DIVU optimizations - why not on-camera ?

[Boaz68045]

Does anyone have an idea of why did Minolta not give the
camera all the optimization that the DIVU can do externally ?
The DIVU is still nice to 'play' with the image externally, but
it is likely to expect the camera to perform the optimizations
when taking the picture.

 

[Melanie Kipp]

I may be wrong, so someone correct me if I am, but the main purpose of DIVU is to process RAW data...

Raw data taking up less room in the camera ( on the Card, really), thus allowing one more space for more pictures.

When shooting in jpeg or tiff, then the camera is internally doing what the DIVU does externally for the RAW image.

Also, I believe the RAW data is much more complex ( More colors) than the other file choices... to have the camera also make the adjustments we do later in DIVU, and then store it internally , would require us all to have 1gig MicroDrives to store the images during a shoot. ( I'd love to have one! LOL)

The D7 is a wonderful camera, I'm still in love with mine... but I am also glad I decided to keep my "other" digital camera.
;-)
--Please visit me at: http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Boaz68045]

I may be wrong, so someone correct me if I am, but the main purpose
of DIVU is to process RAW data...
Raw data taking up less room in the camera ( on the Card, really),
thus allowing one more space for more pictures.

I am using S304 and most of the times in 'Fine' mode (jpeg). The jpeg

size after DIVU optimization is similar of the one before. So as far as it concerns to jpeg files, DIVU optimizations are not affecting the size.

 

[Melanie Kipp]

I am using S304 and most of the times in 'Fine' mode (jpeg). The jpeg
size after DIVU optimization is similar of the one before. So as
far as it concerns to jpeg files, DIVU optimizations are not
affecting the size.

DIVU wouldn't affect the size of a jpeg... it's main purpose is to process RAW data... the camera in RAW made records settings, etc.... but doesn't apply them to the image ( I know my terminology is not exactly correct). By just "making a note" of the data... instead of processing it fully, RAW mode files take up less room on your CF.
--Please visit me at: http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Felix Reichardt]

eh,

I also think so. Is there any improvement for JPEG's. I can't see that.
I also don't understand why all magazins and online and offline write
that they have processed the pics via DIVU ... I see no difference for
my JPEG's ... ;-)

Does anyone get better results just by loading and saving JPEG's with
the DIVU ... ??? I mean without correcting anything?

I may be wrong, so someone correct me if I am, but the main purpose
of DIVU is to process RAW data...
Raw data taking up less room in the camera ( on the Card, really),
thus allowing one more space for more pictures.
When shooting in jpeg or tiff, then the camera is internally doing
what the DIVU does externally for the RAW image.
Also, I believe the RAW data is much more complex ( More colors)
than the other file choices... to have the camera also make the
adjustments we do later in DIVU, and then store it internally ,
would require us all to have 1gig MicroDrives to store the images
during a shoot. ( I'd love to have one! LOL)
The D7 is a wonderful camera, I'm still in love with mine... but I
am also glad I decided to keep my "other" digital camera.
;-)

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[henri56123]

Hi Melanie, your assumptions are not entirely correct; processing Raw is one of the functions of DIVU; another important one is converting any camera picture (jpeg, tiff or raw) from tha camera color space to a proper working space by using icc profiles; (some people like that, others don't);

the editing & viewing part of DIVU is a secondary job which can be done better in real editors or viewers.

DIVU program is really based on Minolta's software for film scanners on which they have extensive experience.
Henri

I may be wrong, so someone correct me if I am, but the main purpose
of DIVU is to process RAW data...
Raw data taking up less room in the camera ( on the Card, really),
thus allowing one more space for more pictures.
When shooting in jpeg or tiff, then the camera is internally doing
what the DIVU does externally for the RAW image.
Also, I believe the RAW data is much more complex ( More colors)
than the other file choices... to have the camera also make the
adjustments we do later in DIVU, and then store it internally ,
would require us all to have 1gig MicroDrives to store the images
during a shoot. ( I'd love to have one! LOL)
The D7 is a wonderful camera, I'm still in love with mine... but I
am also glad I decided to keep my "other" digital camera.
;-)

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

-- Pluche

 

[Melanie Kipp]

I may be wrong, so someone correct me if I am, but the main purpose
of DIVU is to process RAW data...
Raw data taking up less room in the camera ( on the Card, really),
thus allowing one more space for more pictures.

I am using S304 and most of the times in 'Fine' mode (jpeg). The jpeg
size after DIVU optimization is similar of the one before. So as
far as it concerns to jpeg files, DIVU optimizations are not
affecting the size

Think of it this way... architechtural blue prints are detailed drawings of a house.... you can fit many blue prints in a small space.... enough for a housing division on your dining room table.... the finished houses would never fit there...

Same for RAW image data... all the details are there, but the "construction" takes place in DIVU.

This link is to an flower I took in TIFF format.... I did NOT pull it through DIVU... unless you're taking images in RAW format, it's really not necessary to pull your images into DIVU... This image went directly to PS 6.0.1

Printed out.... it's so sharp and the colors are right on... you can almost smell the flower:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com/stargazer.html

I don't fully understand why, but RAW images are reported to be preferable for publishing purposes... they contain more color information than other file types. Your ability to "fine tune" the image is greater because of this. Personally, for my general purposes, I shoot in tiff or the highest quality jpeg....

--Please visit me at: http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Melanie Kipp]

Thanks Henry... I knew my grasp of the situation was limited. I prefer to pull my non-RAW images directly in PS 6.0.1
But your further explanation has been very helpful.
--Please visit me at: http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Mark Caplin]

This link is to an flower I took in TIFF format.... I did NOT pull
it through DIVU... unless you're taking images in RAW format, it's
really not necessary to pull your images into DIVU... This image
went directly to PS 6.0.1
Printed out.... it's so sharp and the colors are right on... youanie
can almost smell the flower:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com/stargazer.html
I don't fully understand why, but RAW images are reported to be
preferable for publishing purposes... they contain more color
information than other file types. Your ability to "fine tune" the
image is greater because of this. Personally, for my general
purposes, I shoot in tiff or the highest quality jpeg....

Melanie,

Ive had trouble getting images as sharp and colour correct as this.

I was starting to 'slightly' doubt the camera as I havnt had this problem with film. Now I know I have more work to do and I have to drag my tripod out more often

This pic is is so sharp and the colour is amazing. Can you please tell me what you did to it in PS and what in camera setting you used.

Kind regards,
Mark

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Mofongo]

Melanie Kipp wrote:

Thanks Henry... I knew my grasp of the situation was limited. I
prefer to pull my non-RAW images directly in PS 6.0.1
But your further explanation has been very helpful.

So does all this mean that if I'm shooting in JPG, I can avoid the extra step of using DIVU and just edit my photos in PS 6.0 like I do with my other cameras and still get good color? I have a S304 on the way and an unsure if the extra work will be worth it?

Thanks in advance...

Bob-- http://www.pbase.com/mofongoToday 's subliminal thought is:

 

[Melanie Kipp]

Melanie,

Ive had trouble getting images as sharp and colour correct as this.
I was starting to 'slightly' doubt the camera as I havnt had this
problem with film. Now I know I have more work to do and I have
to drag my tripod out more often

This pic is is so sharp and the colour is amazing. Can you please
tell me what you did to it in PS and what in camera setting you
used.

Kind regards,
Mark

Mark... the flower was in a gift shop / flower shop downtown. I was in doing inventory on my prints/note cards. I placed the flower on the floor in front of a black display counter. I put the D7 on a mini tripod. It was set for florescent lighting. Tiff. ISO 100. Self timer. Multi Metering. P mode ( not portrait mode).

PS processing was minimal... as a matter of fact all I did was pull it up, saw "WOW" and print. I printed it on Pictorico's Glassy Film on my Epson 870.... eye popping color...

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

--Please visit me at: http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Claymore]

Melanie Kipp wrote:

Thanks Henry... I knew my grasp of the situation was limited. I
prefer to pull my non-RAW images directly in PS 6.0.1
But your further explanation has been very helpful.

So does all this mean that if I'm shooting in JPG, I can avoid the
extra step of using DIVU and just edit my photos in PS 6.0 like I
do with my other cameras and still get good color? I have a S304 on
the way and an unsure if the extra work will be worth it?

Thanks in advance...

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/mofongo

Today's subliminal thought is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

YES!!!

Clifford

--Clifford

 

[Mofongo]

So does all this mean that if I'm shooting in JPG, I can avoid the
extra step of using DIVU and just edit my photos in PS 6.0 like I
do with my other cameras and still get good color? I have a S304 on
the way and an unsure if the extra work will be worth it?

Thanks in advance...

YES!!!

Yes, what? Is the extra work worth it or will it not matter is I shoot in Jpg?

I'll rephrase the question: If I shoot in Jpg is it necessary to run the images thru DIVU to get good color?

I'm not sure by your one word reply which question you are anwering...Bob
-- http://www.pbase.com/mofongoToday 's subliminal thought is:

 

[Paul Shovestul]

Does anyone get better results just by loading and saving JPEG's with
the DIVU ... ??? I mean without correcting anything?

Better? I'm not so sure, but different ... definitely. I took a series of photos, processed them (3) different ways in DiVU and had them printed at Walmart in 4x6 prints. I sent 1) unprocessed JPEGs from camera, 2) JPEGs converted to sRGB in DiVU and 3) JPEGs converted to sRGB in DiVU w/ Auto correction for Tone Curve & Histograms; Brightness, Contrast and Color Balance; Hue, Saturation & Lightness. My local Walmart did an outstanding job, and there is clearly a difference in the photo's. They were specifically asked to make no adjustment to the photo's.

To my untrained eye the difference is primarily a gradual increase in saturation from 1-3. In most cases photo's processed by 3 were the most pleasing. Although in some cases saturation was border line too high causing a loss of detail. This missing detail would have been undetectable had comparison prints not been available.

Paul Shovestul

 

[Claymore]

I'll rephrase the question: If I shoot in Jpg is it necessary to
run the images thru DIVU to get good color?

I'm not sure by your one word reply which question you are
anwering...Bob

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob, many of us have found we get more "life-like" color by shooting
in "fine" mode JPG and opening the image in the PhotoShop, Ulead,
Irfanview, colorfix,or other photo program. (no DIVU needed). You
can make ajustments in these programs to suite your taste. The
average fine jpg image is 2 Mb. When you de-compress the file it
becomes a full 11+Mb image. One user mesured that at 26X36 inches.
See Gary's FULL size photos that show 20X30 prints can be beautiful!
Some of the users workflow with sRGB, DIVU, Brucecolor, curves,
gammas, profiles,ect. Each to his own method. But NO, in my opinion,
and from using the camera since July of last year you can by-pass DIVU,
and get stunning results. This helps?

Clifford

--Clifford

 

[Jon W77861]

I'll rephrase the question: If I shoot in Jpg is it necessary to
run the images thru DIVU to get good color?

Often we see worse color after running the image thru DIVU.

 

[Mike Roberts]

If I shoot in Jpg is it necessary to run the images thru DIVU to get good > color?

If you can define 'good color' in a way that is 100% acceptable to all photographers then maybe this question could be answered.

The only answer you can get is that there are many folks using many different methods for making use of or ignoring the additional color information provided by the D7 and all are happy with their chosen method(s) because they think it gives them the best color.

I use DIVU to convert FINE JPGs to Adobe RGB and save as TIF. Edit in Photoshop usually only adjusting levels and sharpness. I am 110% satisfied with my final outputs allowing for photographer error.

Mike Roberts

And now for today's moment of zen...

O

.

.

 

[Fred Meehan]

If I shoot in Jpg is it necessary to run the images thru DIVU to get good > color?

If you can define 'good color' in a way that is 100% acceptable to
all photographers then maybe this question could be answered.

The only answer you can get is that there are many folks using many
different methods for making use of or ignoring the additional
color information provided by the D7 and all are happy with their
chosen method(s) because they think it gives them the best color.

I use DIVU to convert FINE JPGs to Adobe RGB and save as TIF. Edit
in Photoshop usually only adjusting levels and sharpness. I am 110%
satisfied with my final outputs allowing for photographer error.

Mike Roberts

Yes Mike

And that is exactly how I do it
Fred

 

[Mofongo]

Clifford wrote:
But NO, in my opinion,
and from using the camera since July of last year you can by-pass
DIVU,
and get stunning results. This helps?

Thanks Clifford. I have a S304 on the way that I won at Steves and I want to make sure I can get good results without using extra software. I edit all keepers in PS 6.0 anyway for levels, contrast and unsharp mask and I'd hate to have to throw another step, edit, save etc.. in there. When I get it I'm sure I'll try both ways bit I was wondering if some were happy without DIVU...Bob-- http://www.pbase.com/mofongoToday 's subliminal thought is:

 

[Steven Sterne]

If I shoot in Jpg is it necessary to run the images thru DIVU to get good > color?

If you can define 'good color' in a way that is 100% acceptable to
all photographers then maybe this question could be answered.

The only answer you can get is that there are many folks using many
different methods for making use of or ignoring the additional
color information provided by the D7 and all are happy with their
chosen method(s) because they think it gives them the best color.

I use DIVU to convert FINE JPGs to Adobe RGB and save as TIF. Edit
in Photoshop usually only adjusting levels and sharpness. I am 110%
satisfied with my final outputs allowing for photographer error.

Mike Roberts

Yes Mike

And that is exactly how I do it
Fred

Me too, except that instead of Levels i use iCorrect Pro, a really great Photoshop plug-in.

Images processed without DIVU are often acceptable or better, but with DIVU are richer in color and are more accurate. It helps to use a wider colorspace like AdobeRGB or AppleRGB rather than sRGB.

Steven