• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / GFX 50S / IQ effects of Fuji 23/4 distortion corrections

IQ effects of Fuji 23/4 distortion corrections

July 21, 2017 JimK 4 Comments

This is the 71st in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX-50S. The series starts here. 

In the last post, I showed you some images with Lightroom’s distortion correction enabled and disabled for the Sony 12-24/4 FE lens. Several people had expressed the opinion that correcting distortion in wide rectilinear lenses in post should be avoided because of degradations in image quality (IQ). Some have said that such corrections “wreck microcontrast”. It  turned out, in the case of the Sony 12-24 and Lightroom’s lens profile, there was no problem. 

But what about the Fuji 23 mm f/4 lens on the GFX? It’s not as simple as with the Sony lens, since Lightroom doesn’t use a lens profile for distortion correction, but implements the process in such a way that it can’t be simply turned off from inside Lightroom.

However, Iridient’s XTransformer can make DNG files from RAFs with and without distortion correction. I used it both ways, and set the other options — noise reduction, vignetting correction, LaCA correction, etc — all to off. I also set the option to defeat several LR processing steps.

This is what I got:

 

Uncorrected

 

Corrected

A close look at the target at 100% magnification:

Uncorrected

 

Corrected

 

As with the Sony 12-24, these look very similar.

 

A closer look at greater than 100% magnification:

Uncorrected

 

Corrected

They look pretty similar in both the extinction and microcontrast regions. Note that we’re still getting false color well after the visual monochromatic extinction point. 

A slanted edge analysis of both samples follows. First, uncorrected:

 

Now, corrected:

The correction seems to introduce a real frequency axis zero just past the Nyquist sampling frequency. Other than that, they numbers look quite similar.

My conclusions: don’t worry about lens corrections with the Fuji 23/4.

By the way, don’t try to compare the numbers in this test with the ones in the preceding one. There are many uncontrolled things that could invalidate that comparison, such as LR profile sharpening (which was, I think, turned off for the GFX), target distance, focus accuracy, and alignment accuracy. The beauty of comparing two different developments of the same raw file is that you don’t have to be very precise about any of those things.

Addendum:

A reader suggested that the CA correction is more injurious to IQ than distortion correction. Here’s the crop of the target with CA correction applied, but without distortion correction:

And here’s the slanted edge analysis:

Looks fine to me. Note that the LoCA is not corrected, as you would expect.

Further addendum: 

Frans van den Bergh pointed out that the close reproduction of the false color in pairs of these images is not indicative of near-perfect correction because the distortion correction is almost certainly performed after the demosaicing. Frans suggested that the closeness of the MTF plots might result from the distortion correction resampling being performed on a nearest neighbor basis. I took a clos look, and that is not the case:

 

Uncorrected

If you look at the part of the image indicated by the arrows, you can see differences that indicate that the corrected image has been resampled using something more sophisticated than nearest neighbor. 

If we take the difference between the corrected and uncorrected image and move the corrected one a few pixels to the left, we get this:

If we brighten that image, this is what we see:

 

I’m not sure what to make of that.

GFX 50S

← IQ effects of Sony 12-24/4 Lr distortion corrections IQ effects of Photoshop distortion correction →

Comments

  1. Frans van den Bergh says

    July 27, 2017 at 5:43 am

    Hi Jim,

    From my understanding of distortion correction, the actual resampling will take place after demosaicing. This would explain why the colour Moire patterns were preserved.

    What I cannot yet explain is how they (Adobe) manage to perform the resampling without any visible loss of contrast. I wonder if they cheat on the geometry of the lens correction, meaning they are implementing something that is much closer to nearest neighbour resampling. That way they avoid having to interpolate between values, but they spread the geometric error (the 0.5 pixel error expected in nearest neighbour) over a larger area ….

    … now I have to go and implement this to see if it will work 🙂

    -F

    Reply
  2. JimK says

    July 27, 2017 at 10:21 am

    Thanks, Frans. I’ve changed the post with respect to the false color.

    Your idea about NN is intriguing. I did some pixel peeping and made an addendum to the post. It looks like the resampling is more sophisticated than that. I’ll be interested in seeing what you find.

    Reply
    • Frans van den Bergh says

      July 27, 2017 at 11:57 pm

      Thanks for the further addendum.

      I am still intrigued by your MTF results. I have added some lens distortion correction to MTF Mapper (still not quite perfect, I’ll write a blog post once I am satisfied). What I have learnt is that mild lens distortion does not affect MTF measurements over short edges (say, about 100 pixels in length), that is, we can just pretend the lens is not distorted.

      At the other end of the spectrum, I have seen what the worst-case impact of resampling on slanted edge MTF measurements are. If your image is shifted by a constant 0.5 pixels over the entire edge being measured, then even the best interpolation methods will knock the contrast to 0 at Nyquist. With lens distortion, we will obviously not see such a constant shift, but rather a blend of sub-pixel offsets. I would still expect this to have a more pronounced impact on MTF than what your results show.

      So my proposal is a resampling algorithm tailored to lens distortion correction, inspired by the Floyd-Steinberg dithering algorithm. Rather than doing an exact geometric distortion correction, you force the sub-pixel offsets to stay away from 0.5 pixels, and spread the resulting geometric error over a larger area. This avoids the worst-case interpolation at 0.5 pixel offsets, so you reduce the visible blurring. Without the Floyd-Steinberg type dithering you will have visible discontinuities, such as seen in nearest-neighbour interpolation. I’ll have to check the range of sub-pixel offsets that still interpolate well (maybe up to 0.25 pixel shifts are ok?)

      Anyhow, I still think that for photographic purposes we can tolerate a sub-pixel geometric error in the lens distortion correction, provided we have corrected up to the nearest whole pixel.

      Reply
    • Frans van den Bergh says

      August 1, 2017 at 4:36 am

      I’ve written up my initial findings on such a modified interpolation method tailored to distortion correction here : http://mtfmapper.blogspot.co.za/2017/08/image-interpolation-fighting-fade-part-1.html

      -F

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.