D-Lux 4 from a D-Lux 3 users perspective; Lightroom via DNG; barrel distortion

[macgarvin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Key Improvements since D-Lux 3 (for my working style)

 

Image quality. For the moment, D-Lux 4 raw files can only be opened with Capture One. But you can convert them in Capture One to DNG raw files, which can be opened in e.g. Lightroom.

 

Other critical improvements.

 

1) f2.0 to 2.8, range of 5.1-12.8 mm, 24-60 mm 35 mm equivalent. D-Lux 3 is f2.8 to f4.9 over a range of 5.1 to 12.8.

 

Nevertheless the front of the lens is the same diameter (give or take a millimetre) though the lowest f at 5.1, 2.8 on the D-Lux 3, vs f2.2 on the D-Lux 4

 

2) Vastly improved image quality. All shadow streaking gone; shadow detail good. Although the difference at 100% magnification between this and pro lens are obvious, at print sizes up to A3 most people, including I suspect those paying for the work, will not notice the difference.

 

3) This improved quality extends up to ISO 200 or 400 at a push.

 

Taken together, this significantly pushes the boundaries of available light photography with a compact, unobtrusive, camera.

 

So up to 400, the major difference between this and the results of a professional DSLR is time. The results from the DSLR are instantly useable. For the D-Lux ISO 200 can still be exceptional (I've provided an example) but for 400 skilled use of noise ninja etc requred. With the D-Lux 3 the smearing was unsalvageable.

 

There are also improvements of an incremental but still important nature:

 

4) manual focusing is quick, a scrollable magnified ‘loupe’ is implemented in a highly usable way (NB the automatic focus area indicator can similarly be scrolled around after shot composition, and remain there until moved again). For manual focusing the depth of field is indicated in a sliding bar to the side of the frame, and this changes as f is changed. So in effect one can set up zonal focusing prior to shooting (say from 1m to infinity) and then shoot away with effectively no shutter delay and be certain all shots will be in focus. The focal setting stays until you alter it, or until you switch off the camera. In some circumstances it may be more reliable that automatic focus.

 

5) Burst mode 3 RAW shots in succession. Useful in low light conditions for getting some shots without significant camera shake). In the D-Lux 3 you had to switch to JPG which, despite improvements, still in the D-Lux 4 indelibly burns in certain aspects (such as colour (croma) noise reduction – which can be responsible for the un-natural ‘plastic’ rendering of surface detail)

 

6) faster image processing in camera, just over a second for a RAW file with a SanDisk Exreme III. Also USB 2 connection camera to PC, so can leave card reader behind.

 

There are many other changes as well, but these are not so relevant to me. The camera is marginally bigger, and notably, pleasantly, heavier. The D-Lux 3 leather case doesn’t fit, the new case, to the same design, is a snugger fit, although the leather of the belt loop is still too thin and will stretch with use, allowing the camera to hang away from the belt).

 

A key weakness

Loss of telephoto. 60mm 35mm equivalent is just marginally greater than 1:1 of a old ‘standard’ lens. The D-Lux 4 is a specialist camera for reportage close up with people (and to some extent for the built environment, food shots). A compromise I am happy with, but the D-Lux 3 with the new processing engine would also be an excellent camera for many?

 

A temporary weakness

D-Lux 4 RAW files currently openable and editable in Capture One. This will be corrected in Adobe Camera Raw 5.2 for Lightroom and Photoshop which, as of early November, was close to release. There is discussion about why the significant delay on the Adobe website and elsewhere – see also ‘the big surprise’ below.

 

I haven’t learnt to love Capture One in my brief time with it. I can see that some aspects are good compared to lightroom/aperture, but it is slow in rendering previews, and I miss critical tools such as local contrast (clarity), chromatic aberration correction (present in lightroom, note aperture) – there does appear to be some inbuilt correction within Capture One, but the selective option there is unimplemented for the D-lux 4.

 

Overall, I simple preferred the end results from Lightroom or Aperture. I realise that this is because it was/is primarily intended as a first step in processing, but the world has moved on, at least for me. NO printing facility, let alone soft- proofing.

 

A weakness?

A burning fire, glowing intense orange, correctly shown by D-Lux 3, shows intense magenta in D-Lux 4. Infra-red sensitivity/filter?

 

The big surprise

 

Was severe subterranean barrel distortion in the lens, well up the focal range. ‘Subterranean’ because this is corrected in software, and what you see on the viewfinder, and the end result when printed, matches and is very good. Revealed when converting the native RAW file into DNG and opening in eg Lightroom (NB image otherwise displays ‘correctly’ in Lightroom). When you open in Apple Aperture the pixels discarded when selecting any of the three ratios appear in a strip at one end, clearly demarcated with a black line, and can be cropped.

 

At the bottom of the page see image out of Capture One (no distortion), the DNG file (major distortion) and after correction and cropping in photoshop (bigger image than Capture One)

 

There has been a lot of discussion about this arising re the Panasonic. There is some outrage that the bottom end isn’t 24 mm equivalent, because part of the image is lost in the barrel distortion removal in Capture One (in the case of the D-Lux 4). However a) the cropped image, seen in the viewfinder is definitely wider angle than on the D-Lux 3, at least when stopped down, when the barrel distortion is corrected in eg photoshop (directly or via lightroom or aperture workflow), the available area for use is greater than that actually used by Capture One (see example below). In other words it may be that the bottom end, via this roundabout route, is actually greater than 24 mm equivalent, not that Leica/Panasonic aren’t delivering what it says on the lens.

 

While resulting in some loss of resolution, nevertheless the results to the corners of the corrected images is acceptable – there is a significant issue with the corners of the uncorrected DNG files and their derivatives – but the user was never meant to have access to this.

 

Perhaps someone with more time and patience than me would like to provide a definitive statement on what the effective wide angle range is, from automatically corrected and cropped, and user-corrected and cropped.

 

 

Sample RAW and full size jpg images

 

Click here for link to website and select folder D-Lux3 and 4 comparison to download the following files

 

NB Raw files: .DNG -= D-Lux 4, .RAW = D-Lux 3. Jpgs – camera as indicated below. ISO 100 (D-Lux 3) or 80 (D-lux 4) unless otherwise indicated

 

Generally for all the RAW photos, knock lightroom, noise reduction right down or off l and c, sharpening radius right down, masking off, moderate sharpening and ‘detail’, and experiment from there. Look to put ‘clarity’ up (experiment), and chromatic aberration Red/Cyan often to ca -30 (look at corners for effect).

 

 

L10000155.dng – showing results from ISO 200 in macro shot at 1/25. The wood grain of the table also shows the importance of adjusting Noise Reduction croma (Colour) right down to avoid ‘plastic’ effect. The setting I have this adjusted to in lightroom are luminance and color noise reduction 6 each, sharpening amount 25, radius 1, detail 25, masking 0. I think you may need to make the change from your defaults when you open it in eg lightroom.

 

 

 

Then Three images to illustrate barrel distortion and resolution

 

L1000454_CaptureOne.jpg – full size jpg of the result supplied by Capture One, and I believe what I saw in the viewfinder

 

L1000454.dng – the raw file as converted by Capture One and openable and fully adjustable by lightroom etc – see comments above re best settings

 

L1000454_lightroom2_corrected_rotated.jpg – final result in photoshop via lightroom. A fossilised Jurassic engine block, perhaps. (No, Permian, actually).

 

 

 

L10600644.RAW D-Lux 3 rock strata raw file for comparison with: L1000525.dng D-lux 4 See notes above re revealing optimum detail. Eg the yellow of the lichen patches is of a similar scale and nature to blue chroma noise, if you are too heavy removing the latter the colour of the lichen is also lost

 

 

 

L1060676.RAW D-lux 3, lots of potentially problematic black rock areas for streaking – look in bottom part of photo – though not as bad as I remember it 2 years ago – perhaps lightroom is more capable, or I have got better at exposing to minimise problem. For comparison with L1000556.dng D-Lux 4, a few seconds apart.

 

 

Then, pictures of dark heather and bright skys – with the D-Lux 3 the dark areas of the heather were dreadful, unusable 2 years ago (images were discarded). These, with the D-Lux 4 are technically more than acceptable (though my unease re sharpening within Capture One apparent). L1000578_CaptureOne.jpg, L1000578.dng, L1000581_Lightroom.jpg. See also L1000581CaptureOne.jpg, L1000581.dng, L1000581_Lightroom.jpg

 

Below - thumbnails automatically corrected for barrel distortion in Capture 1, as it appears in the DNG, and as I corrected it in photoshop (note bigger area compared to Capture 1). Go to website for full size files.

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!

[macgarvin]

One other highly useful improvement from the D-Lux 3 that I forgot to mention above is that, when reviewing photos, toggling the joystick left or right takes you to the previous or next image, at the same position and magnification. This is very useful, in a sequence, for quickly checking focus at a critical point of the image, for example when trying to capture a shot at low light levels

[BernhardJ]

I was utterly surprised and disappointed to find that I have to convert my Rawfiles through Capture One to import them into Aperture?

Aperture works fine with the M8. Is there any other way to work with Aperture for the D Lux 4 Raw files?

 

I have already bought the camera.....sorry for me

[stunsworth]

That C1 version of the image looks as if it's possibly the most over-sharpened I've seen here. Is it really that bad?

[mhoutman]

I was utterly surprised and disappointed to find that I have to convert my Rawfiles through Capture One to import them into Aperture?

Aperture works fine with the M8. Is there any other way to work with Aperture for the D Lux 4 Raw files?

 

I have already bought the camera.....sorry for me

 

we need some patience till apple release a Digital Camera RAW Compatibility Update

[ho_co]

I have already bought the camera.....sorry for me

 

Bernhard--Not to worry!

 

Adobe has already updated Camera Raw to accommodate the new RWL files for Bridge and Photoshop, and will soon update Lightroom.

 

Apple will do the same with Aperture.

 

Remember, when the M8 came out, only Capture One supported its DNGs. Then Adobe updated both ACR and Lightroom, and then Apple produced new system software to recognize the M8's files.

 

Same thing here. When the D-Lux 4 first shipped, it was also supported only by Capture One.

 

So you can work with the D-Lux 4 today via the bundled software or wait a bit till Apple adds the RWL file capability to OS X as mh said.

[mhoutman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bernhard--Not to worry!

 

Adobe has already updated Camera Raw to accommodate the new RWL files for Bridge and Photoshop

 

 

agreed but i have to wait for adobe lightroom 2.2 as updating cs 3 to 4 is currently no option for me. altenatively i hope to for apple update soon

[ho_co]

That C1 version of the image looks as if it's possibly the most over-sharpened I've seen here. Is it really that bad?

 

Hideous, isn't it? But Capture One lets you either turn the sharpening down or cut if off completely.

 

Strange, though, to ship that as a default.

[ho_co]

agreed but i have to wait for adobe lightroom 2.2 as updating cs 3 to 4 is currently no option for me. altenatively i hope to for apple update soon

 

No, no, I wasn't suggesting that. Just pointing out that we're following the same sequence here as we did with the M8.

 

Since Apple has put the file recognition hooks into the system, it's reasonable that it should take them a bit longer. But I'll wager it'll all be straightened out in the next month.

 

Actually, since Capture One comes with the camera and produces usable DNGs today, it's a minor short-term hindrance. In one aspect the Adobe DNG is 'better' because it reduces distortion compared with C1's DNGs, but that's at the cost of a much larger file.

 

I'll probably post more on this later because the differences interest me, but take a look at the following size differences, all from the same RWL original.

 

The ACR dng, C1 dng and C1 tiff are all produced directly from the RWL. Both PSDs are produced from the respective dngs.

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!

[sandymc]

Its worth noting that the the C1 and Adobe DNG's as converted above are very different internally - the C1 DNG had the original raw data, in Bayer matrix (pre-demosaicing) form. The Adobe file on the other hand is demosaiced - effectively, it's a TIF. The issue is that that the current DNG spec has no way to encode the barrel distortion compensation data, so you can either encode a DNG with original raw data, but without distortion compensation (C1) or encode it with demosaiced data, compensated for lens distortion (Adobe). Adobe are working a new revision of the DNG spec that would allow lens distortion data to be encoded into it.

 

Sandy

[BernhardJ]

Thank you for all kind replies.

I am now installing the Capture One CD to live with it until Aperture is updated. Was not aware (but have now learnt) of the different DNG formats. It would, though, be appreciated that the camera producers did not introduce new problems to their lifelines (ie customers)

[ho_co]

Sandy--I find it ironic that this digital negative format that was to be proof against going out of date is being updated because of visionary design from Panasonic.

 

I also find it excellent that Adobe has clearly spelled out the file differences and has already announced plans to update the standard to accommodate the mosaicked form.

 

The fact that the DNG format was robust and well designed in the first place is indicated in the fact that the standard was already capable of processing the de-mosaicked version of the Panasonic RWL with full data retention.

 

A win-win situation, currently with a couple ways to approach the solution!

 

 

Bernhard--In this case, Panasonic made a forward development, by putting some correction for optically intractable errors into the processing firmware. The annoyance is short-term as you wait for Apple's response.

 

BTW--You said you were "installing the Capture One CD to live with it until...." I think that's the right term, though the more I use the program the more I come to respect it.

[BernhardJ]

Howard,

Your kind and updating replies were really appreciated. Thank you,

[ho_co]

To add to Mac's information above, I made a couple pictures (handheld in Program mode with Auto ISO) and processed them in both Capture One and Adobe Camera Raw. The differences are very interesting.

 

The first is at shot at full wide:

L1000206 was made at 1/125 and f/2.0 at ISO 400, with lens at 5.1 mm, and then processed

into dng by ACR;

into dng by Capture One;

into tiff by Capture One.

 

The tiff and both dng's were then opened into Photoshop, where they were resized via Bicubic Sharper and saved as jpg for forum posting.

 

Here, the Capture One dng (left) has retained a great deal of barrel distortion. The ACR dng (right) shows a much lower but still noticeable level of barrel distortion. The Capture One tiff shows almost no linear distortion, but I haven't been able to figure out how to downsize it enough for upload.

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!

[ho_co]

At the lens's longest setting, though, things are less clear-cut:

 

L1000209 was made at 1/160 and f/2.8 at ISO 800, with lens at 12.8 mm and then processed

into dng by ACR;

into dng by Capture One;

into tiff by Capture One.

 

The tiff and both dng's were then opened into Photoshop, where they were resized via Bicubic Sharper and saved as jpg for forum posting.

 

Here, barrel distortion is still noticeable in the Capture One dng (top). The Capture One tiff seems completely flat. Distortion is almost invisible in the ACR dng (bottom), and requires comparison with the Capture One tiff to be noticeable at all.

 

(Again, I must be doing something wrong because I can't get Photoshop CS4 to downsize the Capture One tiff and convert it to jpg small enough to post it here. )

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!

[macgarvin]

life after death! - I thought this post was dead and buried . . .

 

I'm sure that support for .RWL will come in Apple aperture - I see that there has been discussion re both this and the LX3 on the Aperture discussion forum. It might be an idea for all of us who use Aperture to provide encouragement direct to Apple about not forgetting about .RWL files when they deal with the LX3, and to encourage them to at least equal the correction for colour aberration/ barrel distortion in CameraRaw DNG converter 5.2.

 

Steve - that C1 sharpening was at the stage of creating the jpg thumbnail within C1, I just checked the C1 box for sharpening and that was the default - if you look at the capture one .dng file via the link its ok - I do have other issues with C1 but that wasn't one of them.

 

There was some discussion over on LX3 forums regarding the cropping, and whether the lens wasn't really 24 mm 35mm equivalent at the bottom end. I did a quick visual comparison the Canon 24-105L through a Ds mk III viewfinder - that's not bragging, its just that the viewfinder image on that is 100%. From what I could see the 16:9 ratio on the viewfider of the D-Lux (ie +/- what you get with jpgs and dngs) is marginally greater, left to right than at 24mm on the Canon, on the 3:2 ratio marginally less. Given that there is quite a bit of usable image on the C1 dng outside that after correcting for barrel distortion, that for me counts as 24 mm equivalent, plus some bonus if you want to go digging around in the C1 dng.

 

I got a great technical answer in response to a question on another post about chromatic aberration, so here is another, driven by idle curiosity. Why would you design a lens that was 'natively' optically wider than 24 mm and then crop and manipulate? (I think the result is great, not complaining, just curious). The lens is kind of interesting in other ways - ie extends fully at wide angle and retracts with zoom - is that a generic characteristic of the summicron family? Last - perhaps for anyone familiar with scanning 35mm film - about where would you say the D-Lux is in resolution compared to 35 mm film grain Tri-X 400 ISO? Kodachrome 64? 25?

 

The twilight performance of the lens, and performance shooting into the sun is great - jou can get a feel for it here in a very iced up but glorious Glenlivet during the weekend - thought the images on this Aperture gallery are optimised for web and highly JPGed

 

Malcolm

[macgarvin]

Sandy interesting post, thanks, re the format of dng via C1 and Adobe

 

It has been my impression - now from working on quite a few images - that Adobe are also correcting for colour aberration in their dng conversion - do you (or anyone else!) think that either or both corrections was using data passed on from the camera in the rwl files, or that Adobe worked it out for themselves 'by hand' from the images?. I notice that the firmware can be updated: are these the sort of features that could be added in a firmware update if the information isn't currently included?

[ho_co]

It has been my impression ... that Adobe are also correcting for colour aberration in their dng conversion - do you (or anyone else!) think that either or both corrections was using data passed on from the camera in the rwl files...?

 

Mac, that's the point of this. That's the breakthrough achieved with Nikon D3 and D700 and with Panasonic DMC-G1, DMC-FX150, DMC-FZ28 DMC-LX3 and Leica D-Lux 4.

 

YES, both Capture One and ACR read the data from the RW2/RWL file.

 

That's how Capture One gets a corrected tiff. That's how ACR gets a corrected DNG etc.

 

You seem surprised at what Sandy said about the ACR update. Go read the data there, or where Sandy already posted it on the forum (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/70473-adobe-announces-d-lux-4-support.html#post729056), or where I did (http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/70383-dng-recover-edges-d-lux-4-a.html#post729526), or below.

 

You asked why design a lens that covers a larger area than needed to use it for other formats. How else would you do that? If the lens doesn't cover the corners of all the formats, it can't be used for them. That's how tilt and shift works on 35mm or large format, for example.

 

from Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Macintosh : Camera Raw 5.2 update

With the release of Camera Raw 5.2 (and upcoming release of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom® 2.2), there is an important exception in DNG file handling for the Panasonic DMC-LX3, Panasonic DMC-FX150, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Panasonic DMC-G1, and Leica D-LUX 4. For those who choose to convert these native, proprietary files to the DNG file format, a linear DNG format is the only conversion option available at this time. A linear DNG file has gone through a demosaic process that converts a single mosaic layer of red, green, and blue channel information into three distinct layers, one for each channel. The resulting linear DNG file is approximately three times the size of a mosaic DNG file or the original proprietary file format.

 

This exception is a temporary solution to help ensure that Panasonic's and Leica's intended image rendering from their proprietary raw file format is applied to an image when converted DNG files are viewed in third-party software titles. The same image-rendering process is applied automatically in Camera Raw 5.2 and in Photoshop Lightroom 2.2 when viewing the original proprietary raw file format.

 

 

BTW--If I seem more needlessly and rudely short-tempered than usual, I apologize. The reason is thatI just got a call from my mechanic. I took a car with fewer than 46,000 miles for an oil change and asked about a funny noise, and the service just called back saying I need a new engine. I guess it's better to drive it while you've got it instead of trying to make it last.

[ho_co]

Another comparison: How does DNG Recover Edges treat the Capture One and ACR files from the D-Lux 4?

 

Although the program introduces some garbage at one of the narrow sides of the image from Capture One (top here), those data are outside the image area. Look at the styrofoam cups and coffee urns to see how much more data are in the Capture One file than in the ACR one. However, the latter carries nearly the full correction of the RWL in addition to the extra edge pixels. The correction of the Capture One tiff is greater, but you can't expand it with DNG Recover Edges.

 

left--DNG from Capture One, expanded by DNG Recover Edges

right--DNG from ACR, expanded by DNG Recover Edges

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ho_co]

Another point exemplified by the last two images:

 

Often, the barrel distortion of the Capture One dng looks more natural than the flatter, geometrically more accurate rendering of ACR.

 

Compare the rendering of the coffee-sweetener canisters at the upper right. In reality they are cylindrical. Here neither image reproduces them as cylindrical, but the Capture One version doesn't call attention to the discrepancy as ACR does.

 

(Since it is even better corrected, the Capture One TIFF looks even more stretched than the ACR image.)

 

This effect is often incorrectly referred to as "wide-angle distortion," but the actual cause is the discrepancy in viewing distance as related to image size. If you maintain the same relationship between image size and viewing distance as the original subject-camera relationship, you'll see no distortion.

 

My surmise is that this is the reason Adobe has not fully corrected the barrel distortion.

 

Particularly with people near the edge of the frame, the Capture One distortion seems much more natural.