Sometimes I walk right into the middle of one. When I posted my original LX-3 review in the compact comparison I used a raw converter that output images with quite a bit of barrel distortion. After getting pummeled with Panasonic users claiming there was no such distortion, I decided to re-run the tests using the Panasonic-supplied Silkypix for raw and the in-camera JPEG. The distortion numbers came out much different, and about the same as the Nikon Coolpix in the test. So I changed my review and decided I needed to take another look at what that original raw converter was doing.
Well, what it was doing was converting the raw data. My original assessment was indeed correct. So how does Silkypix manage to produce images with less distortion? Well, apparently it's doing silent distortion correction, though why it wouldn't do full distortion correction is another story (did Panasonic just give them their in-camera formula, which doesn't do full correction?).
At the moment I'm not quite sure how to proceed. Basically, I'm going to wait for more converters to handle the LX-3's raw files before making another adjustment to my article. However, I can say that I won't be using Silkypix as my raw converter for the camera. No way do I want the converter to do a partial distortion conversion and then apply my own distortion fix to the now far-from-what-was-in-the-file pixels. Repeated pixel-based handling is a good way of getting pixel mush and losing acuity. I was actually impressed with the raw files (despite the distortion) the first time around, less so when using the Silkypix conversion. We really need to get it drummed into camera makers' heads that raw means raw. Don't mess with the data. Let us choose how to mess with the data. That's why we use raw.