Does digital sharpening cause chromatic aberrations?

[Chapperz]

Even more remarkable is how many of the top end film photographers were ecstatic to be able to do their edit in digital after scanning their film instead of long hours in the darkroom to edit their work.

I originally felt guilty about doing digital edits a couple of decades ago when I first dropped film for digital until I started reading comments from the photographers I admired. Almost every single one of them was touching up their images in the darkroom before you saw prints of their work.

The notion that fine art photography came straight out of the camera is delusional at best. For the record I have been doing landscape photography for over 60 years now.

Wow... Seems that I was delusional. I always loved photography but the cost of entry put me off. Seems I could have bought a cheap lens, a cheap body and some cheap film, lashed up a dark room in my flat and got just as good results.

 

[Chapperz]

Plate and later on film photographers spent many hours in darkrooms using techniques such as dodging and burning to enhance and improve their shots, editing in post is almost as old as photography itself.
From experience, I'd recommend leaving the sharpening and NR sliders at the default. They'll only affect the JPG anyway. Cleaning up chrom. abb. With Lr (or any other RAW editor) will also attack other brightly coloured elements in your shot. If you shoot a busy road: take a close look at blue/red/green vehicles or signage in contrasty primary colours.
For effective noise reduction: edit RAW's. Lightroom isn't the only option, there are open source pro quality RAW editors such as DARKROOM that really give the Adobe option a run for its money. The one mentioned has a module titled 'astrophoto denoise' which specifically targets sensor noise but leaves linear and edge detail crisp. If you're interested, I'm happy to upload a 'before & after' shot to illustrate. The same software handles chrom. abb. very well too and the real bonus with DARKROOM is that you don't pay a monthly fee to use a pro-grade set of tools.

My first experience with CA was around the exact same sorts of things you mentioned... I spotted it when zooming in and thought wtf is that?! Turns out it's a optics thing so I guess it's to be expected with such a relatively cheap lens that's so small?

That said, my old huawei p20 doesn't suffer from the same thing, but then that has a lieca lens on it.

I did try darkroom but I opted for Lr because it's so easy to stitch panoramas with it, which was my main concern because from what I was told and by looking at the results of zooming into the 48mp shots on the m2p, the 48mp we unusable for enlarging so, I opted for getting closer and using the pano wide mode to get the resolution I needed for a bit of cropping and enlarging.

I guess now my question is, are the 48mp shots, with some post editing actually usable in the context of enlarging them? Say to something the size of a 42" or 50" screen, without the use of AI?

 

[Felix le Chat]

My first experience with CA was around the exact same sorts of things you mentioned... I spotted it when zooming in and thought wtf is that?! Turns out it's a optics thing so I guess it's to be expected with such a relatively cheap lens that's so small?

That said, my old huawei p20 doesn't suffer from the same thing, but then that has a lieca lens on it.

I did try darkroom but I opted for Lr because it's so easy to stitch panoramas with it, which was my main concern because from what I was told and by looking at the results of zooming into the 48mp shots on the m2p, the 48mp we unusable for enlarging so, I opted for getting closer and using the pano wide mode to get the resolution I needed for a bit of cropping and enlarging.

I guess now my question is, are the 48mp shots, with some post editing actually usable in the context of enlarging them? Say to something the size of a 42" or 50" screen, without the use of AI?

Almost all small drone cameras have cheapo plastic lenses, that said: for what they are, they serve their purpose admirably well. Your Huawei shares exactly the same Leica Schott glass lens as the Autel NANO+ as well as an almost identical RYYB sensor and the C/A's that threw out with the RAW's were horrendous. Huawei were aware of the problems with the weird sensor and the lens and ironed the bugs out almost immediately (something Autel STILL hasn't sorted).
I use Microsoft ICE v 2 for panoramics assembled from JPG's as that is blisteringly fast, highly accurate more often than not and can assemble complex pano's to near gigapixel level (the best for this is still HUGIN but it's awkward to use). ICE v.2 has some other impressive tricks up its sleeve as well.
The "48mp" DNG's are all I shoot now with the mini 3 pro as I find these a real snap to work through the post process. I'll work on the basic RAW aberration correction and enhancement with PHOTONINJA, then output to 32bit floating point TIFF. From there I run the uncompressed TIFF through Darktable for the fine tweaking and polishing before output to 8bit JPG final.
Photoninja is the only paid-ware I use and it's well worth every penny as a RAW editor - using its range of tools you can also build a custom LCP that is completely accurate and totally specific to any camera/lens you own. You can also 'train' it to correct the C/A and vignetting peculiar to your camera(s).
Scaling up any digital image is interpolation and unless you have an unforgiving eye: you'll always be disappointed. I think this really is A.I territory with TOPAZ A.I being the best currently available.

 

[Chapperz]

Almost all small drone cameras have cheapo plastic lenses, that said: for what they are, they serve their purpose admirably well. Your Huawei shares exactly the same Leica Schott glass lens as the Autel NANO+ as well as an almost identical RYYB sensor and the C/A's that threw out with the RAW's were horrendous. Huawei were aware of the problems with the weird sensor and the lens and ironed the bugs out almost immediately (something Autel STILL hasn't sorted).
I use Microsoft ICE v 2 for panoramics assembled from JPG's as that is blisteringly fast, highly accurate more often than not and can assemble complex pano's to near gigapixel level (the best for this is still HUGIN but it's awkward to use). ICE v.2 has some other impressive tricks up its sleeve as well.
The "48mp" DNG's are all I shoot now with the mini 3 pro as I find these a real snap to work through the post process. I'll work on the basic RAW aberration correction and enhancement with PHOTONINJA, then output to 32bit floating point TIFF. From there I run the uncompressed TIFF through Darktable for the fine tweaking and polishing before output to 8bit JPG final.
Photoninja is the only paid-ware I use and it's well worth every penny as a RAW editor - using its range of tools you can also build a custom LCP that is completely accurate and totally specific to any camera/lens you own. You can also 'train' it to correct the C/A and vignetting peculiar to your camera(s).
Scaling up any digital image is interpolation and unless you have an unforgiving eye: you'll always be disappointed. I think this really is A.I territory with TOPAZ A.I being the best currently available.

If huawei have sorted out the CA for that lens then it begs the question why dji hasn't???

I think I will have to reevaluate my choices of software and have a bash at photoninja and try it the same way you do...

As far as enlarging images for prints, there seems to be a consensus regarding AI... Topaz seems to be the one to beat at present.

This is a massive can of worms but hopefully I will end up in a place with a work flow that gives me usable results.

Thanks again for the input it's really useful and appreciated

 

[Felix le Chat]

If huawei have sorted out the CA for that lens then it begs the question why dji hasn't???

I think I will have to reevaluate my choices of software and have a bash at photoninja and try it the same way you do...

As far as enlarging images for prints, there seems to be a consensus regarding AI... Topaz seems to be the one to beat at present.

This is a massive can of worms but hopefully I will end up in a place with a work flow that gives me usable results.

Thanks again for the input it's really useful and appreciated

If what I've suggested has given food for thought, I'm happy.... and you're most welcome.
Digital editing is indeed a wriggly old can - what's one man's meat being another's gristle but if you do decide to give Photoninja a trial, go through the tutorials on Jim Christians Picturecode page as they're thorough and will give you a head start with the process of creating your own specific lens correction profile. If memory serves: you've got a 30 day freebie before you need to buy the lifetime license. Bought mine three years ago and not one regret.

 

[Chapperz]

If what I've suggested has given food for thought, I'm happy.... and you're most welcome.
Digital editing is indeed a wriggly old can - what's one man's meat being another's gristle but if you do decide to give Photoninja a trial, go through the tutorials on Jim Christians Picturecode page as they're thorough and will give you a head start with the process of creating your own specific lens correction profile. If memory serves: you've got a 30 day freebie before you need to buy the lifetime license. Bought mine three years ago and not one regret.

Thanks dude... Being able to create my own LCP (I did wonder what that meant lol) and the software being able to learn, all to speed up certain parts of the repeated work flow is something I like the idea of.

Apparently there's no mini 3 Pro profiles in Lr.

Don't suppose you'd be so kind as to share yours? Not for colours but just lense distortion etc?

 

[Chapperz]

If what I've suggested has given food for thought, I'm happy.... and you're most welcome.
Digital editing is indeed a wriggly old can - what's one man's meat being another's gristle but if you do decide to give Photoninja a trial, go through the tutorials on Jim Christians Picturecode page as they're thorough and will give you a head start with the process of creating your own specific lens correction profile. If memory serves: you've got a 30 day freebie before you need to buy the lifetime license. Bought mine three years ago and not one regret.

I just had a quick look at the PN at the CA removal and it looks the business to me... Then I had a look at the showcase page and I think I will pony up the dough for it regardless... The last examples on the CA examples, on the image on the far left I noticed that not only do it remove the CA but it smoothed out the line from zigzag pixely to nice and smooth... Impressive.

Thanks again to you and all who have offered me advice and guidance it's massively appreciated.

I'm now off out to find some white straight objects to take with the light behind them lol

Evidently windows lol

 

[Cymruflyer]

Wow... Seems that I was delusional. I always loved photography but the cost of entry put me off. Seems I could have bought a cheap lens, a cheap body and some cheap film, lashed up a dark room in my flat and got just as good results.

Yeah... as long as you learned how to do all that post work within your darkroom. Otherwise. you were no better off. Like all things, you can own all the tools you can afford, but if you don't know how to use them properly to get the end result you are after, you just wasted a bunch of money and are no better off than the next person that has no clue how to use the tools.

 

[Chapperz]

Yeah... as long as you learned how to do all that post work within your darkroom. Otherwise. you were no better off. Like all things, you can own all the tools you can afford, but if you don't know how to use them properly to get the end result you are after, you just wasted a bunch of money and are no better off than the next person that has no clue how to use the tools.

Agreed but I don't think good glass can match up to crap glass no matter who's using it.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Chapperz said... Agreed but I don't think good glass can match up to crap glass no matter who's using it.



I thought we were speaking about post production, not buying good or bad equipment. With that said, a good photographer can still produce better results even with average equipment than a Fauxtographer who does not know what they are doing, who is using great equipment. So, it's not really the equipment, is it?

 

[Felix le Chat]

Thanks dude... Being able to create my own LCP (I did wonder what that meant lol) and the software being able to learn, all to speed up certain parts of the repeated work flow is something I like the idea of.

Apparently there's no mini 3 Pro profiles in Lr.

Don't suppose you'd be so kind as to share yours? Not for colours but just lense distortion etc?

Sorry for not replying to this comment earlier - I missed spotting it. There are two major databases for LCP's: Adobe and the independent LENSFUN database pretty much every other piece of editing software uses. Neither of them have profiles for 90% of the newer drones. The profiles that ARE there have mostly been uploaded by users creating their own by dragging distortion correction sliders around before saying to themselves "... that looks about right..." then they upload ' em to the database.
It's far better if you create your own distortion correction profile - even though the camera lenses and modules for each model are mass produced, the are usually minute variations between one drone and another, and sometimes the lens and the sensor might not be perfectly parallel. Your own custom LCP guarantees that any shot you take with your own camera is properly corrected.
Adobe has a piece of software for creating highly accurate LCP's, this was designed for DSLR's and using it is a faff.... trying to follow the steps with a drone is next to impossible. The very best distortion correction tool I've come across is part of the HUGIN suite, this is what the Photoninja tool is based on.

 

[Chapperz]

Sorry for not replying to this comment earlier - I missed spotting it. There are two major databases for LCP's: Adobe and the independent LENSFUN database pretty much every other piece of editing software uses. Neither of them have profiles for 90% of the newer drones. The profiles that ARE there have mostly been uploaded by users creating their own by dragging distortion correction sliders around before saying to themselves "... that looks about right..." then they upload ' em to the database.
It's far better if you create your own distortion correction profile - even though the camera lenses and modules for each model are mass produced, the are usually minute variations between one drone and another, and sometimes the lens and the sensor might not be perfectly parallel. Your own custom LCP guarantees that any shot you take with your own camera is properly corrected.
Adobe has a piece of software for creating a highly accurate LCP's, this was designed for DSLR's and using it is a faff.... trying to follow the steps with a drone is next to impossible. The very best distortion correction tool I've come across is part of the HUGIN suite, this is what the Photoninja tool is based on.

Ahhhh riiiiight.. Thanks for that. Even more reason to get photonija.

I can see it being a while before I can actually take photos that are above average in so much as being better than the general public can take with a phone but, time and effort well spent.

After looking at some low light shots from last night it seems to me that the signal to noise ratio of the mini 3 Pro sensor is a bit naff... Some people I have seen on YouTube say it's good up to about 800 in 48mp but to my eye anything above 400 and noise reduction is a must... And it doesn't increase linearly either.

I come from an audio background and digital photography, in the context of getting the shutter speed and ISO right is actually very similar to gain staging a signal/device chain. If you have a very low signal going into say an amp, and you increase the gain to compensate, you also increase the noise, so you use a preamp. Turns out that digital cameras have analog amp circuits to increase gain which obviously will increase noise.

Not all amps are created equal though and this to me explains why some digital cameras can have the iso cracked right up before you get noise and others you can't. Same with audio equipment... You always want something with the best signal to noise ratio and dynamic range and apparently, the same rules apply with digital cameras... Which is great for me because I can get my head around that and apply what I have already learned to some degree.

Thanks again for your help