Lens cast correction

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes you can make a DNG for other programs if you want or just stay in C1 , which i would think most folks do and just output to your 16 bit Tif files. You have the option to do either.

[thsinar]

Thank you.

So it is basically a step more, when you wish to go to DNG applications. How long does a DNG conversion take, for one image?

Yes you can make a DNG for other programs if you want or just stay in C1 , which i would think most folks do and just output to your 16 bit Tif files. You have the option to do either.

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes it would be a step more in a sense either you pick DNG or Tif as your output but only takes a 2 seconds and opened into the ACR window in CS4 ( Very Fast). I did notice something interesting here my original Raw file from my P25 is 27.5 mg than the outputted DNG jumped to 43.5 mgs

Of course you do not have to open in ACR if you don't want and just batch to a folder than work with them later. Also in C 1 you can add processing recipes in which at the same time process a jpeg, tif and/or a DNG into a folder or really any size you want. Pretty powerful setup

[thsinar]

and that is a shaded DNG, which opens in ACR and with 43.5 MB?

Yes it would be a step more in a sense either you pick DNG or Tif as your output but only takes a 2 seconds and opened into the ACR window in CS4 ( Very Fast). I did notice something interesting here my original Raw file from my P25 is 27.5 mg than the outputted DNG jumped to 43.5 mgs

[Guy Mancuso]

Yes that is the analyzed file that you did . I think the shading file and the analyzed file are just using a different naming convention but are the same as i understand it in the Sinar software. Not exactly sure how the Sinar software works so please correct me if I have that wrong

[BJNY]

I think it would be less confusing to use "LCC'ed" than "analyzed".

[thsinar]

no, the shading file remains the shading file, always. The shaded image created with this shading file is saved separately (wherever one chooses to), so that you always keep your original (RAW) one. The nice part of the Sinar workflow is that all happens in one single step: a DNG shaded file, with lens vignetting correction, with centerfold (done before), etc ...

Yes that is the analyzed file that you did . I think the shading file and the analyzed file are just using a different naming convention but are the same as i understand it in the Sinar software. Not exactly sure how the Sinar software works so please correct me if I have that wrong

[Guy Mancuso]

I think it would be less confusing to use "LCC'ed" than "analyzed".

Probably right Billy

[John_Black]

Thierry -

With C1 the LCC file is a raw file, once it has been selected LCC file C1 and saved as a preset, C1 incorporates that into its preferences and stores the data somewhere.  I know where those LCC preferences are stored (on a Mac), but I do not know where it actually puts the raw data.  The original raw file wish is source LCC file is always there and can be saved for later recall.  

As for the file being corrected, the LCC can be changed at any time in C1.  I had numerous presets for the same lens which I created in the studio and then applied to all subsequent images whether shot in the studio or outdoors.  My standard grouping of LCC presets for a lens was -

1)  80mm Landscape, wide-open @ 6 Feet
2)  80mm Landscape, wide-open @ infinity
3)  80mm Landscape, F11 @ 6 Feet
4)  80mm Landscape, F11 @ infinity
5)  80mm Portrait, wide-open @ 6 Feet
6)  80mm Portrait, wide-open @ infinity
7)  80mm Portrait, F11 @ 6 Feet
 80mm Portrait, F11 @ infinity

In practice I found #4 and #8 worked for just about everything taken with a 80mm lenses.  The other versions had subtle differences.  If #4 or #8 didn't work well enough, then I'd try the other variants.  Since it's just a drop down menu (with all the presets), toggling between the LCC was very easy.  One thing that I always felt influenced the effectiveness was the white balance.  If the picture was 4000K and the LCC was created at 5500k, then correction didn't seem quite as effective.  Usually my stock LCC's were good enough that I didn't worry about it.  

It's been nearly a year since using C1 with a Phase back, so I may be wrong here, but I thought in C1 Version 4 the LCC settings could be copied and applied to subsequent files?

[Guy Mancuso]

Thierry -

With C1 the LCC file is a raw file, once it has been selected LCC file C1 and saved as a preset, C1 incorporates that into its preferences and stores the data somewhere.  I know where those LCC preferences are stored (on a Mac), but I do not know where it actually puts the raw data.  The original raw file wish is source LCC file is always there and can be saved for later recall.  

As for the file being corrected, the LCC can be changed at any time in C1.  I had numerous presets for the same lens which I created in the studio and then applied to all subsequent images whether shot in the studio or outdoors.  My standard grouping of LCC presets for a lens was -

1)  80mm Landscape, wide-open @ 6 Feet
2)  80mm Landscape, wide-open @ infinity
3)  80mm Landscape, F11 @ 6 Feet
4)  80mm Landscape, F11 @ infinity
5)  80mm Portrait, wide-open @ 6 Feet
6)  80mm Portrait, wide-open @ infinity
7)  80mm Portrait, F11 @ 6 Feet
 80mm Portrait, F11 @ infinity

In practice I found #4 and #8 worked for just about everything taken with a 80mm lenses.  The other versions had subtle differences.  If #4 or #8 didn't work well enough, then I'd try the other variants.  Since it's just a drop down menu (with all the presets), toggling between the LCC was very easy.  One thing that I always felt influenced the effectiveness was the white balance.  If the picture was 4000K and the LCC was created at 5500k, then correction didn't seem quite as effective.  Usually my stock LCC's were good enough that I didn't worry about it.  

It's been nearly a year since using C1 with a Phase back, so I may be wrong here, but I thought in C1 Version 4 the LCC settings could be copied and applied to subsequent files?

Yes they can be copied and pasted to one or as many files as needed.

[rainer_v]

Thierry -

With C1 the LCC file is a raw file, once it has been selected LCC file C1 and saved as a preset, C1 incorporates that into its preferences and stores the data somewhere.  I know where those LCC preferences are stored (on a Mac), but I do not know where it actually puts the raw data.  The original raw file wish is source LCC file is always there and can be saved for later recall.  

As for the file being corrected, the LCC can be changed at any time in C1.  I had numerous presets for the same lens which I created in the studio and then applied to all subsequent images whether shot in the studio or outdoors.  My standard grouping of LCC presets for a lens was -

1)  80mm Landscape, wide-open @ 6 Feet
2)  80mm Landscape, wide-open @ infinity
3)  80mm Landscape, F11 @ 6 Feet
4)  80mm Landscape, F11 @ infinity
5)  80mm Portrait, wide-open @ 6 Feet
6)  80mm Portrait, wide-open @ infinity
7)  80mm Portrait, F11 @ 6 Feet
 80mm Portrait, F11 @ infinity

In practice I found #4 and #8 worked for just about everything taken with a 80mm lenses.  The other versions had subtle differences.  If #4 or #8 didn't work well enough, then I'd try the other variants.  Since it's just a drop down menu (with all the presets), toggling between the LCC was very easy.  One thing that I always felt influenced the effectiveness was the white balance.  If the picture was 4000K and the LCC was created at 5500k, then correction didn't seem quite as effective.  Usually my stock LCC's were good enough that I didn't worry about it.  

It's been nearly a year since using C1 with a Phase back, so I may be wrong here, but I thought in C1 Version 4 the LCC settings could be copied and applied to subsequent files?

with not shifteable lenses i have the same experience. one white reference @f8 or f11 is usually enough. with shift lenses i strictly shoot before every scene a white file.
i dont find it sufficient to apply pre- produced white references for this purpose ( shifted lenses ).

[ericstaud]

no, the shading file remains the shading file, always. The shaded image created with this shading file is saved separately (wherever one chooses to), so that you always keep your original (RAW) one. The nice part of the Sinar workflow is that all happens in one single step: a DNG shaded file, with lens vignetting correction, with centerfold (done before), etc ...

Thierry,  

Can you take the corrected DNG file back into Sinar's software for final adjustments and processing into an RGB file?

Can you worked tethered in the Sinar software and have the incoming files use the currently selected shading reference?

[rainer_v]

how works phocus? does it allow to export corrected dngs or similar files which can be opened in 3.party sw?

[thsinar]

hi Eric,

Thierry,  

Can you take the corrected DNG file back into Sinar's software for final adjustments and processing into an RGB file?

Yes, of course you can, why not? One can even create TIF or JPG shaded files (directly, without first doing it on the DNG)

Can you worked tethered in the Sinar software and have the incoming files use the currently selected shading reference?

Yes, tethered or un-tethered.

Best regards,
Thierry

[ericstaud]

hi Eric,



Yes, of course you can, why not? One can even create TIF or JPG shaded files (directly, without first doing it on the DNG)


Yes, tethered or un-tethered.

Best regards,
Thierry

That is all good.  Those were holes in the Sinar software when I was shown it by a rep in Los Angeles in late 2006.  This is when I ended up going to Phase One.  It seems all the brands have reach a much higher level of maturity with their color uniformity correction.  I was shown the latest Leaf solution in New York just last October and it seemed very user friendly and fast.

[pixjohn]

Hi Eric, I remember that demo, Thats why i stayed with the Leaf back through all the turmoil to get a good working gain adjuster. That rep from Sinar is now with Leaf.

That is all good.  Those were holes in the Sinar software when I was shown it by a rep in Los Angeles in late 2006.  This is when I ended up going to Phase One.  It seems all the brands have reach a much higher level of maturity with their color uniformity correction.  I was shown the latest Leaf solution in New York just last October and it seemed very user friendly and fast.

[pixjohn]

I also want to clarify a few comments from other  posts.  It  sounded like I said Leaf was the only company to have a lens fall off solution. I just talked about Leaf since that is what I own, and shoot with. I never said anything about any other manufactures having or not having a solution.  I went with Leaf when I purchased my back because they where the only company to have a working correction. I had a lot of issue with it, but Leaf came through with a fast and easy workflow.

[thsinar]

Yes Erich, since 2006 a lot of things have changed, for the good, from each manufacturer, IMO.

I understand and recognize that all applications do somehow have a good working shading tool. Differences can however be found in the way one has to handle the files, how many steps it needs to get a (shaded) DNG ready to go straight into DNG applications, if it allows vignetting correction at the same time when the shading is applied, or needs another step, if it does allow for the softening or not (when the shading is used at the same time by the tool to correct centerfold and dust issues, which leads to differences in IQ) of the shading file, if an automated batch process with different shadings is possible, etc ...

Thanks for your information,
Thierry

That is all good.  Those were holes in the Sinar software when I was shown it by a rep in Los Angeles in late 2006.  This is when I ended up going to Phase One.  It seems all the brands have reach a much higher level of maturity with their color uniformity correction.  I was shown the latest Leaf solution in New York just last October and it seemed very user friendly and fast.

[rainer_v]

I also want to clarify a few comments from other  posts.  It  sounded like I said Leaf was the only company to have a lens fall off solution. I just talked about Leaf since that is what I own, and shoot with. I never said anything about any other manufactures having or not having a solution.  I went with Leaf when I purchased my back because they where the only company to have a working correction. I had a lot of issue with it, but Leaf came through with a fast and easy workflow.

i want to remember in the brumbaer tools. they exist since beginning of 2006 and have been the first solution which allowed cast corrrection, centerfold correction and lens fall off correction as well as the fastest dng workflow, as i believe till today.
several companies at that stage even havent admitted to their clients to have any of these issues with their backs.

[pixjohn]

If i am not mistaken Leaf had a working correction in V8 before that? I also believe the brumbaer tool did not work tethered? It also dropped Leaf support.

This is starting to sound like a play ground conversation,  mine is better then yours.  

i want to remember in the brumbaer tools. they exist since beginning of 2006 and have been the first solution which allowed cast correction, centerfold correction and lens fall off correction as well as the fastest dng workflow, as i believe till today.
several companies at that stage even havent admitted to their clients to have any of these issues with their backs.