Going over to the dark side: beyond f/16

[Steve Axford]

I can't really imagine thirdparty software makers producing a similar diffraction neutralising too as such, simply due to the complexity and scale of amassing all the necessary data required for the sharpening routine ... remembering that each lens would need to be measured at each aperture setting, and matched to each camera body(ie. pixel density) .. for how many manufacturers!!
.

I think they probably will, if there is any advantage in doing so. After all, it's just a table connecting camera/lens/distance/fstop . No big deal really and it only has to be done once.

[arthurking83]

I think they probably will, if there is any advantage in doing so. After all, it's just a table connecting camera/lens/distance/fstop . No big deal really and it only has to be done once.

On the basis that DxO specialises in camera and lens matching, testing and 'databasing' ... it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect them to offer such a feature first amongst the thirdparty vendors.
In fact I'm surprised that they haven't(if they haven't as yet).

[Steve Axford]

I was thinking of DxO, and there's always a battle between Phaseone and Adobe (and others no doubt). Any edge is considered worthwhile. For us mere photographers that is good.

[nardes]

Here are a couple of useful resources that I have discovered today in searching on the topic of diffraction. The "Cambridge in Colour" resource has some nice calculators for various camera/lens/pixel size combinations and spans 2 pages, so be sure to visit P2 as well.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...hotography.htm

This next resource is based on an interview with a Canon technical advisor at the Professional Engineering & Solutions Division, Canon U.S.A for when the Canon 5D Mk III was released.

http://www.arihazeghiphotography.com/AH_CW_interview/

Part way down the page we read the following excerpt:

"A new feature called Digital Lens Optimizer processes RAW images to achieve ideal optical characteristics for all types of optical aberration or diffraction, effects of a low-pass filter in front of a CMOS sensor, etc. This function improves image quality particularly in the image periphery in addition to the image center. This function is made possible because the entire design-through-manufacture process, for camera, CMOS sensor, EF lens, and DPP, is carried out entirely at Canon. Images are processed optimally using lens information in the image files (focal length, subject distance, and aperture) and lens data specially for the Digital Lens Optimizer. (However, the size of a .CR2 file will be two to three times larger after applying the Digital Lens Optimizer.) Adjustments are made for such aspects as spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, astigmatism, curvature of field, sagittal halo, chromatic aberration of magnification, axial chromatic aberration, diffraction, and the effects of a low-pass filter in front of the CMOS sensor. DPP’s Digital Lens Optimizer will be usable with any of 29 compatible lenses initially. It works with .CR2 files from EOS models released since 2006 (EOS 30D and forward)."

Cheers

Dennis

[Tannin]

On the basis that DxO specialises in camera and lens matching, testing and 'databasing' ... it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect them to offer such a feature first amongst the thirdparty vendors.

And on the basis of their demonstrated accuracy, impartiality, and reliability in other endeavours thus far, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect them to make a complete hash of it.

[Steve Axford]

And on the basis of their demonstrated accuracy, impartiality, and reliability in other endeavours thus far, it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect them to make a complete hash of it.

I've only glanced at DxO. What are their biases?

[Tannin]

They hate Canon. Doubtless they have other oddities as well. This is the company which once (no joke) claimed that according to their 'scientific" "measurements" a Nikon D200 had lower noise than a 5D Mark 1. (Detail from memory. It may have been some other outdated crop sensor Nikon notorious for poor high-ISO performance.) I have no idea what other silly stuff they get up to these days as I stopped paying attention to their self-serving nonsense years ago.