I'll be waiting and watching for the outcome.
Chuck Norcutt
On 8/9/2011 5:36 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 8/7/2011 4:00 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> . . .
>> The geometric distortion is corrected in part by subject distance which
>> should make it better--in actuality appears
>> to matter very little in practice compared to CS5 profiles.
>
> I'm sure there are occasions where it makes a difference. But how often - and
> will anyone notice, or care? There are
> very few subjects where such precision is useful.
>
>> The deconvolution is applied to the softer areas of the lens
>> and can help a tad at F4 at longer FL's with the 24-105, but for web
>> presentation , doubt it is worth the trouble.
>
> As you say, is it worth the trouble? If the app were otherwise worthwhile,
> saving the time of differential amounts and
> masking would be nice.
>
>> For some reason the RAW level NR is very very good for the G9 and with
>> flash at ISO 400, it excels and is especially good with skin tones.
>> Fairly small role.
>> It just took me 200 images to find out. Oh, the volume anamorphosis
>> correction can be very nice to use, however.
>>
>> http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/optics_geometry_corrections/anamorphosis
>>
>> Perhaps there is a PS plug in for that.
>
> A little research shows that there are other solutions in PS and plug-ins.
> It turns out that I have done some of that
> sort of correction on rare occasions _ I just didn't know the name.
>
>> I had no clue you used NI at lower ISO's.
>
> All a function of the camera. I don't do so on 5D images. G11 images have
> noise in deep shadows even at lowest ISO, so
> some get NR. I've been shooting by far the majority of images for the last
> three+ months with the 60D. It still has a
> bit of noise in shadows at ISO 100, but not much. OTH, I've been shooting a
> great deal with 'Highlight tone priority'.
> That gives a softer shoulder for greater dynamic range and more highlight
> recovery capability - at the price of some
> added noise in shadows.
>
> Very useful for many kinds of shots in bright sun, but often means using NR
> even at ISO 200. It seems to be a different
> thing than high ISO noise.
>
>> Seems I should just pony up for the new version unless imagenomic utility is
>> better.
>
> I'm not married to NI. It was simply the best I found at the time. If
> Imagenomic works better, I'll happily switch.
> Until recently, most of my web images got a final step of Intellisharpen II.
> Now many get a Focus Magic OOF 1 treatment
> adjusted for effect by layer opacity.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|