Leica and digital corrections

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Per PMA Interview: Panasonic: Digital Photography Review, in a Joinson/Askey interview with Ichiro Kitao, General Manager of Panasonic's DSC Product Planning Group, there was the following exchange in regard to Leica's feelings about including lens correction instructions with image output:

dpreview question: We ... don't think it's an issue at all how you get the performance you want as long as the results are good, but to many purists this is hard to swallow. So when you're designing a lens now you're designing it partly optically and partly digitally?

 

Kitao response: Yes. Of course we work closely with the lens engineers. But Leica doesn't allow us to use digital corrections, so that's why there are no Leica lenses for the Micro G system. But of course, we have a plan with Leica as part of the roadmap.

[miami91]

Per PMA Interview: Panasonic: Digital Photography Review, in a Joinson/Askey interview with Ichiro Kitao, General Manager of Panasonic's DSC Product Planning Group, there was the following exchange in regard to Leica's feelings about including lens correction instructions with image output:

 

 

Leica clearly allowed it on the D-Lux 4/LX3 collaboration. So if this is true, I wonder when their philosophy changed? After they saw the results from the D-Lux 4?

 

Jeff.

[TimF]

But that camera isn't a Leica, and, as has been pointed out frequently, Panasonic are not incapable of designing their own lenses.

[miami91]

But that camera isn't a Leica, and, as has been pointed out frequently, Panasonic are not incapable of designing their own lenses.

 

 

Then what do you think the Panasonic rep is talking about? Since Panasonic isn't involved in the M, R, or S lines, when they refer to collaboration with Leica they could only be referring to the compact digicams and/or Digilux 3, right? It should be noted that the lens on the D-Lux 4 and LX3 has Leica's branding on it, and since the Panasonic rep is distinguishing this from the micro four-thirds lenses which don't bear Leica's name, presumably Leica had involvement in the design of the D-Lux 4 lens.

 

Jeff.

[stevelap]

Perhaps the Panasonic rep was referring to 'proper' lenses, ie interchangeable lenses (for 4/3 and m4/3 in this instance), as opposed to built-in p&s lenses? We know that Leica cares deeply for it's serious lenses........maybe they're not quite so fussy about the badge engineered p&s stuff.

[miami91]

Perhaps the Panasonic rep was referring to 'proper' lenses, ie interchangeable lenses (for 4/3 and m4/3 in this instance), as opposed to built-in p&s lenses? We know that Leica cares deeply for it's serious lenses........maybe they're not quite so fussy about the badge engineered p&s stuff.

 

 

You may be right. Hard to know without more context. Also, given that no one outside of Leica or Panasonic seems to know what extent the cooperation has been on the various projects (Digiluxes, D-Luxes, four thirds lenses), and those inside the companies don't publicly talk about it, it's hard to know who's responsible for what components. I know many people seem to think that Leica's role is no more than branding, and maybe that's true, but I've never seen any credible evidence either way.

 

Jeff.

[stevelap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You may be right. Hard to know without more context. Also, given that no one outside of Leica or Panasonic seems to know what extent the cooperation has been on the various projects (Digiluxes, D-Luxes, four thirds lenses), and those inside the companies don't publicly talk about it, it's hard to know who's responsible for what components. I know many people seem to think that Leica's role is no more than branding, and maybe that's true, but I've never seen any credible evidence either way.

 

Jeff.

 

Indeed. Possibly significant that the Panasonic man said "....we have a plan with Leica as part of the roadmap....".

[sdai]

The D Lux 4 fisheye lens clearly has a Leica moniker on it ... what a load of BS.

 

I think it's good to say Leica never tried to correct their lens optically , but there are proof they did try to correct the result on sensor (by using offset microlens on the M8, and will use it on the S2), and in firmware (with the DMR).

 

Is sensor correction/compensation considered as digital correction?

 

Leica better stay away with these [beeeep by admin], they could only ruin their reputation.

[J Mitchum]

dpreview question: We ... don't think it's an issue at all how you get the performance you want as long as the results are good, but to many purists this is hard to swallow. So when you're designing a lens now you're designing it partly optically and partly digitally?

 

Kitao response: Yes. Of course we work closely with the lens engineers. But Leica doesn't allow us to use digital corrections, so that's why there are no Leica lenses for the Micro G system. But of course, we have a plan with Leica as part of the roadmap.

 

dpreview question: First up; there's a lot of demand for a smaller Micro Four Thirds body - more 'rangefinder' style than faux DSLR. It's not really a question, it's more just telling you what they want. But do you have any comment?

 

Kitao response: (mock surprise) I didn't hear anything about such a request? This is news to me!

 

 

It sounds to me like Panasonic and Leica are working on a followup to the L1/Digilux 3 only this time using micro Four Thirds, essentially a G1 but with the "rangefinder style" body and mechanical controls we like. Hopefully this will result in something less bulky like its predecessor the LC1/Digilux 2. I'm not sure what to make of the digital correction comment. It seems to apply to interchangeable lenses only so does that mean the followup to the L1/Digilux 3 would have a lens designed and built by Leica (higher quality and no need for digital correction) or that it would have a fixed lens like the LC1/Digilux 2? Hmmmm.

[whertha]

I'm not sure what to make of the digital correction comment. It seems to apply to interchangeable lenses only so does that mean the followup to the L1/Digilux 3 would have a lens designed and built by Leica (higher quality and no need for digital correction) or that it would have a fixed lens like the LC1/Digilux 2? Hmmmm.

Digital photography seems to be more a "systems" approach that combines an integrated sequence from sensing, in-camera processing and post processing. The logic in isolating any one of these steps as good or bad is not clear to me. However, what I think some might say is allow for a manual override to disable/enable the processing to take place. Certainly that is the case for in-camera processing (i.e., I can shoot raw) and post processing (I don't have to do it). So the third element here would be to some how disable (or just not buy) lenses that implement digital corrections. I suspect such digital lenses would be offered at a lower cost.

[rosuna]

(Almost) any software manipulation after picture taking seriously affects image quality. Sometimes it is better to "process" the image than not to process it, but... a good optical correction always is the best solution. When the problems goes the chain down... they become worse.

[ho_co]

... So the third element here would be to some how disable (or just not buy) lenses that implement digital corrections. I suspect such digital lenses would be offered at a lower cost.

 

Or, since the corrections are in glass and metal instead of firmware, and since only we connoisseurs and cognoscenti care, maybe offered as "the purist's option" at a higher price?

[stunsworth]

Great first post, you may even get to make a second.

[smallcaps]

thanks and you're absolutely right. second post.

[AlanG]

(Almost) any software manipulation after picture taking seriously affects image quality. Sometimes it is better to "process" the image than not to process it, but... a good optical correction always is the best solution. When the problems goes the chain down... they become worse.

 

I think you have to consider if it may be possible to get better results from a lens that is originally designed needing a specific correction such as distortion or c/a. Maybe this will produce a better overall result than the compromises in the optical design that have to be employed to get rid of the distortion or c/a. And some lens designs may only be possible with software correction so they will beat having nothing else comparable.

 

As this is a visual medium, one can always do a visual test rather than deal with theories. I took a 60+ meg tiff, and did a test where I added about 10% barrel distortion (distortion set to 10 in ACDSee Pro 2.5) and then corrected it. I did 3 complete cycles so this would be like correcting an image six times. I didn't think the detail loss was very great or really noticeable. Here they are showing 100% crop from the corner where the effect is the greatest. I saved as a tiff every time I made a correction and then re-opened the file for the counter correction. Keep in mind these are jpegs.

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!

[stunsworth]

thanks and you're absolutely right. second post.

 

Not quite.

[jaapv]

I think you have to consider if it may be possible to get better results from a lens that is originally designed needing a specific correction such as distortion or c/a. Maybe this will produce a better overall result than the compromises in the optical design that have to be employed to get rid of the distortion or c/a. And some lens designs may only be possible with software correction so they will beat having nothing else comparable.

 

As this is a visual medium, one can always do a visual test rather than deal with theories. I took a 60+ meg tiff, and did a test where I added about 10% barrel distortion (distortion set to 10 in ACDSee Pro 2.5) and then corrected it. I did 3 complete cycles so this would be like correcting an image six times. I didn't think the detail loss was very great or really noticeable. Here they are showing 100% crop from the corner where the effect is the greatest. I saved as a tiff every time I made a correction and then re-opened the file for the counter correction. Keep in mind these are jpegs.

 

Interesting experiment, Alan. I think the differences are quite visible - even on a web jpeg - but then this is a torture test.

[AlanG]

Interesting experiment, Alan. I think the differences are quite visible - even on a web jpeg - but then this is a torture test.

 

The final image is slightly distorted (in places there are fine rippling of straight lines) because these were generic corrections rather than one specifically designed for a particular lens. Plus the barrel and pincushion changes are not exact opposites of each other. And of course there were 6 passes.

 

I just thought it shows that it isn't too destructive. Away from the corners, little is shifted. I use DXO and C1 4.6 Pro for lens correction and the images always look better. I encourage everyone to do some tests and form their own conclusions.

[ho_co]

(Almost) any software manipulation after picture taking seriously affects image quality....

Rubén, I respect your opinion very highly. It's clear, for example, that (almost?) any post-processing manipulations will lose data.

 

But what about a case where aberrations were intentionally left for later processing (D-Lux 4 et al)? (Not that I understand the design choice, but it seems to work.)

 

What about a case where a camera can automatically make corrections for CA, say, as is claimed for some current Nikon models, or for other unspecified aberrations as implied by the Leica R ROM lenses? (Assumption on my part about the latter; I'm not very familiar with them.)

 

In my generation, image corrections were made in glass, and what is so exciting to me about some of these new ideas is that that practice is being re-evaluated.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Holmz]

Rubén, I respect your opinion very highly. It's clear, for example, that (almost?) any post-processing manipulations will lose data.

 

But what about a case where aberrations were intentionally left for later processing (D-Lux 4 et al)? (Not that I understand the design choice, but it seems to work.)

 

What about a case where a camera can automatically make corrections for CA, say, as is claimed for some current Nikon models, or for other unspecified aberrations as implied by the Leica R ROM lenses? (Assumption on my part about the latter; I'm not very familiar with them.)

 

In my generation, image corrections were made in glass, and what is so exciting to me about some of these new ideas is that that practice is being re-evaluated.

 

Yes!

Poor processing degrades the image - but there are some examples of procesisng that regain image quality.

Software will start to really eat into the high end lens market by allowing cheap lenses to approach expensives ones, through software.

And the expensive ones may not get a whole lot of improvement.

I am thinking mainly MTF curves - but there are other techniques as well.