It may look horrible, but it's not mathematically huge. This magnification is at worst something like 10% or so. So how is this rectilinearity so easy to fix?īasically, we have to magnify (in this case), or shrink, pixels when converting from what the sensor saw to what's actually being output. Result is a $299 16/2.8 that's far sharper than the 14/2.8 of the 90s that cost 10-15x more in real terms and was 4x the weight. we've improved perhaps every aspect of the lens, at the expense of rectilinearity, then made the nightmare horrible resulting distortion simply magically disappear. Suddenly the lens is halfway towards being a fisheye. Improve flare at the expense of rectilinearity. Improve LCA at the expense of rectilinearity. Then improve sharpness at the expense of rectilinearity. This is the important thing: we can then trade practically everything else off at the expense of rectilinearity! Improve size at the expense of rectilinearity. Once you realize how easily and accurately it can be fixed, you can actually use it as a toxic dumping ground. If we can take any given image defect, such as rectilinearity, and fix them in software nearly perfectly, that's as close as you can get to a free lunch, no? We don't have to improve rectilinearity at the expense of size or color fringes or cost! We can get it without hurting anything else.Īnd that's just the first step. You can get more aperture for less sharpness, more sharpness for worse size and cost and weight, better cost for worse out-of-focus highlight behavior or worse lateral chromatic aberration, and so on. Lens development has a dozen (or more!) trade-offs. Click to expand.again leads to the question: why do you believe non stretched would produce better results?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |