That is an advertising blurb and not an objective comparison--in fact it is no comparison at all. From a quick review of the post, it seems to me that the main advantage over ACR/LR is correction of volume anamorphosis (people at the edge of a wide angle shot looking fat).
I agree, based on what I've seen demonstrated yesterday at the Photokina 2012. Maybe I got hold of the wrong person demonstrating it to me, but he made several claims that were not true. I didn't bother to correct him because it would not have made a difference.
However, one loses the parametric editing of Lightroom/ACR. They do have a PS plugin, so at least one does not have to leave PS.
One of the questions I asked was whether they do any special sharpening on a regular keystoning correction. Afterall, when correcting the converging verticals from shooting a building from a low angle, the top of the image requires more stretching/interpolation than the bottom (unless one shrinks the bottom). All I got out of the demonstrator was that he only knew that the correction was 'non-destructive', which doesn't mean much if anything (interpolation at subpixel intervals is not non-destructive).
He also claimed that a unique feature ("not found in any other software") of the keystoning correction was that nothing gets clipped should the user choose that. That is also demonstrably wrong, even the Photoshop Lens correction filter allows to 'scale' the image to avoid clipping anything (although that downsamples the entire image unless a larger canvas was set up in advance). The traditional Perspective transform allows to "reveal all" after the transformation.
The anamorphosis correction seems to be a cylindrical projection based on a rectilinear base image. That's something that panorama software can also do.
Maybe I'll have to try their trial version and do the resolution analysis myself (what's new...).
Cheers,
Bart
