"Convert colors" degrades image quality?

I'm using Acrobat Professional 8 to convert a pdf file to the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 color space. Strangely enough, when executing the color convert, the JPEG image quality seems to degrade (see attached image). Is there any way to prevent or minimize this quality loss?

Okay do you have an original of the design.
try saving in 300 or 600 DPI create the pdf.
the try adding the Graphic
Click on Tools menu Content editing
next click on add image
locate the image.
Now place the image approximately where it should be.
then choose the image and place in desired area.
Save
see if image looks better.

Similar Messages

Convert Colors spoil image quality! Why?

Hello!
In previous post i mentioned loss of image's quality. Now i tested it again and made example. Don't see any option for avoiding it. Maybe (and probably that's so) i just can't find some important preference. I change in preferences in Categories Convert form/to PDF jpg and tiff option to maximum but it didn't do any good.
Before and after (zoom 200%):
Any ideas?
P.S. Acrobat Pro X.
Thanks.

Okay do you have an original of the design.
try saving in 300 or 600 DPI create the pdf.
the try adding the Graphic
Click on Tools menu Content editing
next click on add image
locate the image.
Now place the image approximately where it should be.
then choose the image and place in desired area.
Save
see if image looks better.

Converting color .jpg image to grayscale

I have a color .jpg image that I want to convert to grayscale and then add annotation. Is this easy to do in Illustrator?

Thomas Crowley wrote:
I've opened the .jpg image in Illustrator. It is a line drawing.
Those two statements constitute a logical fallacy. A JPEG image is a bitmap, and not, in any way or fashion, a "line drawing". Therefore,
...I cannot edit individual parts of the drawing.
is because the "individual parts" of the image are single color pixels. To "edit" these, you need a bitmap editor.
It's necessary to say "edit" (w/quotes) because you will be editing pixels. Any notion of 'lines', 'planes', and 'shades' only exist in your mind, and not as physical separate objects somewhere inside the bitmap. If you think you can "select" a big black square "object" in the bitmap editor, well, that's because the software only makes you think you can (it's easy to scan for the edge of a single color filled region).
... I just felt you might need to know this.

Color Corrector & Image Quality Issues

I have been putting some color corrector on some clips and after rendering, the quality is very skippy. Even after exporting to quicktime. I'm fine with it skipping in FCE, but when I export , I want it to be as clear as possible and no skipping. How do I accomplish that? Do I need to export a certain format?
I also have been placing images in my timeline from Keynote, exported to TIFF for best quality. When rendered, these images also look very bad. What image format does FCE play nicest with? SO that I can put in these images with no loss of quality.
Any tips for either would be very helpful.

Here are the properties to the best I can understand them from the clip browser. Frame-1920x1080, Vid Rate- 29.97fps, Compressor- apple intermediate codec, data rate- 17.6 MB/sec, aud rate- 48 khz, aud format- 16-bit integer, field dominance- upper(odd).
Sequence is exactly the same except aud format- 32-bit floating point.
Not sure if that is what you're looking for? This particular clip is too bright and my subject has shine on his face. When rendered, I view the playback in the Canvas window, that is where I notice the skipping. It is the same in the Viewer window when rendered.

Saving documents to pdf degrades image quality significantly

I am using AW 6.2.9 to produce a monthly newsltter that always includes a photo or two. I keep the photos I insert at a high resolution quality. However, when I save to pdf to send to my organization to print it, the quality of the photo degrades significantly and the printout of the photo in the newsletter looks terrible. I have tried everything I know of in how I am saving to pdf, but nothing seems to work.
Any ideas on what I need to do to keep the quality consistent between AW and saving to pdf?
-Craig G

Since you are using AppleWorks, what format are the graphics before inserting them in the AppleWorks document? I'm guessing that the images are JPEGs. AppleWorks changes the resolution of all graphic formats except PICT to 72 dpi. There are a couple of things you can do improve the print quality of images. Since saving as a PDF is actually printing to a file, these suggestions apply.
1. Turn on Fractional Character widths in Preferences > General > Topic: Text. This is a text setting, but it does improve the print quality of images.
2. Open the image in Preview or GraphicConverter & Save As... a PICT to use in AppleWorks.
PICT is generally the best format to use for inserting or pasting into AppleWorks. I find the resulting graphic can be resized somewhat & the resulting saved AW file is much smaller than if using JPEG or TIFF.

Degraded image quality on export

I have placed images in the timeline and images that are
brought in using XML. The images have text on them and when I
export the swf it is distorting the text in the image. It looks
fine when I export as a JPG and it looks fine when I place it in
the timeline. I have tried everything i think for export options
such as JPEG quality and compression but nothing works. This is the
first time I've had this problem because I normally design with
text in Flash, but I need it to be in the image for efficiency in
updating with XML. Has anyone else had this issue?
You can see it here:
Providence Club
AC

Adam Sebire wrote:
I'd like to believe FCP is actually sophisticated enough to deliver broadcast-quality results on its own, 6 versions down the track!
FCP can and does produce broadcast quality video on a daily basis all over the world. Your problem is unique to your situation and not indicative of FCP's overall capabilities.
In my opinion the DV codec is not broadcast quality despite the fact that it's often used as such. It's a horrible codec with regards to fine detail, thin edges and graphics in general. Standard def as a format is not kind to thin font types either since there are only 480 horizontal lines of resolution compared to 1080 lines in HD.
Compressor does a better job of downrezzing than FCP because of the fine detail controls it has. It's part of the suite for that reason just like Motion is used for complex compositing even though you can composite in FCP. If you're having a problem with encodes in Compressor, I think THAT might actually be your real problem. You should try googling a program called Compressor Repair. It may be able to help.
If you're determined to stay in FCP, you should try nesting into an Uncompressed 8-bit sequence instead of DV. The Uncompressed codec has a much better chance of handling the fine detail in your HD signal than the DV codec does.
Andy

Jitter / Judder / degraded image quality on HD to SD downres for broadcast

I work for Australian television and am having jitter/judder issues when HD detail (in my case 1080p25 XDCAM EX) is downresed to SD (DVCPRO50i50) for broadcast.
From the Final Cut Pro 6.0.5 XDCAM sequence I choose Export Quicktime Movie and set it to PAL DV50.
(I don't use Compressor in this step because it consistently throws away about 5% of the pixels on the left and right edges of the image...bizarre!)
At our TV station they play my Quicktime DV50 out to DVCPRO50 tape from FCP without rendering.
I also encode a preview DVD from the same DV50 Quicktime file.
The DV50 Quicktime movie, the tape playout, AND the DVD ALL show a noticeable degree of jitter in fine detail when viewed on broadcast interlace monitors. But it scraped through tech checks.
It's when it's broadcast that it suddenly becomes terrible (I suspect these issues are probably amplified by the compression levels of digital TV here in Australia!)
I'll post a still which I screen captured from the digital broadcast yesterday.
You can see the loss of quality on anything that was sharp - eg. the nearest French Horn and the caption credit.
Detail on both dances like crazy when the film plays on my LCD monitor!
If anybody has any suggestions, please do let me know, as I can't find any other posts on downres issues.
Thanks!
Adam

Adam Sebire wrote:
I'd like to believe FCP is actually sophisticated enough to deliver broadcast-quality results on its own, 6 versions down the track!
FCP can and does produce broadcast quality video on a daily basis all over the world. Your problem is unique to your situation and not indicative of FCP's overall capabilities.
In my opinion the DV codec is not broadcast quality despite the fact that it's often used as such. It's a horrible codec with regards to fine detail, thin edges and graphics in general. Standard def as a format is not kind to thin font types either since there are only 480 horizontal lines of resolution compared to 1080 lines in HD.
Compressor does a better job of downrezzing than FCP because of the fine detail controls it has. It's part of the suite for that reason just like Motion is used for complex compositing even though you can composite in FCP. If you're having a problem with encodes in Compressor, I think THAT might actually be your real problem. You should try googling a program called Compressor Repair. It may be able to help.
If you're determined to stay in FCP, you should try nesting into an Uncompressed 8-bit sequence instead of DV. The Uncompressed codec has a much better chance of handling the fine detail in your HD signal than the DV codec does.
Andy

Image quality in PDF output

When my iBook is exported to PDF or Print/Save as PDF several images have very degraded image quality. The same image prints well from pages. Any suggestions/ideas?

The same image printed from Pages looks fine.
I've inserted PDF, png, jpg (will probably try TIF/GIF next) all display the same degradation.
When a JPG is inserted as the Chapter intro image in iBooksAuthor it looks fine/much better.

Exporting photos for UHDTV or Native 4K TV, what are the best settings ? (File: Quality File: Color Space, Image Sizing and resolution) Or in other words; How can I get the smallest files but keep good quality for display on new UHDTV

Exporting photos for UHDTV or Native 4K TV, what are the best settings ? (File: Quality File: Color Space, Image Sizing and resolution) Or in other words; How can I get the smallest files but keep good quality for display on new UHDTV

You're welcome, and thank you for the reply.
2) Yesterday I made the subclips with the In-Out Points and Command-U, the benefit is that I've seen the clip before naming it. Now I'm using markers, it's benefit is that I can write comment and (the later) clip name at once, the drawback is that I have to view to the next shot's beginning before knowing what the shot contains.
But now I found out that I can reconnect my clips independently to the format I converted the master clip to. I reconnected the media to the original AVI file and it worked, too! The more I work with, the more I'm sold on it... - although it doesn't seem to be able to read and use the date information within the DV AVI.
1) Ok, I tried something similar within FCE. Just worked, but the file size still remains. Which codec settings should I use? Is the export to DV in MOV with a quality of 75% acceptable for both file size and quality? Or would be encoding as H.264 with best quality an option for archiving, knowing that I have to convert it back to DV if I (maybe) wan't to use it for editing later? Or anything else?
Thank's in advance again,
André

When I drag photos into iMovie, the image quality is degraded. Can I somehow prevent the degradation?

When I drag photos into iMovie, the image quality is degraded. Can I somehow prevent the degradation?

Hi
A very common origin to jumpy picture is
• Recorded material in one frame rate e.g. 29.97fps (NTSC) and iDVD set to do a 25fps (PAL) project - OR the other way around.
It delivers a DVD but a very bad one.
I do convert all my material to same fps as the DVD I want to do (e.g. PAL) - before any editing etc.
I use JES_Deinterlacer or Compressor to do this and the result is so much better.
JES_Deinterlacer is free on Internet and makes a Great job - Professional alternatives comes at an astronomical cost and the quality is not hardly no better.
Yours Bengt W

How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6. (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
(1) (1) Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage. Then dragging the first one into the base document. It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image. Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
(2) (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
(3) (3) I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it. No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
(4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715 Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means. (Or even in a different program!). Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes. Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help. [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
Why this happens has to do with simple math.
inches x ppi = pixels
Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

I am using a MacBook Pro. I simply cannot find a way to attach images adjusted in Lightroom as attachments and/or without massive degradation in quality. I follow the LR attach email process as specified by LR, the photos appear in the email seemingly e

I am using a MacBook Pro. I simply cannot find a way to attach images adjusted in Lightroom as attachments and/or without massive degradation in quality. I follow the LR attach email process as specified by LR, the photos appear in the email seemingly embedded and the recipients of the email cannot save the attachment.

You are welcome. Just finished a chat session with an Apple support rep and confirmed the matte option no longer available. Seems lots has changed since I bought my 17” 19 months back:). They did say that there were after market screen films available from places like amazon
Have never used anything like that though. My wife has a 2008 MBP 15” with gloss and I can say it is a nice screen finish, you just have to be careful of lighting from behind you. All my iMacs were glossy and I did learn to compensate for the added brilliance the screen brought to the photos. The new soft proofing feature of LR5 seems to better estimate the level of brightness of the printed work, compared to past versions of the s/ware.
In any case, in my opinion you really can’t go wrong with the apple product. I bought my first iMac in mid 1999 and have never looked back. I donated that machine to a pre-school in 2008, it was running OSX version 2 or 3 I think. I did run Photoshop 7.0 on an IBM laptop for a time (windows XP). I think I had one of the very first versions of Adobe Camera Raw on that machine. I digress, sorry.
The chat representative did confirm that the 17” is out of production and I’m guessing Apple found the market for the big laptop just wasn’t there. They did mention that 17” MBP’s show up as “certified refurbished” units from time to time. Suggest you might explore that option with a local Apple store in the UK, assuming Apple has store front operations off this continent of course.
Please feel free to contact me with further questions if you wish.
Take care, Gordy

Slideshow image quality/color rendering

I´m quite frustrated after discovering that some of my images look quite poor displayed by the slideshow module. My situation ist as follows:
LR 5.2 running on Mac OS X 10.8.5, 1:1 previews are rendered, preview quality is set to high, and I´m using a sample image showing a dark cloudy sky with some fine gradients; my slideshow preset doesn´t use any borders as I read this often causes quality issues.
When I´m in the Develop module, there is no problem at all, even in fullscreen display mode on my 1920x1200 display the gradients are perfectly rendered.
In Library module, when displaying fullscreen, quality is okay, but I can see some slight difference compared to the Develop module - which I understand after reading that in Develop the output is based on the actual raw data, and in all the other modules on rendered previews.
Now, when in Slideshow module, the image quality is significantly lower than in Library and I see some quite obvious banding in the gradients. I don´t have problems with blocking artifacts but the banding/posterization is considerably worse compared to a JPEG export with a quality setting of, for example, 75.
I can´t imagine LR´s slideshow tool would be working with a lower color depth than the 8 bit as in standard JPEGs, right? Did I miss any of LR´s parameters that influence the image quality of Lightroom slideshows or of the previews used therefore? Otherwise do you have some other explanations or hints for me in order to get this fixed? We do everything to capture our images in the best possible quality so we should also be able to present them properly after all...
Thanks a lot for any advice!
Toby

In-Lr slideshow images look like crap on my system too (dull contrast and de-saturated shifted color).
My guess is some issue with icc-profile/monitor-profile or something, but I'm not qualified for assessing.. - could just be a bug in Lr that only bites some, dunno...
I use ShowBiz instead, which works well on my Windows box, and it should also work on your Mac box.
Rob

Converting appleworks document into jpeg - image quality

I am createing a project with some students where we have video taped book reviews. They have then created awards for these books using Applework 6.
I have had the kids save the certificates as jpeg2000 files using the best quality.
When I drag and drop the file into my iMoive - the image quality is really fuzzy.
1. Do I need to resize this image and if so what is the optimal size for iMovie?
2. Can I do this easily using iphoto or do I need a graphic converter?
Hope someone can help. Thanks Michael H.

iMovie is a DV editing app and anything imported to it must either already be .dv or it will be converted to .dv file format.
Your still image file will be turned into 30 frame per second "video" and also resized to NTSC dimensions.
QuickTime Pro can open image formats and can be used to make "movies". These are not dimensions limited and look just fine on a computer. Since the image is not rendered as "video" a single image file can stay one the screen as long as you like. Hundreds of times smaller in file size, too. Some of mine:
http://homepage.mac.com/kkirkster/03war/
http://homepage.mac.com/kkirkster/RedneckTexasXmas/index.html
http://homepage.mac.com/kkirkster/California/index.html

Save metadata in LR - degrade JPEG image quality?

Hi:
Does anyone know whether using the 'save metadata' feature in LR to save changed metadata to a JPEG file will result in a resaving of the entire file and/or otherwise degrade the JPEG image quality?
If it does not degrade the image quality, how does this feature work?
Many thanks for the help

Each pixel remains unchanged in this process.
I was under the impression that any re-saving of a jpeg image results in a slight loss of quality, regardless of whether there have been changes to the image
This is true for other editors, such as Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, but it is not true for Lightroom because, as explained, LR does things differently than other software.

"Convert colors" degrades image quality?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for