conversion), I pondered why LR users were seeing lens profiles applied with the 24-70 f/4 while C1 had nothing. Now it makes sense. In C1, you can turn off or modify the extent of correction, once the version they create on their own gets released, as they've done for that 24-70. It takes them a few months to get these updates out, alas..As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their use to be optional. Adobe is actually the same for the profiles they provide themselves for other camera models/systems that don't have embedded profiles.
Apr 29, 2019 at 08:55 AM
p.2 #16Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
So far the only real so called unhappy customer seems to be you a a small cadre you have amassed through this exercise.
what's in it for adobe is competing with DXO. before DXO was around they had no interest in the concept. DXO has "borne the expense and burden" long before adobe did and they even match it to the individual camera bodies. that's an extra step.
I honestly think you truly are making much ado about nothing.
what's in it for adobe is competing with DXO. before DXO was around they had no interest in the concept. DXO has "borne the expense and burden" long before adobe did and they even match it to the individual camera bodies. that's an extra step.
I honestly think you truly are making much ado about nothing.
Apr 29, 2019 at 09:07 AM
p.2 #17Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
Lance B wrote:
Rustybug asked an interesting question and one I hadn't even thought of. Does the image in the VF show the corrected or uncorrected image? One would hope the corrected image as that would mean you wouldn't miss out on incorrect composition due to distortion adjustment. If it is the uncorrected image shown in the VF, what is shown on image review, corrected or uncorrected? Which also begs the question, if it is corrected, then how did we get the lens algorithms into the camera? Surely Nikon didn't have the algorithms perfectly set up way back at the last firmware...Show more →
the LF firmware (lens distortion control) is the correction info. ver 1.00 is the current one for the Z series as of this time. on our DSLRs it 2.017 LD, L . it is intermittently updated. and yes this data is developed in advance.
Edited on Apr 29, 2019 at 09:24 AM · View previous versions
Rustybug asked an interesting question and one I hadn't even thought of. Does the image in the VF show the corrected or uncorrected image? One would hope the corrected image as that would mean you wouldn't miss out on incorrect composition due to distortion adjustment. If it is the uncorrected image shown in the VF, what is shown on image review, corrected or uncorrected? Which also begs the question, if it is corrected, then how did we get the lens algorithms into the camera? Surely Nikon didn't have the algorithms perfectly set up way back at the last firmware...Show more →
the LF firmware (lens distortion control) is the correction info. ver 1.00 is the current one for the Z series as of this time. on our DSLRs it 2.017 LD, L . it is intermittently updated. and yes this data is developed in advance.
Edited on Apr 29, 2019 at 09:24 AM · View previous versions
Apr 29, 2019 at 09:16 AM
p.2 #18Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
I would be curious to see how much of the uncorrected vignetting is cropped out after the distortion correction. Is the resulting corner less than 3 stops of vignetting? That would be al least one bonus point for software corrections at 14mm on this lens.
Apr 29, 2019 at 09:24 AM
p.2 #19Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
if you use DXO you can see it
Apr 29, 2019 at 09:25 AM
p.2 #20Deep dive into Z lens corrections (including impact on acuity)
GroovyGeek wrote:
Which is potentially coupled with the much larger expense of unhappy customers. It is one thing to have it loaded by default and make the customer work a bit to disable it by burying it deep in a submenu. The need for DNG conversion and direct flag editing onin the DNG is a whole other level of commitment to Nikon. Up to now they have borne the expense of creating lens profiles for every Nikon Canon Sony Fuji Pentax etc lens under the sun. Why the change of heart? Ether Nikon paid them a healthy chunk of change to ensure...Show more →
Actually it's not clear if the decision to make the built-in lens profile corrections mandatory was Adobe's or Nikon's - Nikon's own raw processor forces it as well. See my Capture NX-D screenshot here - notice the circled option is checked and can't be changed. It may very well be Nikon asked Adobe to make the corrections mandatory, perhaps even as a condition for sharing the technical details of how to find and decode Nikon's embedded correction profile.
As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their use to be optional. Adobe is actually the same for the profiles they provide themselves for other camera models/systems that don't have embedded profiles.What's in it for Adobe is not having to expend the time and expense of creating the lens profiles themselves.
Adobe made it clear when they switched their Creative Suite to a subscription model that they're willing to make decisions which might upset their user base if those decisions result in a net increase in profitability.
Which is potentially coupled with the much larger expense of unhappy customers. It is one thing to have it loaded by default and make the customer work a bit to disable it by burying it deep in a submenu. The need for DNG conversion and direct flag editing onin the DNG is a whole other level of commitment to Nikon. Up to now they have borne the expense of creating lens profiles for every Nikon Canon Sony Fuji Pentax etc lens under the sun. Why the change of heart? Ether Nikon paid them a healthy chunk of change to ensure...Show more →
snapsy wrote
GroovyGeek wrote
I can't see Nikon being able to bend Adobe to their own will. What's in it for Adobe? The information is obviously not encrypted in the raw file (Nikon has been burned before on that front). I am guessing Adobe viewed it as competitive advantage not to have to back calculate the corrections across all possible apertures and focal lengths, and have a solution long before the competition. Nikon has obviously figured out all required corrections since they already apply them to the EVF. The deal probably involves Nikon handing over the corrections for each and every Z mount lens they ever make, possibly also future F mount lenses.snapsy wrote
Craig Collins wrote
It's not Nikon that's forcing the correction: it's Adobe. As a Capture One Pro user (vastly superior for RAW conversion), I pondered why LR users were seeing lens profiles applied with the 24-70 f/4 while C1 had nothing. Now it makes sense. In C1, you can turn off or modify the extent of correction, once the version they create on their own gets released, as they've done for that 24-70. It takes them a few months to get these updates out, alas..As you indicated, C1 makes their own profiles rather than using the ones Nikon embeds into the NEFs, and as such allows their use to be optional. Adobe is actually the same for the profiles they provide themselves for other camera models/systems that don't have embedded profiles.
Adobe made it clear when they switched their Creative Suite to a subscription model that they're willing to make decisions which might upset their user base if those decisions result in a net increase in profitability.
Apr 29, 2019 at 11:04 AM