From: John Navas on
On 07 Jul 2010 23:30:48 GMT, in
<4c350e28$0$4840$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Stuffed Crust
<pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
>> I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know
>> their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW
>> is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be
>> used.
>
>Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now correct
>the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when
>generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to
>apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change
>at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance.
>
>So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's a
>hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image...

Bingo!

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern´┐Żs Law of Suspended Judgement]
From: nospam on
In article <4c350e28$0$4840$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>,
Stuffed Crust <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:

> > I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know
> > their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW
> > is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be
> > used.
>
> Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now correct
> the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when
> generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to
> apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change
> at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance.
>
> So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's a
> hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image...

the manufacturers do provide official raw converters that can read the
metadata.

the reason that raw is not in low end cameras is because the target
market doesn't care and the sensor isn't good enough for it to matter
that much.
From: Jeff Jones on
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 16:56:29 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com>
wrote:

>On 07 Jul 2010 23:30:48 GMT, in
><4c350e28$0$4840$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Stuffed Crust
><pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:
>
>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Savageduck <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
>>> I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know
>>> their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW
>>> is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be
>>> used.
>>
>>Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now correct
>>the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when
>>generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to
>>apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change
>>at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance.
>>
>>So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's a
>>hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image...
>
>Bingo!

Plus, you will find, aside from over-processing in the noise reduction
department at times, that the JPG output from many of these cameras is
about as nice as you'll get from the RAW data anyway. These aren't like
DSLRs with their very inaccurate auto-exposure modes where you have to
continually correct for color-balance and under/over exposures. You know,
things you can't detect nor see in your beloved optical viewfinders, and is
precisely why you never know your DSLR is making these simple errors until
far too late. (This problem is not true with a good LCD/EVF live-view
display.) This is why RAW first became popularized. To try to compensate
for what their DSLRs failed to do in the first place, and many (most) still
do.

From: Me on
On 8/07/2010 11:56 a.m., John Navas wrote:
> On 07 Jul 2010 23:30:48 GMT, in
> <4c350e28$0$4840$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Stuffed Crust
> <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> wrote:
>
>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Savageduck<savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
>>> I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know
>>> their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW
>>> is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be
>>> used.
>>
>> Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now correct
>> the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when
>> generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to
>> apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change
>> at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance.
>>
>> So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's a
>> hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image...
>
> Bingo!
>
How well does PTlens go in correcting this distortion?
Last time I used it, it would read metadata in jpeg, camera model, lens
including focal length the zoom was set at, and make a correction from
the database automatically (okay - sometimes you would need to intervene
to select the lens if it misidentified slr lenses of the same type/focal
length, but this is not very hard to do).
It also corrects complex ("moustache" pattern) commonly found on wide
zooms. The internal interpolation algorithm used by PTlens seems good,
even on jpegs, and options for recompression after editing are
available. Last time I used it, CA correction was manual - so that was
slower and less precise than automatic CA correction.
There seems to be quite a range of compact cameras supported:
http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/


From: Savageduck on
On 2010-07-07 16:30:48 -0700, Stuffed Crust <pizza(a)spam.shaftnet.org> said:

> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{removespam}me.com> wrote:
>> I also thought that odd. I think that is because the manufacturers know
>> their target market is never going to use RAW, let alone know what RAW
>> is. So why make any effort to add a feature they know will never be
>> used.
>
> Or perhaps this is due to the fact that most compact cameras now correct
> the images for lens flaws (eg pincushion/barrel distortion) when
> generating JPGs, but if you pull up their RAW output, you'll have to
> apply the corection manually.. and the corrections would likely change
> at each combination of zoom stepping and focal distance.
>
> So unless the manufacturer provides an official RAW converter, that's a
> hell of a lot of work to get a non-distorted image...
>
> - Solomon

Perhaps?

--
Regards,

Savageduck