sandymc Posted October 22, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Those that have been tracking the various discussions spread over a number of threads on the 18mm, CornerFix, etc, will know that there have been very inconsistent results from many wide angle lenses and the M9, and that CornerFix wasn't able to correct the images in all cases. In short, in some situations the M9's internal corrections overcorrected, resulting the red edges. On these same images, while CornerFix could correct the vignetting in many cases, regardless of whether the lens was coded or not, it also occasionally also overcorrected badly in other images, for no obvious reason. This problem occurred on a number of lenses, but the CV12 was the worst offender. The good news is that after a lot of e-mails and image analysis, we now have a version of CornerFix (1.3.0.2) that delivers consistent results. Particular thanks here to Eric Calderwood, who persevered through many image uploads, e-mails and a lot confusion. This is an image, courtesy of Eric, using the CV12, first with in-camera correction as a WATE 16mm (where you can see some redness on the left), and then as corrected by CornerFix V1.3.0.2. The new version of CornerFix is available in the usual place: CornerFix | Get CornerFix at SourceForge.net Please note that this version of CornerFix has changed considerably since the last stable release; you should treat it as a beta release. Please also note that the corners of lens such as the CV take a lot of correction, which increases noise in the corners considerably - this is inherent in any correction process, be it by CornerFix or in-camera. For example, on a lens that vignettes by four stops in the corners - not uncommon on the M9 - shooting at ISO640 and then correcting means ISO 2500 noise levels in the corners. So to whatever extent possible you should try to shoot at low ISO when using wide angle lenses on the M9 Sandy Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/101061-good-news-on-m9-cv12-cornerfix/?do=findComment&comment=1084917'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 22, 2009 Posted October 22, 2009 Hi sandymc, Take a look here Good news on M9 + CV12 + CornerFix. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ArtZ Posted October 22, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 22, 2009 WOW! Thanks, Sandy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wookchang Posted October 22, 2009 Share #3 Posted October 22, 2009 Many thanks again!! with utmost respect Wook Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricC Posted October 22, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 22, 2009 Sandy, you're a genius. It is astounding the difference between the two images above, the "fixed" image above looks perfect. Fantastic, many thanks for all of your hard work and kind words. All the Best. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 22, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 22, 2009 Great work Sandy and excellent advice about noise changes in the corners when vignetting is corrected. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted October 23, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 23, 2009 Now I am kicking myself for selling my CV12 because it was just too much work to make it work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 23, 2009 Share #7 Posted October 23, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is very good news. 12mm being the only focal length obtainable with the M9 that can't be effected with an M8, now that it is usable there is a glimmer of support to the argument that being full-frame offers the M9 user an advantage at the wide end. Thanks, Sandy! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 24, 2009 Share #8 Posted October 24, 2009 This is very good news. 12mm being the only focal length obtainable with the M9 that can't be effected with an M8, now that it is usable there is a glimmer of support to the argument that being full-frame offers the M9 user an advantage at the wide end. Thanks, Sandy! I'm puzzled why you would say this about the M9's obvious advantage... What exactly would you use on the M8 when you need: a 24 2.8 a 21 2.8 ?? We won't even mention the really fast wide Luxes...which have no equivalence on the M8. Though of course you need the Luxes on the m8--they're your only option for a fast 28mm or a 35 (ish) 1.4 equivalent FOV... @ Sandy, this is indeed good news! Nicely done! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted October 24, 2009 Share #9 Posted October 24, 2009 Great stuff Sandy - excellent work, and great to have the super-wides working again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manolo Posted October 24, 2009 Share #10 Posted October 24, 2009 WOOW2. To experiment with that 12 view on the M9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted October 24, 2009 Share #11 Posted October 24, 2009 Wow is right, that's a night and day difference right there. (and talk about wide, holy smokes) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EarlBurrellPhoto Posted October 24, 2009 Share #12 Posted October 24, 2009 I'm puzzled why you would say this about the M9's obvious advantage... What exactly would you use on the M8 when you need: a 24 2.8 a 21 2.8 ?? We won't even mention the really fast wide Luxes...which have no equivalence on the M8. Though of course you need the Luxes on the m8--they're your only option for a fast 28mm or a 35 (ish) 1.4 equivalent FOV... Sorry if my statement was easy to misunderstand. I was speaking strictly about FOV. You are correct that faster lenses do have a particular attraction with the M8 (and M9) However as I've mentioned elsewhere, I find that the shallow DOF of even those ultrawides at f/1.4-2.8 mitigates their usefulness compensating for the high-ISO performance limits. Typically I find myself stopping down my fastest wide, the 21 Elmarit, to f/4 and 5.6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.