De-fishing the Fish in the City

Discussion in 'Scenic, Architecture, and Travel' started by phrenic, Aug 9, 2012.

  1. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    Rokinon 7.5mm shot with a G1 in RAW, processed in LR4 with a faux HDR preset (aka boost contrast/saturation/shadows). Then used the lens correction feature using the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye profile. Super easy, like 15-30s for each.


    Edited for before and after for the curious:

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/t-quan/7746867256/" title="P1070152-2 by illvilliaNY, on Flickr">"684" height="1024" alt="P1070152-2"></a>
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/t-quan/7744802584/" title="P1070152 by illvilliaNY, on Flickr">"684" height="1024" alt="P1070152"></a>
    defished nikon 10.5mm

    edit#2: as per requested, a different profile.
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/t-quan/7759609522/" title="P1070152 by illvilliaNY, on Flickr"> 7759609522_093111d6f7_b. "684" height="1024" alt="P1070152"></a>
    defished canon ef15mm lens profile...subtle difference? I can't say I prefer one over the other. Opinions welcome.






    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/t-quan/7746867804/" title="P1070157-2 by illvilliaNY, on Flickr">"1024" height="684" alt="P1070157-2"></a>
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/t-quan/7744803542/" title="P1070157 by illvilliaNY, on Flickr">[​IMG]"1024" height="684" alt="P1070157"></a>
     
    • Like Like x 5
  2. Iconindustries

    Iconindustries Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Looks like the trick worked well.

    Could you post before and after so we can see the comparison?
     
  3. riverr02

    riverr02 Mu-43 Veteran

    258
    May 2, 2011
    New York
    Rafael
    Yes please, that'd be helpful. Purchased this lens last night on sale, and I'm looking forward to using it to try and get photos as nice as yours. Thanks!
     
  4. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    At the risk of showing how incredibly mundane my photography is, I've updated the original post for the before tweaks.

    Note there are a few other things that are slightly different, like cropping for a level horizon, WB on the first image. I was lazy and used LR history..and unfortunately lens correction was first thing I did, so hopefully you can still get a good sense of the before-and-after lens profile correction.
     
  5. RevBob

    RevBob Super Moderator

    Jun 4, 2011
    NorthWestern PA
    Bob
    Interesting, hadn't considered correcting a fisheye with LR. May make me reconsider buying one. Hmmmmm . . . think I'm getting GAS! :biggrin:
     
  6. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    Lens profile for Nikon DX 10.5 seems to do the trick. Have you tried any other ones?

    I'm looking at Adobe's knowledge base it looks like there are some profiles that are even closer to the Samyang/Rokinon 7.5mm.

    Nikon DX 10.5mm (crop, 15.75mm equivalent) - the one you're using
    Sigma DC 10mm (crop, 15mm equivalent)
    Canon EF 15mm (35mm)
    Sigma 15mm (35mm)

    In fact there seems to be two Sigma 15mm profiles? Probably two versions?

    I wonder what the other profiles would look like being closer to the 15mm equivalent the Samyang is?
     
  7. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    Seems like a no brainer since these are $299 a pop at B&H?

    I'm definitely getting the GAS too.
     
  8. dwkdnvr

    dwkdnvr Mu-43 Regular

    79
    Aug 8, 2012
    Denver
    I just picked one up specifically because most of the de-fished images I've seen look pretty good. Compared to the price of the 7-14, I think I can live with manipulating things for a while to see whether I'm as interested in true wide perspectives as I think I am.

    The no-brainer part is that they're on now for $240 (or were, anyway) - check the deals thread. I was waffling at 299, but 240 pushed me over the edge.

    To the OP - nice images. I definitely like the de-fished versions, despite the smearing at the edges.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    Nope, haven't tried the others. I was pretty happy with these results, but perhaps that Sigma 10mm would be a strong candidate. I'll try to remember to play around with some other profiles when I get home tonight.

    I think someone posted a custom profile on DPR a while back, but never got it to work with LR3. Maybe I'll have better luck with 4.



    I wonder what the de-fished width is equivalent to. It "feels" wider than 9mm (I have the 9-18mm) but it's not in the 7-14mm range. Maybe someone smarter than myself has tested what the equiv focal length is. An interesting option as a wide angle prime. Nicer built than the 9-18mm, faster, and can use MF/focus to infinity. You trade off IQ though, particularly in the corners.
     
  10. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    It's really wide. Much more than 9mm or 7mm.

    Micro 4/3rds Photography: Lumix G 7-14mm compared with Samyang 7.5mm fisheye

    Micro 4/3rds Photography: Defished fisheye compared with ultra-wide

    I think you should try the 35mm profiles. Might be better than the crop lens profiles?
     
  11. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    Wow I had no idea the difference was so extreme. Definitely a neat trick to have then (assuming you don't mind the corner distortion). My copy isn't great in one corner, so I try to keep that in mind for all my shooting anyways..
     
  12. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    What I didn't know was that Lightroom's lens profiles can defish the images automatically.

    That is way better than using Hugin. I originally intended to skip this lens and get the Olympus 9-18mm.

    I may still get the Olympus UWA zoom, but I would only use its 9mm end. If the Rokinon/Samyang is easier to defish I would love to have this instead and kill two birds with one stone (having an UWA and a fisheye).
     
  13. Reactions

    Reactions Mu-43 Regular

    78
    Jul 24, 2012
    Norcal
    Gabe
    Damn I think I'm buying this lens now

    Edit/

    Bought
     
  14. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Both of those are great photos, and the processing very nice as well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    I tried the Canon..no real difference imo. Updated the OP..let me know if you can tell which is better.
     
  16. riverr02

    riverr02 Mu-43 Veteran

    258
    May 2, 2011
    New York
    Rafael
    My vote is for the second one, though that may be due to differences in PP. either way, great shot, and thanks for doing this. Just got my lens- thanks to this post!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. mowog6000

    mowog6000 Mu-43 Regular

    126
    Mar 2, 2012
    Oregon City Oregon
    Pat bailey
    if you just want a wide cinemascope type shot why not just shoot a panorama?
    You don't get the weird distortions even in the defished shots.
     
  18. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    Some distortion isn't necessarily bad. Why buy the 7-14mm when you can stitch a panorama to capture more into a scene? The perspective changes..

    Sent from my iPad using Mu-43 App
     
  19. ppdd

    ppdd Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Aug 13, 2012
    This. There's a big difference between "angle of view" and "perspective". A panorama shot with a 50mm lens looks *nothing* like the same scene shot from a UWA lens.

    If you want to play with depth, you can do it in a couple ways: selective focus or focal length. On a small sensor, you'll never get quite the same shallow DoF as 35mm film, which makes playing with perspective even more important. the ability to make near stuff HUGE and far stuff tiny is especially useful.
     
  20. strang

    strang Mu-43 Veteran

    287
    May 7, 2012
    Thanks for doing this.

    If I get this lens I think the profile I use would be the Canon EF 15mm. It's the closest equivalent 1st party lens.