From the parallel discussion in the LR forum, the second statement about DNGC 6.3 fixing things is incorrect and it was CornerFix that fixed things by linearlizing the DNG with correct green-channel-balance baked in.
In any case, I think the issue has boiled down to:
ACR 5.7 and LR 3.2RC processes the NEX 5 files w/o maze artifacts, but newer versions of LR (3.2 and 3.3) show maze artifacts.
I think it would be helpful to have a sample ARW to test with CS5/ACR 6.3 to make sure it also has the issue.
It would also be interesting to have a DNG from LR 3.2 RC that has not been touched, since, that didn't have the artifacts to check (with EXIFtool or something) what the BayerGreenSplit value for those 3.2 RC ones verses newer DNGs in case that is all that is wrong. If the BayerGreenSplit value is not different between the DNGs that worked and the DNGs that don't, then the algorithm must have changed for the worse.
Thanks for all your efforts. You have summed it up correctly.
I do not have a copy of CS5. But I do have DNG files of the same photo, one converted with Lightroom 3.2 RC and one with 3.3.
The first one is ok, the second showing Maze artifacts.
I do not have experience with EXIFtool or similar to find out the actual settings of BayeGreenSplit in these files.
I would be happy to forward DNG files for further investigation.
I did some small experiment with adjusting the BayerGreenSplit parameter in the Cornerfix profile edited as tekstfile.
When I put a value of "0", the maze artifacts show up. A value of "10" is already removing the artifacts.
If I go further up the scale to "50" a slight softening of detail is visible. I understand values to "5000" can be set.
So a value of "10" is just a very slight adjustment that is 100% effective in removing the artifacts.
Why is this not done in Lightroom then? Or is it not possible to recognize the camera / lens combination and is a
generic profile with a higher BayerGreenSplit value for an unknown camera / lens combinations not workable.
In that case we need a new (Cornerfix) slider in Lightroom to adjust for exotic combinations
The fact you don't have CS5 nor are familiar with EXIFtool is why several of us have suggested you upload an sample file and post a link, so someone else can try.
Out of curiosity ...
1. Do you have any Sony lenses for your NEX-5? and if so ...
Thanks very much for all your help. To me the issue is very clear already. It is now only a matter of correct BayerGreenSplit values.
Adobe is very much aware of this. I took notice of several treads were this issue has been raised before. With reply of their specialists.
Why Adobe is not offering a solution remains a mistery however. They offered a solution for Micro Four Thirds camera's that had similar issues some time ago. However that was with their 2003 conversion.
If Adobe needs my files to improve their software I would be very glad to provide some. But others have posted already similar files
regarding this issue so I do not expect they need more. They must know very well what is going on and what can or cannot be done about it.
One other strange thing is that it seems that the BayerGreenSplit is "250" by default within Lightroom. With NEX DNG files it is ignoring
this value and makes it "0". Maze artifacts appear. With a Cornerfix processed file it picks up the Adobe default of "250". This gives far too much
softening and loss of detail. The Cornerfix profile can be adjusted to bring back the BayerGreenSplit to "10", enough to remove the artifacts.
It must do so by renaming the file, otherwise Ligtroom will readjust to "250" again.
Proper BayerGreenSplit values gives amazing clear and sharp files compared to the files processed with the Adobe default. The results can be compared with removing an anti aliasing filter.
Maybe all more exotic camera/lens combinations are treated this way. The results are in the first instance very poor compared to the combinations
supplied by the manufacturer. There is a lot of interest in the photo community to use some camera's with adapters and third party lenses.
However there seems no support for this from Adobe.
Indeed I have a Sony 16mm for this camera. The files of the Sony 16 mm are ok, that is, no maze artifacts.
However it is a rather poor optical design but that is another story.
The same was the case with the Panasonic GF-1 camera. The Panasonic lenses had no issues.
Artifacts appeared with third party lenses used with an adapter. And mostly if not all wide angle lenses.