>>Told ya. ;-) My data is based on direct, personal experimentation.
There is
>>often a great deal of highlight data that
>>ACR can successfully recover, that just isn't there in Viewer2. I
don't know if
>>you remember was back to the 5D review
>>in dpreview. They compared highlight recovery in DPP to ACR.
>><http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/23>
Now that you point it out again I remember seeing that data.
>>If you want to see the difference, open an ORF in RawTherapee, or any
other
>>converter that ignores, or may be set to
>>ignore, the lens data. Here's a very clear example of how ACR (as
well as
>>Viewer2) uses the lens data to correct linear
>>distortion and vignetting.
>><http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Misc/_1153848_lindistor
t.htm>
Yes, less misinformed than old data--didn't take too many months for
Adobe to use the metadata it seems. I now recall that you said that ACR
corrects to about 80 % which is about the same as for Canyon lenses but
no slider adjustments are available. Last I checked the LCA correction
metadata was only valid for Panny lenses on Panny bodies. Perhaps that
is still true. I still see some use the supplemental profiles to
correct the residual geometric distortion or still use PT lens. I see
that the horizon you corrected with the metadata still has about 10-20%
residual barrel distortion left as I analyze with my trusty straight
edge. Enjoyed the roll-over.
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|