Nikon pre-processing - why can't Canon do this?

tkbslc wrote in post #7910729
Looks good, but maybe you should ask why Nikon wants an extra $130 for the equivalent of DPP. It HAS to do in camera processing because it doesn't ship with a software one. Pros and cons to each, I guess.

Exactly. At the level of camera we are talking about, one would assume that PP is being done. I am not minimizing the usefulness of in camera features, but I prefer a minimalist approach rather than in camera bloat. If anything, I would expect a feature like this to be on a lower end consumer line where there is less experience in PP (presumably).

If it makes you feel any better, Canon has peripheral illumination correction in camera, whereas Nikon does not (I don't think...); and, it is lens specific. However, it can be done with DPP too.

BestVisuals wrote in post #7910367
The effect is applied to the JPEG in-camera, not in post (unless you do it with the RAW file). I've never seen an example this good. And in case you're curious, that's Nikon's 16-35mm zoom, and the image sample is from the extreme edge of the image...that's a SHARP lens, folks.

Which is post processing still. Pre processing would be processing done to the image before it's taken and I don't know how that would work.

Village_Idiot wrote in post #7913270
Which is post processing still. Pre processing would be processing done to the image before it's taken and I don't know how that would work.

pre-post-processing?

Someones got to be first with any new idea. This time, as has been the pattern just recently, it's Nikon that led the way. Canon will be producing their own version as soon as they have reverse engineered the Nikon software, you can be sure.

Fully automatic lens specific corrections, maybe even aperture and focal length tuned in the case of zooms, must be a coming thing. Automatic barrel or pincushion distortion correction as well while we are at it. In fact, if it was possible to record the different colours completely seperately, all sorts of optical errors could be dealt with using automatic programmed software.

The new panasonic m4/3 kit lens (14-45) was noted for next to zero distortion and CA. Until someone noticed how ugly the RAW files were. (reviewers usually use JPEG). The Camera was auto fixing the JPEGs in camera. So manufacturers are probably hoping they can start making crap lenses and making up for it in relatively cheap software.

I would take a MDR or HDR sensor over some on-board manipulation of CA artifacting any day. I would assume that, in order to take advantage of Nikon's automated CA correction, you have to select JPEG as your output format. As most have said, if you shoot RAW, CA correction, etc. is all done when rendering a RAW file in post, within DPP or LR or PS or whatever. If you shoot JPEG, maybe the CA correction is useful, otherwise, I would prefer to have Canon concentrate on giving me the next-gen HDR sensor for shooting RAW.

Kirk

I still say it's pre-processing as the effect is calculated and performed on the image prior to saving it. And Nikon's RAW CA removal isn't generic, it uses the lens data in the RAW file to post-process the image. I'm just surprised Canon hasn't offered this yet. It's only a matter of time, as we all know.

BestVisuals wrote in post #7914859
I still say it's pre-processing as the effect is calculated and performed on the image prior to saving it. And Nikon's RAW CA removal isn't generic, it uses the lens data in the RAW file to post-process the image. I'm just surprised Canon hasn't offered this yet. It's only a matter of time, as we all know.

'Pre' implies before the picture is taken. How can it know what if any CA to get rid of before the image is taken? Hence, it is post processing. Whether or not the image data is written to a card is irrelevant.

wow, now here is a worthwhile argument!

How about "in-camera processing"?

"How can it know what if any CA to get rid of before the image is taken"?

Surely ALL these errors are lens specific and because they are, can be determined and then corrected with a sufficiently powerful piece of software.

I see no reason why this should be limited to jpegs. A future version of RAW will be optically "perfect" before it is even saved in camera even if we process it to our own requirements afterwards.

You pay more money for Nikon lenses to get more CA, and then then they take the CA away from you?

Wilt wrote in post #7915437
You pay more money for Nikon lenses to get more CA, and then then they take the CA away from you?

It's funny 'cause it's true. Actually, I don't know.

Whether it is "pre" or "in camera" is semantic - the question to photographers is simply whether it is applied to the RAW sensor data (ie, making the RAW data not RAW anymore) or whether it is applied to the processed data (ie, the JPEG, in-camera processed data from the sensor). For example - what if you shoot RAW, but want to have the chromatic aberration in your RAW data? Does this Nikon feature "preserve" the CA in the RAW data and only remove it in the JPEG result? Or is the CA removal applied before the "RAW" data is written, therefore removing it from the "RAW" file? Therein lies the rub. If you have to import a Nikon RAW into the Nikon RAW software to remove CA that the otherwise in-camera CA removal feature would handle for a Nikon shooter shooting JPEG, then the question is answered. It also means that the RAW data is no longer RAW. That is a bug, not a feature. I am not a Nikon user or a Nikon hater or lover, so i don't particularly care one way or another. But if Nikon has decided it is in the best interest of the RAW photographer to start messing with the RAW data and calling it RAW, damn - at least don't tell me.

Kirk

The semantic error over pre- or post- processing is amazing.

Why isn't pre- processing everything done before the file is saved, and post- everything after the image is saved? That makes total sense to me.

As observed, pre-processing for CA probably means lens manufacturers will make less sharp lenses, depending upon software to clean up the image. And it'll also encourage you to buy OEM lenses, as the camera will only correct THEIR brand, not anyone else's.

Great religious arguments in photography:

RAW vs. JPEG
Pre- vs Post- processing
Natural light vs. fill flash