Does anyone here know what the "system performance" is? When we correct
distortion with software we pay a price in resolution from having
expanded some pixel locations. Of course, we pay the same sort of price
in using a shift lens which probably does not have the same resolution
at far (shifted) edge as in the center. Correcting CA involves shifting
pixel positions based on color and angle from center. Just like
distortion correction, moving a pixel requires something else be
invented to fill the space previously occupied by the moved pixel.
What's the actual effect? Can the software do as well as a moderately
expensive lens? (I don't include no-holds-barred Leicas here)
Chuck Norcutt
Wayne Harridge wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> bs.pearce@xxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>
>> I thini that we have gone from making the best lens possible to making the
>> software that
>> can fix the lens designers mistakes. That's just plain wrong.
>>
>
> For the camera maker it's all a matter of optimizing profit.
>
> There is no doubt that lenses with superb performance can be designed and
> built - at a cost.
> Some people may not worry about the cost, others want the best system
> performance at the lowest cost. If the manufacturers can produce the same
> end result with a combination of cheap manufacturing plus a bit of software
> at a fraction of the cost of the "ultimate lens quality" then why not ?
> Isn't it the final result that's important ?
>
> ...Wayne
>
> Wayne Harridge
>
> http://lrh.structuregraphs.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.0/1556 - Release Date: 7/16/2008
> 4:56 PM
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|