The two sets are useful indeed. The first set (Base) documents the preset that was applied per default and the second set (Overrides) lists the changes the user did. Having both sets allows PhotoLab to reconstruct the preset as well as the customising. Let’s not forget that the master repository for everything is the database and the .dop files are a (welcome) addition and means to an end: the transport of settings and metadata to other computers.
Enabling manual distance (and FL) settings is done automatically and there is no manual override as of today. There is no need to duplicate distance metadata in the .dop file. The info is in its original file, which is the primary source.
All things considered, the current implementation seems lean and sufficient imo.
We still don’t know what DistortionFocus means. If it’s a kind of synonym for a distance then the units would be meters.
When setting the focus distance in PL6 to infinity and step back one step with the slider we get 55. Infinity would then be 56. Why using 128 for an unknown distance? A value 2.3 larger then can be set manual.
If you edit a preset to contain 77 instead of 128, the sidecar will show 77 in its “Base” section. Therefore, final is as final as you make it. ADDENDUM: Presets don’t actually contain that entry, which means that you’d have to add it with a text editor or change the setting in the Focus Distance tool and save a new preset.
Exactly, and it’s not necessarily the best implementation imo.
As far as I’ve seen during my latest tests, DPL tries to read distance metadata and only activates the tool if said metadata is absent. Haven’t seen any issues in DPL in this respect with my test files…but I’ll check that again.
Again, things seem to work with my Canon .cr2 test files in PhotoLab on Mac. YMMV
Presets don’t actually contain that entry, which means that you’d have to add it with a text editor.
Looks like “128” is hardwired in DPL and don’t necessarily transpire into preset or sidecar files.
Anyways, I’m just discovering, so take that info with a grain of salt, it might change, if I find something new
Sidenote: Checked files from my Canon cameras and found the distance tag:
[XMP] Approximate Focus Distance : 11.9
My older cameras don’t record distance, but the newer ones do.
A few entries look strange though:
In all this time including this current topic DxO haven’t provided any comment. The issue for me developed when DxO secretly withdrew focuses correction for most Sony lenses many years ago. After a long topic they finally admitted that was what they had done. Over the years I and others have pressed then to reinstate that correction as it appeared the problem was they were looking in the wrong section of the Sony Raw for the information.
In this topic we have had a total silence fro DxO, though some believe they monitor the forum which if so there silence is inexcusable. I am largely persuaded by platypus’s findings that, for me still appear a rather odd way of doing it, that there is one base entry and a second one correcting the base one. DxO could have explained this at any stage, indeed years ago as clearly as the information is in dops its not a programing secret! Thus the lengthy discussion undertaken and much work some members have done could well have been avoided if DxO hadn’t abandoned interaction with this forum.
Basically, I don’t really care about how DxO do their job (it’s theirs, isn’t it)…but I’d really be interested to see a more transparent and better UX in this respect.
So it’s still unknown if there’s a relation between DistortionFocus and FocusDistance? And If, how they interact.
From what I remember from Nikon, is that they introduced their D-lenses, lenses with focus distance information, mostly for the flash. The most important distance is the close by distance.
Run tests with three lenses on a graph printout, 70-350, 16-75 and 90 macro. Images were taken at 4 distances, these varied as each has a different minimum focus distance and the A4 printout limited how far it was useable! But with all three I could see with default corrections no distortion but to be honest there was also no noticeable distortion with no correction either. There was a noticeable change in each image with no correction but no real distortion of the graph.
Yes 16 was OK, the lenses has a lot of critical comments but my one must be an exception as its never been a problem, not drop off in corners and softness that I have seen.
activates only if in addition more than one set of corrections available ( different corrections for different focusing distance ranges ) if there is just one set then it will not be activated for a user to use
This tag is absent in .CR3 raw files as written by camera… it is created for example by Adobe in DNG files when created by Adobe from original raw… may be old Canon cameras ( or DPP4 if used for processing ) were writing XMP section in it
Earlier I said I contacted support to ask “As the focusing option has vanished from my Windows version 6 and 7 do I take it the focusing has been restored to the Sony lenses at last?" I also wondered if they would know anything about it was true. It appears they have no idea what going on and I have now been told
“We have been informed by our development team that they are currently investigating the issue you are having with DxO PhotoLab, and once they find the cause of the problem, they will include it in a future update to PhotoLab. At this time, they do not have an estimate for when this update fix will be ready for release.”
How on earth can they support products with such little knowledge of what’s happening with it?
They also ignored a query on DistortionFocus 128 probably not having a clue about it.
No wonder when DxO staff monitored this forum they had to take up so many failed support queries. Now there is no way of getting past the lack of an effective support.
with Canon things looks OK, it was a false alarm… the matter just waiting if they deliver reading focusing distance from Sony .ARW raw files at least with native FE mount AF lenses by the end of 2023 and then one can hope that UI will have an option to be more clear about detecting and using focusing distance ( if a user opt to see that ) and consistent between Mac vs Win ( which always adds a bit of confusion )
The .dop sidecars contain one or two entries for DistortionFocus. The one in the “Base” section is always 128, the other one corresponds to what the user set as focus distance, provided the tool was shown/enabled and used.
The “Base” 128 seems to be written by DPL independently. Looks like something that was used and was forgotten or is planned for something that might appear (or not) in future releases.
Current state of affairs tell me to ignore the entry and adjust (if possible) the distance for straightest lines visually or by entering a distance.
In short
DistortionFocus in “Base” = mystery = ignore
DistortionFocus in “Overrides” = user setting
…sensibly set to what the focusing distance actually was…or provides straight lines.
I am sure the Sony problem has at last been fixed for the E lenses I use at least. Though you, and someone else, still have lenses coming up with the manual distance option. So what they have done I have no idea and clearly neither do support.
Its a bit of a mess with I suspect no one in develpment has a clue as to what any of this was or is for. You apeare to have worked out more on whats going on with it then support, thanks.
it was not really fixed ( everything was as before ) , for example opening .ARW file from a camera shot with FE55/1.8 produces an enabled tool in UI for a user to select a focusing distance manually… but for your lenses as DxO makes just one set of adjustments it is not produced ( and was not produced earlier either - there were/are simply no choices available for your lenses )
