Opinion: Love it or Hate it, Digital Correction is here to Stay

[Klendothir]

I just started a subscription There’s a 30 days free trial period included, so I decided to try it out.

Let us know the results.

I am genuinely and positively surprised. I'll probably keep it and include it in my LrC workflow for specific cases... NnIP is a standalone app which allows batch processing and outputs raw (.CR3) files... That means one can apply Canon's DLO profiles to the pictures and edit them in an LrC workflow. I am only interested in the DLO capabilities, though denoising seems to be at least on par with Lightroom's AI denoise capabilities... I didn't bother checking the .CRN files which are only readable by Canon's DPP (and HUGE...) Here's an example. EOS R8 + RF 35mm f/1.8, 1/50s at f/1.8, 1600 ISO, left corner, zoomed 200%. First image is LrC with the appropriate lens profile activated and AI denoise. Second image is LrC with the appropriate lens profile actived but denoise and DLO applied via NnIP beforehand. This has been quite eye opening to me...

 

[Klendothir]

Same image, top right corner...

 

[roby17269]

There certainly is:

https://www.canon.co.uk/pro/infobank/neural-network-technology/

I have asked twice here if anyone has paid to use it, but with no response.

Well, it seems it is not available for the R5, so I am saved

 

[AlanF]

Well, it seems it is not available for the R5, so I am saved

I wouldn't describe as having an R5ii as being doomed.

 

[chik0240]

This is exactly why I am still using exclusively EF lens collections with the R5 II... technically the RF with profile is technically superior, but then the not-applied version are too far off from a normal lens it's almost always required to be used, which, makes almost all lens character-less, and those photos are often more boring...

 

[alFR]

Second image is LrC with the appropriate lens profile actived but denoise and DLO applied via NnIP beforehand.

If DLO applies lens corrections (it requires lens data so I assumed it did) aren’t you effectively applying the lens profile twice by doing this? Or does DLO not do the “standard” distortion corrections at all but something different? It’s hard to tell from the description on Canon’s site.

 

[Klendothir]

If DLO applies lens corrections (it requires lens data so I assumed it did) aren’t you effectively applying the lens profile twice by doing this? Or does DLO not do the “standard” distortion corrections at all but something different? It’s hard to tell from the description on Canon’s site.

It doesn't apply the "standard" distortion corrections. You have to activate the correction profile in LrC to get rid of the distortions..

 

[DocInfoSci]

If DLO applies lens corrections (it requires lens data so I assumed it did) aren’t you effectively applying the lens profile twice by doing this? Or does DLO not do the “standard” distortion corrections at all but something different? It’s hard to tell from the description on Canon’s site.

DLO applies corrections that go beyond stretching and vignetting. The lens’ field curvature can be corrected; astigmatism and coma can be addressed; and both axial and spherical chromatic aberrations can be reduced. Various other lens imperfections due to material, light bending, diffusion in air gaps, etc. can be adjusted as Canon enables. The exact corrections depend on what Canon provides in the data and the age of the DLO interpreter (in-camera vs Mac/PC hosted software, camera model, etc.) so the effect varies between contexts, but essentially Canon engineers provide data about the lens’s design and DLO calculates how the image should be adjusted based on how the light does travel through the lens and therefore what should be presented in a more ideal situation. The raw file itself isn’t modified, insomuch as I am aware, but metadata is added to the raw file for DLO software to use, so while camera bodies are limited to JPEGs and (since models like the R5 and R6) HEICs, desktop systems can also produce TIFFs.

One downside for in-camera corrections is that it takes CPU power and time to do the work, which slows down how fast the HEIC or JPEG files can be produced. I use max DLO in my R6 and have never noticed an issue with animals running about and EF lenses with their limited AF drive in play, but I read that some people do notice this difference and don’t like it — but even then those people could just process the raws on a computer as part of a more advanced image processing workflow.

And yeah, as people mention Canon’s desktop DPP software is showing its age so there’s a bunch of grumbling about at least modernizing the software or passing the capability on to third parties. I just use it to get a DLO refined TIFF that I then edit somewhere else.

 

[Sporgon]

DLO applies corrections that go beyond stretching and vignetting. The lens’ field curvature can be corrected;

How can a lens’s field curvature be corrected in post processing software ?

 

[Klendothir]

DLO applies corrections that go beyond stretching and vignetting. The lens’ field curvature can be corrected; astigmatism and coma can be addressed; and both axial and spherical chromatic aberrations can be reduced. Various other lens imperfections due to material, light bending, diffusion in air gaps, etc. can be adjusted as Canon enables. The exact corrections depend on what Canon provides in the data and the age of the DLO interpreter (in-camera vs Mac/PC hosted software, camera model, etc.) so the effect varies between contexts, but essentially Canon engineers provide data about the lens’s design and DLO calculates how the image should be adjusted based on how the light does travel through the lens and therefore what should be presented in a more ideal situation. The raw file itself isn’t modified, insomuch as I am aware, but metadata is added to the raw file for DLO software to use, so while camera bodies are limited to JPEGs and (since models like the R5 and R6) HEICs, desktop systems can also produce TIFFs.

One downside for in-camera corrections is that it takes CPU power and time to do the work, which slows down how fast the HEIC or JPEG files can be produced. I use max DLO in my R6 and have never noticed an issue with animals running about and EF lenses with their limited AF drive in play, but I read that some people do notice this difference and don’t like it — but even then those people could just process the raws on a computer as part of a more advanced image processing workflow.

And yeah, as people mention Canon’s desktop DPP software is showing its age so there’s a bunch of grumbling about at least modernizing the software or passing the capability on to third parties. I just use it to get a DLO refined TIFF that I then edit somewhere else.

As I mentioned, Canon's NnIP produces .CR3 files for further edit, that allows to avoid the TIFF "detour"

 

[roby17269]

I wouldn't describe as having an R5ii as being doomed.

Just a case of temptation being there or not

 

[DocInfoSci]

How can a lens’s field curvature be corrected in post processing software ?

Good question, but Canon writes it down in many places. As an example:

https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/in-camera-lens-corrections/#:~:text=Digital%20Lens%20Optimizer&text=It%20is%20able%20to%20correct,camera%20post%2Dshot%20editing%20function.

Search for curvature.

I have the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM lens and it is noted for its field curvature. I do feel apparent sharpness is improved across an image with DLO applied (as distinct from bokeh). So much so I tossed it back into my autumn travel bag along with my 24mm f/1.4L II USM prime and other comparables.

My guess is DLO can apply non-uniform and non-circular sharpening and contrast adjustments, so as it “determines” where focus would naturally fall off from the selected point of focus such areas would get certain amounts of enhancement.

DLO has to work with the image data provided in the raw to start with so I’m sure there are limits, but in many scenarios involving my R6 and the various EF lenses across my lens stable — including 2x extender scenarios — the results are usually quite appreciable. After a while of experimenting I now just leave it on max for in-camera JPEGs and usually something similar when making TIFFs.

 

[PhotonShark]

Lenses these days are a two-part system: the physical lens, and the software/profiles needed for mandatory corrections. It seems to me that for manufacturers, the value is in the lens and not the software or profiles. If anything, giving away the profiles adds value. Having companies like dxo retro-engineer the corrections seems counterproductive to me.

Exactly!

 

[sturm3n]

Everyone upset about interpolation is gonna flip when they found out what “debayering” is.

As we all know, lens design is about tradeoffs. If y’all want to pay for and carry around all the extra glass elements that these “optically perfect” lenses would require, be my guest. But I welcome smaller, lighter, fewer glass element lenses using digital rather than optical corrections as long as the performance is up to snuff. And I think any rigorous lens testing methodology shows that most of the L-series lenses have the performance we all expect, regardless of the correction type used.