Canon 5D4 Digital Lens Optimizer

This is a bit from Canon:

"What’s more, the Digital Lens Optimizer function enables the correction of image degradation caused by lens distortion and diffraction phenomena, corrections that couldn’t be performed by conventional lens optics alone, and compensates for the apparent deterioration of high resolution caused by a low-pass filter".


So this option can "compensate for the apparent deterioration of high resolution caused by a low-pass filter".

That sounds wonderful. But, when I activate that option it causes the record time for each image to be much much longer, as Canon said it would.

Does any 5D4 shooter here use that feature? Is it worthy? Does it slow down your image recording time?

I have RAW going to a SanDisk Extreme Pro Compact Flash UDMA 7, 160MB/s card and, JPG going to a SanDisk Extreme Pro SDHC 300 MB/s card. Both cards should write plenty fast enough for this camera.

Regardless of memory cards, this is a DIGIC processing issue I'm sure.

The SD slot in 5D4 is only UHS-1 so it cannot make use of the speed of your UHS-II SD card.
Sometimes UHS-I cards are faster in a UHS-I slot (compared to using a UHS-II card in the same slot).

I don't know if this is relevant to your experience. Just worth knowing the 5D4 does not support UHS-II.

I believe DLO does nothing for RAW files. It will be applied by DPP when you open the file.
JPEGs though will have DLO applied in camera.

Try taking RAW only and I'm sure there will be no speed penalty. (Just to confirm it is the camera processing the JPEG in camera that is slowing things down).
So if you want to use DLO and not be slowed, just take RAW. DPP processes .cr2 files fast.
.cr3 files are very slow in comparison.

I have read Canon 5D4 users also complain about slower times with Digital Lens Optimizer on. I leave it off since it's easy to apply lens corrections in post.

Choderboy wrote in post #19074041
...

I believe DLO does nothing for RAW files. It will be applied by DPP when you open the file.
JPEGs though will have DLO applied in camera.

Try taking RAW only and I'm sure there will be no speed penalty. (Just to confirm it is the camera processing the JPEG in camera that is slowing things down).
So if you want to use DLO and not be slowed, just take RAW. DPP processes .cr2 files fast.
.cr3 files are very slow in comparison.

I gave that a try. RAW only, and then even JPG only, to either card separately. No processing/recording time improvement. Using DLO comes at a cost. It's processing time. With DLO off everything is speedy as normal.

So the question is: Is DLO worth the hit? Does anyone see an improvement in photo quality if DLO can "compensate for the apparent deterioration of high resolution caused by a low-pass filter"?

My 2 cents, it depends upon the images. BIF or sports would prolly suffer, but landscape or real estate would not.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19074063
I gave that a try. RAW only, and then even JPG only, to either card separately. No processing/recording time improvement. Using DLO comes at a cost. It's processing time. With DLO off everything is speedy as normal.

So the question is: Is DLO worth the hit? Does anyone see an improvement in photo quality if DLO can "compensate for the apparent deterioration of high resolution caused by a low-pass filter"?

I am far from an expert on DLO. There is a simple rule that with current cameras applies. A PC and software will always have higher potential for results than a camera.
DLO would definitely be good if you need results fast and without effort.
DLO does way more than "compensate for the apparent deterioration of high resolution caused by a low-pass filter"

Light fall off (vignetting / Peripheral Illumination)
Distortion
Diffraction
CA (Chromatic Aberration)
High ISO noise reduction
Probably something else only Canon knows.

Regarding "compensate for the apparent deterioration of high resolution caused by a low-pass filter", there are many ways to do this.
All image processing software has some kind of sharpening. There are also stand alone software.

I did just learn something. What I said about DLO and RAW was wrong.
DLO settings are saved as part of the RAW file and you need to use Canon DPP for DLO to be applied. Open the RAW in Photoshop and DLO settings will be ignored.
DLO settings are applied per image though, which explains why it is still slower if taking RAW only with DLO on.
The camera is analysing each RAW and including DLO instructions fo DPP to apply.

Is it worth the hit? That I can't answer.

It is a very good feature. True digital deconvolution dialled in for each specific lens. Not generic like 3rd party software. I'm not a DPP user except to pre-cull before importing to Lightroom. When I do use DPP which is very seldom I only apply it when DPP is open. I pretty much don't have any in camera adjustments running so as not to interfere with performance.

I used to have a link to an excellent document about DLO. Another broken link by Canon that I can add to dozens of others they kiboshed.

Choderboy wrote in post #19074098
...Regarding "compensate for the apparent deterioration of high resolution caused by a low-pass filter", there are many ways to do this.
All image processing software has some kind of sharpening. There are also stand alone software...

This is what peaked my interest. If its nothing more than sharpening in camera then handling that in post may be just as good and then there is no reason to have to accept the processing slow down. I have not had a chance to compare a few photos done both ways and I have been quite satisfied with the photos I have to date so using DLO is possibly moot. With it off I still have the lens correction options available and on.