PL not reading distance from Sony ARW

DxO PhotoLab
54

Looked through a bunch of files, here’s one of a turntable:

Bildschirm 2023-06-22 um 23.21.49
Bildschirm 2023-06-22 um 23.21.491920×958 74.1 KB

Let’s have a look at distance settings:
Bildschirm 2023-06-22 um 23.23.08

Notes

  • Photo taken with a 24mm lens on a Canon FF body
  • DPL sets distance to > 10m (see upper arrow)
  • The blue part of the slider starts with an offset (lower arrow)
  • When I select a specific/different range, the slider handle locates itself where the blue bar begins, “Distance” then says 0.75 m, but actual distance was about half that figure.
  • Distance value = 0…as written in the Canon VRD section of metadata by Canon DPP software

My lesson learned

  • Don’t use distortion correction unless necessary, e.g. with architectural or technical subjects
  • If distortion correction is applied, check focal length and distance sliders - and adjust for lines to be really straight if possible.
1 Like
55

I remember a software in which the developers were so bogged down by a cumbersome and obsolete architecture that they were no longer able to correct simple bugs, nor evolve the software at a decent pace. And that each new release brought a new batch of bugs, incomprehensible on apparently simple details. Bug fixes created new ones. Other bugs lasted years or were completely ignored despite user complaints.
Developers who had designed the program had left the team (disagreement on copyright), and the new developers couldn’t find their way around, to the point where some plugin developers were able to produce things that the software developers couldn’t do.
It was a more complex piece of software than this one, though. But changing team and gluing bits of code together without a suitable overall architecture has produced this result.

56

My son is a programer/project manager for a big US firm says this is all to common. Programs used by firms they have taken over hsve at times been less work to reprogram anew than to try to sort out all the programing problems and these are military ones as well. So if the problem exists with DXO its nothing new just how the system works and the resulting mess.

57

I redid a point and some tests concerning the “problem” of the focus distance for Sony cameras/lens!

I have been using Sony cameras for a long time, first in A mount, then in E(FE) mount.
It is well known that the focus distances with the Sonys have always been a problem since they are rarely “found” by PL.
But the polemical turn of the last interventions seems to me a little excessive!

PhotoLab exports of raw Sony ARW, I obviously have a few thousand. Although I would obviously prefer the distance to be recognized automatically, I never had any problems with the distortion correction.

From my tests, I deduce (but it is also obvious) that the distortion correction depends on:

  • essentially the lens (and its focal length for zooms): incidence 95 to 100%, personal estimate!
  • and for a variable part (low to very low) of the focus distance. Including of course for short focal lengths and/or with significant and complex distortions. Incidence 0 to 5%, always personal estimate!

Regarding lenses for which DxO does not display the focusing distance setting, I am not sure that DxO uses (or calculates) the distance (FocusDistance2) from the metadata.
I checked for my lenses, only long focal lengths: 70mm and more, and a macro lens. I note that the distortion linked to the focal length is low to very low. Suffice to say that the impact of the focus distance is totally zero. Of course, this is also verified by comparing the PL6 exports with the exports from Sony’s demosaicing software: Edit, which we can assume knows how to read its own metadata!
My conclusion is therefore that for these lenses, whether or not DxO reads the distance, this has no practical effect on the distortion correction… So DxO can very well ignore the distance for these lenses, I don’t I don’t see anything against them.

For lenses that display the focusing distance setting (most of mine):

  • DxO obviously does not use FocusDistance2

  • FocusDistance2 seems to not match actual focus distance perfectly, especially at short distances. I couldn’t find any explanation…

  • In .dop files, the DistortionFocus value can be present twice:
    – at the start of the file, this is the default value applied when opening the raw, generally 128 (= infinity) with the DxO Standard preset. For my case it is 50 (= 50m) which is the value of my personalized preset.
    – at the end of the file, the new value entered at the cursor, if there has been a modification.

  • The focusing distance ranges are different according to each lens, which implies adapted distance settings.

  • From a certain focus distance, variable according to the lens (distance which can be quite short: 1 to 2m, or rarely longer: 10 to 20m), nothing changes for the distortion correction. It may seem odd, but it’s just a reality that can be easily verified without reverse engineering. By having a real line at the edge of the image, from the moment it is perfectly corrected in distortion for a given distance, it remains so regardless of the higher distance setting on the slider. This relativizes the importance given to the focus distance “in real life”!

  • For very short focus distances and when the range drop-down list is large, it is better to enter a fairly precise distance.

  • In all other cases, it is not necessary to be precise about the distance to be entered, an estimate of the distance will always lead to a valid correction.

Again, it would be preferable for DxO to enter the metadata distance values directly.
In the meantime and for my photo practice, I have to enter the distances for a fairly limited number of images, the current value of 50m from my preset covering a majority of my photos taken. For example for my two most used zooms, this value of 50m covers all distances from 2m to infinity for perfect distortion correction.

Last point concerning the corrections of distortion of the manufacturers, Sony in this case, but it is probably valid for all.
In my tests, I was able to compare the “embedded” corrections used by the Sony and Adobe ACR software, with the DxO correction modules. And the advantage is clearly at DxO (and not only for the distortion)!

58

Sony writes optics correction for in ARW ( might not be the case with A-mount lenses though - but for purity E-mount lenses on E-mount body ), so any conclusion shall start with with what Sony itself writes for a given lens in raw file at various focusing distances … if Sony provides different corrections ( it is easy to access using for example Iridient S-Transformer that can convert that info into DNG tags) - resulting for example in visually different distortion correction and DxO does not ( basically providing a correction @ “infinity” ) then it is clear where fault is …

59

These lenses usually show less distortions compared to wide angle and wide zoom range lenses.
You can also check distortion data on dxomark.com (separate company, despite its name).

Real world example of distortion depending on both Focal Length and Focusing Distance settings:

Notes

  • Corrections: FL and FD adjusted to be the same as when I took the photo with a 4x zoom lens.
  • Distortions clearly depend on both FL and FD values.
  • Distortions between FD set to 60m (DPL max.) and 4m (shooting distance) almost the same (nil).
  • Summary: When a lens distorts as shown and with objects having straight lines, tweaking the FL and FD sliders can make a difference. Trust your eyes!

The correction module offers 5 distance ranges, which seems to be adequate for this lens. I also got the impression that corrections are interpolated between the ranges.

60

My Sony a 90mm macro has a wide range of changes
as you change distances

62

@John7 hello, Before the end of 2023 we will add focus reading for all Sony A7x / A1 / A9.
Optic modules will be updated to take it into account. Thank you for your understanding

1 Like
63

before you in DxO rush to do that - remember that for some Sony models when 3rd party lenses are mounted the tag “FocusPosition2” in raw does not encode the distance ( to be calculated by a well known formula into the tag “FocusDistance2” ), but distance range ( to be mapped , totally not using the formula )

for example

using for example Canon EF 100/2 with Sigma MC-11 adapter on Sony A7R2 results in 5 values : 29 - 67 - 96 - 136 - 255 for tag 0x002d FocusPosition2

DxO PL6 has 6 distance ranges for EF 100/2 lens optics module = [ 0.9 - 1.57m ] + [ 1.57 - 3.03m ] + [ 3.03m - 12.51m ] + [ 12.51 - 40m ] + [ more than 40m ] + infinity …

so to automate focus detection “we” need to map 5 ranges provided by camera to 6 ranges in DxO optical module “C62333a”

0x002d FocusPosition2 = 255 it seems actually appears in a very-very close focus shots - extra testing needed to find out if that is the only case

0x002d FocusPosition2 = 136 it seems is a far distance focus : [ 12.51 - 40m ] + [ more than 40m ]

0x002d FocusPosition2 = 29 we can try [ 0.9 - 1.57m ]

0x002d FocusPosition2 = 67 we can try [ 1.57 - 3.03m ]

0x002d FocusPosition2 = 96 we can try [ 3.03m - 12.51m ]

PS: as DxO claims to test each actually physically each camera model x each lens - have fun !

64

while you are at dealing with Sony focusing distance may be you can consider a way to map Fuji optics correction data in RAF files in to focusing distance range for your optical modules…

understandably Fuji does not write ( at least not publicly known ) any tag w/ the focusing distance info in RAF, but Fuji does write a well known tags with their optics corrections data and as it is table based - that can be used to indirectly map into focusing distance ranges by DxO

just cross reference during the testing the values for distortion written by Fuji into optics correction tags vs actual focusing distance observed and use that mapping to select a focusing distance range for your optical modules in DxO PL later

65

This was not fixed so far in PL7 … still waiting , granted it is not the end of 2023 yet.

66

Reading focusing distance may be now, after over 3 years, been restored as the focusing menu option has gone for my Sony lenses. But it would help for us to be told it had happened!

67

no, I opened .ARW file for A7R2 + Sony’s native FE 55/1.8 lens in DxO PL v7.0.2 on Windows and as usual I can see a focusing distance tool showing me “infinity” ( aka 128m in .DOP ) … so nothing was fixed

68

All my lenses (Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS and E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS) are no longer displaying the distance in 6 and 7. There is clearly something odd if some of us have the distance correction removed and others do not. It sounds as if they have done it for some lenses and not others. The silence about any changes is deafening and changes to what if your lens still isn’t reporting distance and my ones are?

69

again - focusing tool is not displayed for a lens when DxO thinks there is no need for different corrections @ different focusing distances ( even when they are not reading that distance from a raw file = Sony OR when it is genuinely missing = Fuji )… it was the same in PL6 and now in PL7

70

I have found with the new version only my 70-350 E lens is reading distance. All three were not showing the manual correction with the last version but two are again now.

71

I would think that’s more camera specific rather then lens specific. The lens has distance info or not and the camera registers that in the raw file.

George

72

No, the 70-350mm lens focus distance is now being read, I hope, when on a6000, a6400 and a6700. With the last PL build I checked old images from all three cameras and lenses and all had the manual distance missing. With the new 7.1 two lenses again have manual focus distance showing. I don’t know what happened, the 7.02 may have had a “error” in the Sony a 6000 series losing the manual adjustment (which is worrying as how many others could be like that?) as I take it the lenses information determines the ability to read focus distance?

The image has the focus distance in it there was an earlier discussion on how to read it and basically DxO were not getting it originally from the right place. There was a way given in that discussion on how to use another program to extract the distance and add it to dop’s (I never managed to get it to work).
The other problem is the secrecy of DxO they cut focus distance reading from many Sony lenses with out telling customers they had done it and now have restored it to some (no idea which Sony lenses but looks like my 70-350 is one) again not telling anyone.

I will add I now find my old 70-350 still have manual focusing showing. New ones do not. I hadn’t checked old ones before this morning as they current ones were not displaying the manual adjustment. Current 16-70 and 90mm lenses have the manual adjustment there and all tree with 7.0.2 hadn’t got it there. As I have deleted the database it’s the information in dop’s that’s overriding automatic focus reading? I will tray latter by copying an exiting image and editing from scratch.

73

I am totally lost as to what’s going on I deleted the data base, copied a 70-350 ARW from 2022) that needed manual focus distance to a test folder. It was still shown as needing manual distance it in the new folder. I then found ARW from the 16-70mm and 90mm macro did not need manual adjustment in recent years. But all three change to needing manual focus distance early 2022 back. I can’t see what changes relate to why the differences, this is on different bodies. Two bodies haven’t had a firmware change in years and the 6700 results are the same whichever the firmware version. None of the lenses have ever had firmware updates. The only differences are down to what DXO have done and I just can’t see what changes that alow focus distance reading for some ARW are not for other ones on the same cameras. What confuses me the most is why a ARW that needs manual distance when moved with a database deleted and no dop still needs manual focus distance when ARWs taken on the same camera/lenses do not?

I have finished a further test. Used the 3 lens on a6700 and a6400 added them via my DAM and all 6 didn’t have the manual distance there BUT the ARW already added taken on the 6400 did. There has been NO firmware change for the lens or camera since the one needing manual distance was taken but today the same lenses/camera didn’t need it?

74

do you mind to share 7 raw files ? one set of 6 raws = “Used the 3 lens on a6700 and a6400 added them via my DAM and all 6 didn’t have the manual distance” and one set of 1 raw = " ARW already added taken on the 6400 did." ?

thank you