alexc Posted October 28, 2008 Share #1 Posted October 28, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) attached are three files(16:9, 3:2 and 4:3) looks like it is a significant distortion. the distance between camera and powerbook is about 4 feet. does not look right. any comments will be appreciated. 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/66823-d-lux-4-distortion/?do=findComment&comment=698558'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Hi alexc, Take a look here d-lux 4 distortion. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wda Posted October 28, 2008 Share #2 Posted October 28, 2008 alexc, if your lens was set for 24mm it is not surprising that you suspect distortion when shooting at only 4 feet from your subject. It is just the law of physics and mathematics. However, the result is acceptable unless you are seeking architectural purity of form. In which case increase your camera to subject distance, if possible, and assess the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psamson Posted October 28, 2008 Share #3 Posted October 28, 2008 Alexc, could you post similar photos but with the focal length at say a 50mm or 60mm equivalent? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexc Posted October 28, 2008 Author Share #4 Posted October 28, 2008 David, I understand this and gave the distance to the computer just for reference. in fact i think the computer looks reasonable, however look at the shelf unit by the wall, the distance is around 10 feet and the structure is not very vertical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauribix Posted October 28, 2008 Share #5 Posted October 28, 2008 There's a noticeable barrell distortion from what I see, but I guess it's more than acceptable in a P&S camera, and matter of fact much less pronounced than, let me say, a Canon 17-85 EF-S f/4-5.6 at its wider angle of view. BTW the prospectic distortion that is so much more evident in this shot to me it's up to you but it could be easily corrected with the use of a tripod or a bubble level. With all respect, the D-lux 4 show great optical performances to me.IMHO, obviuosly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 28, 2008 Share #6 Posted October 28, 2008 attached are three files(16:9, 3:2 and 4:3) looks like it is a significant distortion. There is a slight barrel distortion, but it is certainly not significant. Note that the actual barrel distortion is in fact quite significant at 24 mm, but that is only evident in raw files; the camera corrects for distortion so you don’t see it in JPEG files. In short, I don’t quite understand what is bothering you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexc Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share #7 Posted October 29, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you all for your comments. Actually I love this camera. I think it is better than d-lux 3. distortion there was less, but it was 28 not 24. it does not bother me a lot. Just the observation i wanted to share with you and get your opinion. Macro mode is also great. Attached are three macro shots. have a look 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/66823-d-lux-4-distortion/?do=findComment&comment=698825'>More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 29, 2008 Share #8 Posted October 29, 2008 ...Note that the actual barrel distortion is in fact quite significant at 24 mm, but that is only evident in raw files; the camera corrects for distortion so you don’t see it in JPEG files. ... That's interesting, Michael, can you tell us more; such as how it corrects barrel distortion in the camera and how the camera knows how much to correct for since I assume it will vary with elevation? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 29, 2008 Share #9 Posted October 29, 2008 That's interesting, Michael, can you tell us more; such as how it corrects barrel distortion in the camera and how the camera knows how much to correct for since I assume it will vary with elevation? Pete. Theres a lot the subject on the net. The images Alex posted here dont show it, they are showing converging lines, parallax, so the thread title is a bit unfair. Maybe a tilt shift lens for handholding is what is needed huh? MJH has the best answer. One link barrel correction from nostics thread here. and another on DPReview here, but there is junk all over the place when you start searching. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted October 29, 2008 Share #10 Posted October 29, 2008 ... Maybe a tilt shift lens for handholding is what is needed huh? ... I don't think that's coming till the D-Lux 4000, Rob. Thanks for the links. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted October 29, 2008 Share #11 Posted October 29, 2008 David, I understand this and gave the distance to the computer just for reference. in fact i think the computer looks reasonable, however look at the shelf unit by the wall, the distance is around 10 feet and the structure is not very vertical. alexc, the converging verticals are the result of pointing your camera slightly downwards, presumably so that you could show more of the table top. I guess that if you used a tripod and put a level in the hot shoe so that the sensor plane was absolutely parallel to the far wall, you would not see leaning verticals. Try it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_l Posted October 29, 2008 Share #12 Posted October 29, 2008 I only know for sure about the LX3 Panasonic version of the Dlux4, but in it, the RAW converter does significant correction of CA and distortion, as the in-camera jpeg processor does. So if it was a RAW processed with a different converter, that would add to the distortion beyond what a 24mm would normally do.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted October 29, 2008 Share #13 Posted October 29, 2008 I only know for sure about the LX3 Panasonic version of the Dlux4, but in it, the RAW converter does significant correction of CA and distortion, as the in-camera jpeg processor does. So if it was a RAW processed with a different converter, that would add to the distortion beyond what a 24mm would normally do.... It's been said on other fora I frequent (DP Review) that Capture One does likewise with the .RWL files... Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoersch Posted October 30, 2008 Share #14 Posted October 30, 2008 I hope this doesn't turn out to be Leica's new idea of first class optics: sell optical junk for horrendous prices and correct the errors afterwards in a third party raw developer. Imagine a Noctilux for EUR 8.000.- which requires Capture One 8000... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
miami91 Posted October 30, 2008 Share #15 Posted October 30, 2008 I hope this doesn't turn out to be Leica's new idea of first class optics: sell optical junk for horrendous prices and correct the errors afterwards in a third party raw developer. Imagine a Noctilux for EUR 8.000.- which requires Capture One 8000... I think "junk" is a bit of an unfair label. Every design requires trade-offs. This is a fast lens (f/2) in an incredibly wide 5.1mm, packaged in an incredibly small and comparatively inexpensive form. Bit unfair to expect Summicron M performance. Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted October 30, 2008 Share #16 Posted October 30, 2008 I agree the distortion is unfortunate. However, if there's one thing I trust Leica to get right, it's optics. If Leica determined that the way to get best performance from a relatively low-cost (equivalent) 24-60mm f2 zoom lens was postprocessing, I expect they're right. Recall the railing about IR filters on the M8 (the echos continue...)---I find it hard to complain about the results, though. I think Leica got the M8 right, and having seen the Dlux-4 results, I expect they got it right as well. Until later, Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wmyowell Posted October 30, 2008 Share #17 Posted October 30, 2008 I am stunned by the ignorance shown in many of the above posts. The convergence of vertical lines and the apparent disparity in the size of objects at different distances are natural results of using an extreme wide angle lens. What you are seeing is not distortion nor is it a fault of the lens. The result would be the same with any focal length lens, but would not be noticeable as it would be outside the frame. Carefully positioning the camera on a tripod with a spirit level will avoid the convergence, but it's not the only way to do so. To correct the convergence when the "film" plane isn't parallel to the subject, a simple plug-in for Photoshop called Panorama Tools will do it easily, although the image will need to be cropped as its edges will now converge. Bill Yowell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted October 30, 2008 Share #18 Posted October 30, 2008 I think we're talking about two different things in this thread. Clearly, perspective effects have nothing to do with the lens. In spite of that, the Dlux-4 lens has a surprising degree of barrel distortion at its widest setting (that isn't shown in the photos that started this thread). But the wide fast lens is so useful, and the corrected images are so good, I can't see a down side. Until later, Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 30, 2008 Share #19 Posted October 30, 2008 In spite of that, the Dlux-4 lens has a surprising degree of barrel distortion at its widest setting (that isn't shown in the photos that started this thread). The actual amout of barrel distortion can be seen here: Panasonic LX3 Lens Distortion. But whatever is troubling alexc is probably due to perspective and quite independent from the camera employed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xrogers Posted October 31, 2008 Share #20 Posted October 31, 2008 But whatever is troubling alexc is probably due to perspective and quite independent from the camera employed. You are clearly correct. Until later, Clyde Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.