PDA

View Full Version : DxO vs PTL vs ACR: correcting lens distortion

drjhf
1st of September 2006 (Fri), 11:29
The Canon 24-105 L lens is reported to have some distortion at both ends of the zoom range. I only shoot RAW. It appears that DxO (with its predetermined lens correction formulae) and ACR (without any but capable of distortion correction) work in the RAW conversion process, while PTL works on the DNG or TIFF or PSD after RAW conversion.

There is a big price difference: DxO at $300, ACR free, PTL $10...

Am I losing bits by working with PTL? Am I guessing by working with ACR? Is DxO worth the money even if it is a bit slow in terms of processing time?
tim
2nd of September 2006 (Sat), 04:56
What's PTL?
drjhf
2nd of September 2006 (Sat), 08:36
PTL is PTLens, from www.epaperpress.com - it can work standalone or as a Photoshop plugin - a filter.
tzphotos.com
2nd of September 2006 (Sat), 09:05
I use DxO for all of my RAW conversions. I look forward to the new version since it will have a plugin version for Photoshop.
claudermilk
2nd of September 2006 (Sat), 21:28
You missed an option: Bibble. Before v4.8 they had a variation of PTL built in. Now they've taken that base core & expanded upon it.
drjhf
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 09:15
But specifically, if the correction tool is a plug-in (used after RAW conversion) versus part of the RAW conversion process itself, am I losing bits?
tzphotos.com
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 11:14
But specifically, if the correction tool is a plug-in (used after RAW conversion) versus part of the RAW conversion process itself, am I losing bits?

I believe the DxO Plugin will be the first step. I think it will replace the Adobe Raw Converter. I have not seen the final version of the plugin so I am not sure how it will work.
jfrancho
3rd of September 2006 (Sun), 12:22
But specifically, if the correction tool is a plug-in (used after RAW conversion) versus part of the RAW conversion process itself, am I losing bits?Technically, yes. If you convert to and edit in 16 bpc mode, the loss is insignificant. You will lose bits if you need to crop the image to after the distortion has been fixed.
drjhf
5th of September 2006 (Tue), 15:30
That makes sense. And so DxO as a plugin will be no better than PTL in terms of preserving bits.
tzphotos.com
5th of September 2006 (Tue), 17:04
That makes sense. And so DxO as a plugin will be no better than PTL in terms of preserving bits.

My guess is the DxO plugin will be more like a replacement of the Adobe Camera Raw. I maybe wrong, but DxO's biggest advantage is it works before the RAW conversion takes place. We will have to wait and see when the new version of DxO comes out.
tzphotos.com
2nd of October 2006 (Mon), 23:31
My guess is the DxO plugin will be more like a replacement of the Adobe Camera Raw. I maybe wrong, but DxO's biggest advantage is it works before the RAW conversion takes place. We will have to wait and see when the new version of DxO comes out.

I have upgraded to Version 4 and the plug-in is and import function. It is a raw converter. The DxO plug-in converts the raw file and loads it into Photoshop.