Skip navigation
This discussion is archived
Currently Being Moderated

Any possibility of returning CA slider ?

May 11, 2012 7:04 AM

Checked more raw files from Canon compact with acr 7.1. Yes, 10x zoom lens is of poor quality, but my hand made profile (tuned it with text editor, without profile editor) was able to deal with it succesfully. New automatic CA removal removed only a half of CA. Attaching result without CA removal, with profile and with automatic CA removal. Defringing was off in all cases

 

Orig.jpg

 

 

Old.jpg

 

 

New.jpg

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 7:25 AM   in reply to Vit Novak

    For this image I would use auto CA + defringe, local defringe and noise reduction.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 2:43 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    Ouch.  That's the first I've seen the image analysis-based version work that badly.

     

    Seeing the old code go away I have been a bit scared I'd come across an image that throws it off, but so far I hadn't.  The fear had started to subside, as my results have so far been better than before, but your image scares me afresh.

     

    Perhaps putting up the raw file for the Adobe people to work with might entice them to tune up the algorithm for a future release?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 11:49 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    I do.

    În data de 12.05.2012 07:38, "Vit Novak" <forums@adobe.com> a scris:

     

    **

       Re: Any possibility of returning CA slider ?  created by Vit Novak<http://forums.adobe.com/people/Vit+Novak>in

    Adobe Camera Raw - View the full discussion<http://forums.adobe.com/message/4400002#4400002

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 11:38 AM   in reply to Vit Novak

    Have you sent this to Eric Chan with an explanation of Auto-CA not working for the extreme edges?  madmanchan2000@yahoo.com  He’s really the only one who can fix things with the Auto CA. 

     

    It is interesting that the remaining fringes against the sky can be fixed with the manual defringing relatively easily, but the edges of the archways do not defringe properly even with the amount sliders maxed out at 20 unless the color ranges are also significantly widened.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 1:17 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    In the past Eric has requested people send him sample files, directly, along with a short explanation of what you’re seeing.  I have sent more than one since Auto CA was introduced.  If you like, I can send your files to him, in case he doesn’t happen upon this thread, himself.  I would probably link back to it, as a way to source the files.

     

    Regarding your new example, yes, that is what I saw when trying to fix your earlier image.  Fringes extend from either side of an edge, so both the trees and the sky are probably having their color neutralized, you just can’t see it because the trees are already dark and relatively neutral.  I think the color-range slider is there to choose the areas to start neutralizing from—a Photoshop select-color-range-globally and the strength slider is the +/- fuzz amount out from the selected color.  Fringes typically fade into the surrounding color so there needs to be a way to select colors not entirely within the defringe-color range, but connected to an area of that color.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 2:55 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    Yeah - I've had a few cases where the defringer works fine as is, but more cases where it bites too much non-fringe before biting enough fringe, in which case I have to resort to painstaking local application to remedy... - there's definitely room for algorithm improvement, in my opinion.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 3:08 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    I’m not sure the manual defringer looks for luminance edges or at least not entirely.  My impression is that an “edge” is between the area you’ve defined in the defringe-color range and the areas outside of that, so if you include sky color in your fringe color range then you’ll get sky neutralized.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 3:16 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    Hope I won't get the advice to use more NR again 

     

    Perhaps you need to use more NR. 

     

    With enough NR, the color fringing goes completely away.  To wit:

     

    NR.jpg

     

    In all seriousness, we have some disturbing things happening with Camera Raw 7.1...

     

    They've tried to improve something that was already very good, and most importantly gave the user a great deal of control, with something that works better in some cases, and (as you've shown) MUCH worse in others.

     

    I am all for simplifying things, but in this case, why not just leave the original controls (and algorithms) in place and add the new controls and algorithms as an option.  Maybe it could even be an either/or thing.

     

    It's the combination of loss of both the CA correction controls and the Defringe Edges feature together that's made it work worse, in my opinion.  In one case user control has been taken away exposing shortcomings of the automatic operation, and in the other additional control has been added without obvious benefit.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 3:17 PM   in reply to ssprengel

    Using manual defringe, you can control the mask, so it won't cut into the sky, or whatever - you have to paint carefully...

     

    But yes, purple against blue sky is more removable (globally) than blue fringe against blue sky...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 9:43 AM   in reply to Vit Novak

    Was it a bare lens or there was anything between the lens and the subject?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 2:57 PM   in reply to Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

    Good point.  There appears to be a car window in between the camera lens and the rainy scene, at least in the first example.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 5:08 PM   in reply to Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

    Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață wrote:

     

    Was it a bare lens or there was anything between the lens and the subject?

     

    I have no problem with asking a question for curiosity's sake, but it doesn't matter from a software perspective - if the old version could globally fix the radial color-fringing, and the new one can't without a twisted application of some of the features intended for other purposes, then the changes can be classified as:

     

    FAIL

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 5:33 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    Re-reading this thread, and noting that the only feedback from Adobe to arguably the most brilliant user of Camera Raw anywhere to be found is complete ignorance that a bona fide problem has been exposed and the offer of a basic suggestion to try to use some of the other features, I'm a bit disappointed.  Yes, I realize we've just been through a weekend, but Vit's thread was here all day Friday.

     

    Can we please hear from the Camera Raw architects here?

     

    Frankly I expect no less than either assurances we're either going to see a reinstatement of the old features that worked, or a tweaking of the new features until they work as well or better.  Just being quiet about this and hoping it will go away is not a valid option!

     

    What better feedback than this could you possibly hope to get from exposing the pre-release code to the public?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 9:16 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Can we please hear from the Camera Raw architects here?

     

    Well, it's not like they don't have a life elsewhere...point of fact, Eric is traveling and Thomas is busy doing stuff. This is a user to user forum so it would be useful to keep that in mind and not demand an ACR engineer to engage here (such demands have a greater likelihood of driving them away dooode).

     

    Personally, I was able to fix the lateral and longitudinal CA using the auto CA and a touch of global Defringe and a touch of local Defringe and morie. The results are better than Vit's tuned lens profile. With a cheap lens whose more obvious defect seems to be the black lamps against blue sky, I really don't think this rises to mission critical (considering there are fixes one can do). The odds of bringing back the old CA adjustments and lens profiles are just about zero. And again, it's not like the guys don't have anything better to do.

     

    And while Vit is pretty good technically tweaking DNG profiles and hand tuning lens profiles, I don't think he ranks as "arguably the most brilliant user of Camera Raw anywhere to be found". ACR 7.1 is at RC status...I think you are gonna have to learn to live with the current functionality and learn how to use it. The old tuned profiles for CA are not gonna work–period.

     

     

    Here's my result:

     

    CA-defringe-local-10.jpg

     

    Auto CA on

    Global Defringe

    Purple Amount 20

    Hue 29/47

    Green Amount 2

    Hue 40/59

    Local Defringe + 10

    Moire + 15

     

    Since it's really primarily just this single area that looked less good with the globals and needed the locals, I still suspect something else is going on that interfered the auto CA fixing that area...I didn't see the same CA on the right side. The auto CA looks at all courners and edges...I'm not sure it looks at objects pre se...but I will say that in all my tests of the Auto CA and the new Defringe for longitudinal CA, I've rarely had to resort to local fixes like this image needed. So, I'm not sure calling ACR 7.1 "broken" is warranted...

     

    Vit, sorry bud, but I think you're gonna have to learn how to move on without the old functionality...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 10:39 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    The lamp is very easy to fix.  What do the arches in the building look like?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 10:44 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    The CA-modeling seems to be failing near the left and right extremes in Vit’s example, not so much the lamps, those are easy to defringe, but the arches and other less stark edges.  I would vote for more work to be done on the modeling, to handle a case like this.  It’s possible that the small-sensor RAW is so noisy that the fringes are lost in the noise and cannot be detected very easily.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 11:15 PM   in reply to ssprengel

    ssprengel wrote:

     

    The lamp is very easy to fix.  What do the arches in the building look like?

     

    If I paint the local corrections of Defringe +10 and Moire + 15 into the arches, they're fine...I can get rid of any hint of color fringing in the whole raw image with the above settings...plus the global settings.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 11:19 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    Vit Novak wrote:

     

    I wanted to demonstrate that in this particular case profile based CA removal works better, that's all. So I didn't use other tools that would hide that fact. So I'm not sure that removing the feature, that worked very good, at least with good lens profile, is a good idea, unless there is some sound reason for this

     

    It worked fine for YOU who hand tuned a lens profile that didn't correct CA very well on its own...how many users in the ACR user base have ever done that? How many have even created a lens profile? How many actually use any sort of lens profiles or CA corrections?

     

    I don't really care about HOW I correct my images...I'm interested in the ability to do so. If the auto CA needs some help (and you have to admit you had to help the old lens profiles with hand tuned editing) with some defringe either global or local, so what? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If you can get what you want, does it matter?

     

    I'm not really too interested in extreme edge cases where auto CA doesn't work quite as well as hand tuned lens profiles as long as I can get my images to look the way I want them. I think your use case is weak and unlikely to get much traction...

     

    The bottom line is that other than providing another example image to Eric for eval, nothing you have said indicates to me that ACR 7.1 and LR 4.1 is incapable of dealing with the problem...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 12:58 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

    I don't really care about HOW I correct my images...I'm interested in the ability to do so. If the auto CA needs some help (and you have to admit you had to help the old lens profiles with hand tuned editing) with some defringe either global or local, so what? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? If you can get what you want, does it matter?

    I don't think defringe is a particularly satisfactory way to correct excess lateral CA, as it only applies to high-contrast edges (as far as I know). One of the problems caused by lateral CA is a general softening of the image caused by misalignment of the different light frequencies away from the centre of the image, and defringe won't help with that.

     

    Personally, I haven't had a bad auto-correction with 6.7 yet, and I am very pleased with it, but I can see Vit's point of view, and I appreciate that it would be nice to have the option if it did fail.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 8:04 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:


    Well, it's not like they don't have a life elsewhere...point of fact, Eric is traveling and Thomas is busy doing stuff. This is a user to user forum so it would be useful to keep that in mind and not demand an ACR engineer to engage here (such demands have a greater likelihood of driving them away dooode).

     

    Jeff, your response, as essentially "it's good enough, use the other tools to compensate for the worsening of the recent CA correction facility; it isn't going to be fixed", isn't helpful.

     

    It's not up to us to engineer the product so that it doesn't get worse at doing what it did well before.  Rather, it's our responsibility as users to challenge Adobe to make the best possible product they can.

     

    Adobe is a business, and if someone shows a way that the previous version did something extremely well and the current version does it poorly, Adobe needs to take notice.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 8:38 AM   in reply to Vit Novak

    That's been my experience as well, Vit.  When the new code works, it works extremely well.  But maybe its adjustment range is limited, which is why it doesn't fix the egregious fringing in your P&S shots.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 12:41 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:


    Well, it's not like they don't have a life elsewhere...point of fact, Eric is traveling and Thomas is busy doing stuff. This is a user to user forum so it would be useful to keep that in mind and not demand an ACR engineer to engage here (such demands have a greater likelihood of driving them away dooode).

     

    Jeff, your response, as essentially "it's good enough, use the other tools to compensate for the worsening of the recent CA correction facility; it isn't going to be fixed", isn't helpful.

     

    Well, the portion of my post you quoted has nothing to do with whether or not the CA is or isn't "good enough" but has everything to do with YOUR expectations that the engineers should come running when you call.

     

    The only thing out of this whole thread that is useful is the raw file where auto CA isn't optimal. At some point, I'm sure Eric will take a look at it. But he'll do so when he can find the time and at the moment, he is taking some well deserved time off...is that ok with you?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 1:17 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Perhaps you shouldn't presume to speak for Adobe, Jeff.  I know you consult with them, but I don't think they need protection from anyone here, least of all me and Vit.

     

    As far as why such an issue should be considered time-critical, don't be naive.  It's beta code!  What, do you think it would be better to wait a few months until the released code with bugs in it has been out for a while?  Or maybe we would like to see that the Adobe engineers know about it as soon as possible.  Maybe it's overly optimistic to try to break the bad trend of "what you've seen as a beta is going to be released no matter what".

     

    The only thing out of this whole thread that's useful is every post except yours and the ones where we're talking about yours.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 2:54 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    As far as why such an issue should be considered time-critical, don't be naive.  It's beta code!

     

    That ship has sailed...in fact it had already sailed by the time Vit posted his first post.

     

    As to why I bothered to post, well, I happen to know none of the engineers are around and your demands that they come and address your demands were out of line. You know better than that. Eric does a real good job of spending time with users and addressing their concerns when he has time. You really should not take that for granted...which is what I read in your demands.

     

    And truth be told, you really don't understand my relationship with the ACR/LR engineers, do you? And, it's really none of your business, is it?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 2:48 PM   in reply to Vit Novak

    Vit Novak wrote:

     

    Jeff, I think nobody here is expecting any engineers running at our call. We are trying to report the possible issues and then wait until they are eventually resolved, which takes time.

     

     

    I disagree...when Noel wrote:

    "Can we please hear from the Camera Raw architects here?

     

    Frankly I expect no less than either assurances we're either going to see a reinstatement of the old features that worked, or a tweaking of the new features until they work as well or better.  Just being quiet about this and hoping it will go away is not a valid option!"

     

    That sure sounds like Noel was expecting (or demanding) to have the engineers come running...don't you think?

     

    Look, I have no problem with you posting the results of your tests and the raw file. I haven't gotten into your face, have I? I just said the odds of the old functionality returning was unlikely and there were ways of dealing with the issue...but using your lens profile CA is gone. Sorry...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 3:59 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Okay, how's this:

     

    It'd be great to hear from people who set Camera Raw's direction, whenever it's convenient for them (and Jeff) to let us know they are aware of the issue Vit has exposed here.

     

    My motives are pure:  I want Adobe's product to be the best it can be.  In the color-fringing areas I don't see that it's getting better in every way, as has become a (very nice) tradition with Camera Raw.

     

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    As to why I bothered to post...
    ...
    And truth be told, you really don't understand...

     

    You seem to want to propagate a confrontation here, Jeff, as well as make this somehow about you.  There is no conflict, and it's not about you - please just let it drop. 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 4:22 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    My motives are pure:  I want Adobe's product to be the best it can be.  In the color-fringing areas I don't see that it's getting better in every way, as has become a (very nice) tradition with Camera Raw.

     

    I wasn't questioning your motives, just your methods (and your words).

     

    And I'm all about making ACR better too and have done my bit to do so...

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points