Quality when Rendering a PhotoShop in FCE (and example of..)

I work at a Birkenstock store. My boss asked me to make some "slides" for a TV commercial. I made them in Photoshop 300dpi and imported to FCE.
It looks great FCE but then as soon as I render the sequence it looks terrible.
I put an example of both on a page on our website:
http://theshoehousestores.com/birko1/beforeafterproblem.html
My plan was to upload the FCE fie and the assets to the TV station and let them ouput it.
How can I get the image to not render so badly?
Jeff

Yes both on a video monitor and my LCD monitor that came with the computer. Both are the same.
The only reason I did them so big was because when I made them smaller they seemed even worse. When I import the big ones they fit without any need to resize (the smaller ones too).
I'll read up on the info you offered in the link and let you know what I learn.
What I get most of all from your posts and the others you have tried to help is that this is a fixable problem and it should not be so "muddy" when rendered and in the final output. Am I correct?
I really do appreciate your help so far.. Thank you
Jeff

Similar Messages

  • Changing animation frame rate when rendering in photoshop does not change the length of the video?

    I made a walk cycle animation in Photoshop CS6 and want to render it into a quicktime format. I'd like it to be 12 fps, but when I rendered it at 12 fps the video seemed to be missing frames, and the video was 3 seconds long. I have 98 frames to my animation; doing the math, at 12 fps it should be 8 seconds long. Not 3.
    I was confused and for curiosity's sake I rendered the video at 6 fps, trying to really slow it down. The video ended up being STILL 3 seconds long and only maybe 20 frames. I was missing literally 70 frames. I'm so upset with this rendering thing, I could chuck my computer at the wall.
    Does anybody know of a solution to this?
    edit: If it means anything, I've tried rendering it straight from the frame view and the timeline view. Each time I render it I have the timeline frame rate match the rendering frame rate as well.

    floriannaart wrote:
    Changing animation frame rate when rendering in photoshop does not change the length of the video?
    Photoshop CS6 and CC support two types of animation Frame animations and a Video Timeline
    Changing the frame rate should not change the length of a video timeline. It should just change the number of frames that are rendered.  To change the length of a video you need to change the length of the video timeline.  If you increase the length of the timeline and there is audio I'm quite sure there will be a problem with it,  The Video part will most likely be better then the sound. The required number of extra frames can be generated however the video may look like slow motion. If you decrease the length the motion will speed up.  The length of a video is normally done be editing video clips which are trimmed and stitched together to get the desired duration. Not normally done by altering the duration of a clip.
    The duration a of Frame animation is the sum of the times each frame is displayed.  In a frame animation the length of time a frame is displayed can be varied it not a normal motion picture video.  To have a smooth frame animation you need a sufficient number of frames that are different from each other to show smooth motion.  You can use Photoshop Frame animation tween feature to have Photoshop manufacture frames to help with a smoothing the animation.   Once you have a frame animation the length with the motion you want you can have Photoshop convert it to a video timeline and render a normal motion picture video.  It will not have audio but you can add audio to it.

  • Whew get I dies information when I installer Photoshop Elements 11 and Premiere Elements 11

    Whew get I dies information when I installer Photoshop Elements 11 and Premiere Elements 11
    “The installation process has encountered an error while installation Shared Technologies”

    Hi Henningskytte,
    The error indicates that one or more of the following Shared Technologies failed to install:
    Adobe Player for Embedding
    Adobe Help
    Camera Raw plug-in
    Camera Raw profiles
    Adobe ExtendScript Toolkit
    Adobe XMP Panels
    Microsoft Visual Studio runtimes
    To resolve these issues, use the Adobe Support Advisor (ASA) to analyze the installation log file. For instructions, see Analyze install logs with Adobe Support Advisor (ASA).
    Note: If you are using a downloaded installer, or running the installation from the hard drive, the Shared Technologies can fail because of the installation path. Copy the installation files to a folder to the root of the drive, such as C:\PSE<versionnumber>Installer\, and rerun the installation.
    This Adobe document lists installation troubleshooting steps, including the "Shared Technologies" error
    : http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop-elements/kb/troubleshoot-installation -photoshop-elements-premiere.html

  • Illustrator file losing quality when opened in photoshop...please help!

    Hello, If anyone could help me I would be so grateful, i really am struggling to the point of tears here!!
    I have simple line drawings in illustrator (outlines of clothes) that I wish to open in photoshop to add colour and effects to.
    When i have tried to copy and paste (as normal paste, smart object, pixels, path and shape layer) the quality is lost.
    I have also tried to open or place the file in photoshop as a .psd, .ai , .pfd and still the quality is lost.
    I have saved with different resolution settings too, but it always loses quality when it is opened in photoshop.
    Is there any way for me to have a clear line drawing like it is in illustrator in photoshop? And how should I go about it?
    Thank You so much to anyone who can help, I really am at my wits end with this!
    Phoebe xx

    Chris Cox wrote:
    Because the raster on the clipboard would almost never be the right size or resolution. We can't use it.
    Come on, Chris, I'm not buttoned up the back.
    You told me last month when I complained about the poor quality of "paste as pixels" that Photoshop uses the raster in the clipboard so the raster must be poor and not Photoshop's rasterizing of vectors.
    Re: Ps CS6 Problem: Incorrect rendering of pasted Adobe Illustrator vector objects
    Now you say that Photoshop does not use the raster in the clipboard and does rasterize the vectors when "paste as pixels" is performed.
    You can't have it both ways.
    You've just confirmed what I said last month: Photoshop rasterizes the vectors even when pixels are present in the clipboard and "paste as pixels" is requested. Thank you.

  • Graphics loosing quality when rendering

    I´m importing some graphics rendered in AFX to Premiere CS3, and when I run in Premiere they are OK, but after I edit them in the sequence and render, they loose quality. For example, I have some text (orange color) over black background. When I render them in the sequence, the text looses quality, the text definition and the color degrade and it seems that there are two colors in the text. And some weird things are happening with fields too. When I import some footage rendered lower field first in AFX, they run smooth in the source monitor, but when I edit them in a sequence and render, the field order seems to be wrong.
    I cannot figure out what´s happening.

    In AFX I rendered using QuickTime animation codec
    In Premiere CS3 I´m working with NTSC DV
    Like I said, chances are your AE export is higher quality than your Premiere project, hence when rendered, the quality goes down.  The Quicktime Animation codec is comparable to Uncompressed.  When you compress it to DV by rendering, quality can suffer.

  • Poor quality when rendering CC Particle Systems II

    Hi Guys.
    I'm getting strange render results when I render out CC Particle Systems II cubes and tetrahedrons.
    I have the particles cascading out towards the viewer and they look great when I preview render in AFX but when I do a full render to H.264 mp4 they start really crisp and clear then turn in to a really pixelated mess as the render continues. It's odd. I tried rendering through Adobe media encoder but it's the same. I also tried just rendering the particle part of the comp and it does the same thing. Am I missing some settings?
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks

    Without seeing it in motion, it sounds like normal issues you would experience with an interframe compression scheme like H.264
    H.264 works on the principle of a few full frames scattered among a bunch of incomplete frames with interpolated data. Your first frame would be a keyframe with full data and that middle frame would be one that's incomplete. The reason it looks worse when the particles are on the screen is that there's also a lot more data happening. In the rest of your project, the compression is barely noticeable. This is an issue any time you are trying to design for broadcast or the web. Heck, you can even see this kind of artifacting in major releases. See, for example, the Planet Earth Blu-ray in any of the shots involving a massive flock of birds. You can see compression artifacts despite the pristine quality you would expect from them. There's only so much data you can squeeze out of a frame (to make it easily playable) before certain artifacts will creep in.
    You can either redesign to make it less likely to have artifacts when compressed or you can rest assured that most normal people won't even notice something like this as it flies past them on the screen.
    Now, this is all assuming your particles are moving quickly. If it looks like that with slow, smooth motion, something else may be wrong.

  • Loss of quality when rendering my project to Animated .GIF?

    Hello,
    Is there any reason why the quality of my .gif looks distorted when I render it? it looks perfect in the After Effects preview window.
    Here is an example of what I am talking about
    http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7325/comp1sh9.gif
    The whole image looks all fuzzy and its making me sad :(
    Any ideas on how to fix this, any help would be much appreciated :D
    Thanks

    Hi I actually made an animated gif in photoshop but it says to save it I have to optimize it and when i do that the same thing happens to me, it loses allot of quality and becomes fuzzy. How do I make an animated gif in photoshop without losing so much quality?

  • HELP Loss of quality when rendering DSLR footage.HELP PLZ

         Hello, I am editing with premiere cs6 and I am importing 1080p hd dslr footage(usually 29fps) from my canon rebel t3i. NOW, i do all of my editing and color correcting and after I render the effects in the work area I see that the footage worse than it was before i rendered..(left image before right image after) I have been having this problem for a long time and i really need help and cannot find any answers.. When I upload any footage to youtube (even if I don't render work area) the quality is AWFUL at 360p(default playback) compared to other canon rebels. I have tried MANY different export settings, import settings, render modes, settings, etc etc etc. If anyone could help I would be so thankful. Thanks in advance!!!
    Enjoy the creepy images.
           BEFORE RENDER                                                                                        AFTER RENDER (Looks worse on my comp, these imagaes are snipped)

    It is very possible for things to be set up in PP such that the previews are of lesser quality.  Most often you don't want to use those for export anyway, so I was ignoring that aspect of the issue.
    If the 1080p export looks good on yoru computer, and it's only the lesser resolutions on YouTube that look bad, then you will have to get in touch with YT about that.

  • I'm getting poor image quality when rendering PDF grahics

    I have a PAL 1920x1080 50i ProRes 422 timeline, when I add PDF images from a Power Point I have to enlarge them about 100% to fill the frame adequately. When these clips are rendered they end up with the text loosing definition and showing jpeg like artifacts. They are 1006x760 pixels. Is there a solution? Should I go back and try to get hold of the original slides?

    Thanks everyone for the help, in the end I bought a PP/PDF converter and made TIFFs from them. (Tinyware PDF Converter)  Not great but better than before. It was the fact that the image appeared fine in the canvas until I rendered it, it was only then that the text looked bad. This extractor seems to work ok, the methods on various blogs only worked if you have Office for Mavericks, Page extracts PPs but not to image files.
    Thanks again.

  • Fuzzy quality when rendering out in Premier Pro CS4

    Hi,
    Using Premiere PRO CS4.
    Whenever I export a sequence, no matter what I choose; Quicktime, AVI, FLV etc all my renders are no longer sharp but look slightly out of focus.
    I mainly need to expoert to AVI and Quicktime.
    Can anyone please recommed settings to ensure the output files are as clear as the content in the Sequence before rendering?
    Also, what are the best settings for AVI and Quicktime to keep the file size down?
    A 5 minute AVI clip ends up being 1.5 GB, I'm sure the size can be reduced without loss of quality?
    Cheers

    This ARTICLE will give you some background on the concept of "wrappers."
    The bit-rate settings for the Export will definitely determine the quality of that output. However, as Harm points out, file size will go UP. The trick is to find the balance of quality vs file size.
    Within those wrapper types, there are possibly CODEC's, that will give you more compression, but still with good quality. The choice of the CODEC will very likely hinge on exactly how you need to deliver the material. For instance, for streaming video, the DivX CODEC will offer heavy compression, but the quality is still quite good - however, one needs the DivX CODEC to playback the material. There is quite a bit to think about, and that's why Harm asked for your delivery scheme.
    Good luck,
    Hunt

  • ? loosing quality when rendering many times ?

    Here is my question: after you have rendered a clip, yet you may want to change some parameters so that the whole clip is to be redered again; sometimes, you do this many times untill you've got what you want, like color or exposure and so on. Does FCP render it again from the original unrendered media or from the already rendered clip in the timeline? I mean, if it's from the original media, you may render and render again without loosing quality. If not, you've got to know exactly what you want from the first time, otherwise you'll soon have a very bad result. Anybody knows about this?

    Kevan,
    Why would it do that?
    For example: you have a clip running at 90% of normal speed. To play back that clip on the timeline you likely need to render it.
    You make an edit where you increase the speed of the clip from 90% to 95%.
    What possible value would re-using the existing render file be in this case? It is still going to have to calculate every frame and no time or CPU cycles would be saved (it actually would be more complex to calculate the real speed from the render than the original).
    It makes no sense to me to have the system work that way.
    x
    One of these days I'm going to get back down to C'ville!

  • "File Error" and "Out of Memory" when rendering FCE

    Dear all,
    I imported a 2 hour holiday video into FCE.
    When rendering the video, a message appears that the rendering process will last about 15 minutes to complete.
    However, frequently I am warned by the following message:
    "File Error: The specified file is open and in use by this or another application"
    When activating Rendering again, the render time is now increased to about 45 minutes.
    I now either receive a couple of times the message: "File Error: The specified file is open and in use by this or another application" >>or even worse: "Out of memory"<<.
    Today I purchased an addition 2GB of memory to increase my memory form 750 MB to 2.5GB !!!
    Can anyone please tell me what could be the cause of these messages and how to solve them?
    BTW, no other programs are running while I use FCE.
    Thanks in advance,
    Hans E.<br>
    PowerMac G5-Dual 1.8GHz, Memory 2.5GB, iMac G3-600MHz, Airport, Airport Express Mac OS X (10.3.9)
    PowerMac G5-Dual 1.8GHz, Memory 2.5GB, iMac G3-600MHz, Airport, Airport Express Mac OS X (10.3.9)
    PowerMac G5-Dual 1.8GHz, Memory 2.5GB, iMac G3-600MHz, Airport, Airport Express   Mac OS X (10.3.9)  

    Is it happening when you're rendering, or exporting?
    The error message means FCE is trying to rewrite a file that it is currently using. It could be mistakenly trying to save a render file, if you're only rendering, or if you're trying to re-export a file, you'll get that message.
    Try dumping all your render files, restarting FCE and trying again.
    The Out of Memory error almost always points toward a corrupt file. Could be a source file, could be a render file. Again, dump your render files and try again.
    If these don't work, you need to close FCE, take all your source media offline, then open FCE. Now, reconnect each clip one by one until you find the corrupt clip. Keep going, there may be more than one. Re-capture the corrupt clips and you should be good to go.

  • Why does Lightroom (and Photoshop) use AdobeRGB and/or ProPhoto RGB as default color spaces, when most monitors are standard gamut (sRGB) and cannot display the benefits of those wider gamuts?

    I've asked this in a couple other places online as I try to wrap my head around color management, but the answer continues to elude me. That, or I've had it explained and I just didn't comprehend. So I continue. My confusion is this: everywhere it seems, experts and gurus and teachers and generally good, kind people of knowledge claim the benefits (in most instances, though not all) of working in AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB. And yet nobody seems to mention that the majority of people - including presumably many of those championing the wider gamut color spaces - are working on standard gamut displays. And to my mind, this is a huge oversight. What it means is, at best, those working this way are seeing nothing different than photos edited/output in sRGB, because [fortunately] the photos they took didn't include colors that exceeded sRGB's real estate. But at worst, they're editing blind, and probably messing up their work. That landscape they shot with all those lush greens that sRGB can't handle? Well, if they're working in AdobeRGB on a standard gamut display, they can't see those greens either. So, as I understand it, the color managed software is going to algorithmically reign in that wild green and bring it down to sRGB's turf (and this I believe is where relative and perceptual rendering intents come into play), and give them the best approximation, within the display's gamut capabilities. But now this person is editing thinking they're in AdobeRGB, thinking that green is AdobeRGB's green, but it's not. So any changes they make to this image, they're making to an image that's displaying to their eyes as sRGB, even if the color space is, technically, AdobeRGB. So they save, output this image as an AdobeRGB file, unaware that [they] altered it seeing inaccurate color. The person who opens this file on a wide gamut monitor, in the appropriate (wide gamut) color space, is now going to see this image "accurately" for the first time. Only it was edited by someone who hadn't seen it accurately. So who know what it looks like. And if the person who edited it is there, they'd be like, "wait, that's not what I sent you!"
    Am I wrong? I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone. I shoot everything RAW, and I someday would love to see these photos opened up in a nice, big color space. And since they're RAW, I will, and probably not too far in the future. But right now I export everything to sRGB, because - internet standards aside - I don't know anybody who I'd share my photos with, who has a wide gamut monitor. I mean, as far as I know, most standard gamut monitors can't even display 100% sRGB! I just bought a really nice QHD display marketed toward design and photography professionals, and I don't think it's 100. I thought of getting the wide gamut version, but was advised to stay away because so much of my day-to-day usage would be with things that didn't utilize those gamuts, and generally speaking, my colors would be off. So I went with the standard gamut, like 99% of everybody else.
    So what should I do? As it is, I have my Photoshop color space set to sRGB. I just read that Lightroom as its default uses ProPhoto in the Develop module, and AdobeRGB in the Library (for previews and such).
    Thanks for any help!
    Michael

    Okay. Going bigger is better, do so when you can (in 16-bit). Darn, those TIFs are big though. So, ideally, one really doesn't want to take the picture to Photoshop until one has to, right? Because as long as it's in LR, it's going to be a comparatively small file (a dozen or two MBs vs say 150 as a TIF). And doesn't LR's develop module use the same 'engine' or something, as ACR plug-in? So if your adjustments are basic, able to be done in either LR Develop, or PS ACR, all things being equal, choose to stay in LR?
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    PS RGB Workspace:  ProPhotoRGB and I convert any 8-bit documents to 16-bit before doing any adjustments.
    Why does one convert 8-bit pics to 16-bit? Not sure if this is an apt comparison, but it seems to me that that's kind of like upscaling, in video. Which I've always taken to mean adding redundant information to a file so that it 'fits' the larger canvas, but to no material improvement. In the case of video, I think I'd rather watch a 1080p movie on an HD (1080) screen (here I go again with my pixel-to-pixel prejudice), than watch a 1080p movie on a 4K TV, upscaled. But I'm ready to be wrong here, too. Maybe there would be no discernible difference? Maybe even though the source material were 1080p, I could still sit closer to the 4K TV, because of the smaller and more densely packed array of pixels. Or maybe I only get that benefit when it's a 4K picture on a 4K screen? Anyway, this is probably a different can of worms. I'm assuming that in the case of photo editing, converting from 8 to 16-bit allows one more room to work before bad things start to happen?
    I'm recent to Lightroom and still in the process of organizing from Aperture. Being forced to "this is your life" through all the years (I don't recommend!), I realize probably all of my pictures older than 7 years ago are jpeg, and probably low-fi at that. I'm wondering how I should handle them, if and when I do. I'm noting your settings, ssprengel.
    ssprengel Apr 28, 2015 9:40 PM
    I save my PS intermediate or final master copy of my work as a 16-bit TIF still in the ProPhotoRGB, and only when I'm ready to share the image do I convert to sRGB then 8-bits, in that order, then do File / Save As: Format=JPG.
    Part of the same question, I guess - why convert back to 8-bits? Is it for the recipient?  Do some machines not read 16-bit? Something else?
    For those of you working in these larger color spaces and not working with a wide gamut display, I'd love to know if there are any reasons you choose not to. Because I guess my biggest concern in all of this has been tied to what we're potentially losing by not seeing the breadth of the color space we work in represented while making value adjustments to our images. Based on what several have said here, it seems that the instances when our displays are unable to represent something as intended are infrequent, and when they do arise, they're usually not extreme.
    Simon G E Garrett Apr 29, 2015 4:57 AM
    With 8 bits, there are 256 possible values.  If you use those 8 bits to cover a wider range of colours, then the difference between two adjacent values - between 100 and 101, say - is a larger difference in colour.  With ProPhoto RGB in 8-bits there is a chance that this is visible, so a smooth colour wedge might look like a staircase.  Hence ProPhoto RGB files might need to be kept as 16-bit TIFs, which of course are much, much bigger than 8-bit jpegs.
    Over the course of my 'studies' I came across a side-by-side comparison of either two color spaces and how they handled value gradations, or 8-bit vs 16-bit in the same color space. One was a very smooth gradient, and the other was more like a series of columns, or as you say, a staircase. Maybe it was comparing sRGB with AdobeRGB, both as 8-bit. And how they handled the same "section" of value change. They're both working with 256 choices, right? So there might be some instances where, in 8-bit, the (numerically) same segment of values is smoother in sRGB than in AdobeRGB, no? Because of the example Simon illustrated above?
    Oh, also -- in my Lumix LX100 the options for color space are sRGB or AdobeRGB. Am I correct to say that when I'm shooting RAW, these are irrelevant or ignored? I know there are instances (certain camera effects) where the camera forces the shot as a jpeg, and usually in that instance I believe it will be forced sRGB.
    Thanks again. I think it's time to change some settings..

  • Quality and aspect ratio with FCE and iPhoto

    Project started by importing hundreds of slides shot by different cameras with difference settings. Slides were imported into i-photo where I used the slideshow function to make several segments.  As I was choosing the photos and dragging them into slideshows I cropped them all into 16x9 ratio so they would all be uniform.  I then sent to QuickTime movie using the built in iPhoto export button and selected “custom export” setting with DV/DVCPRO-NTSC compression with quality set to “Best” and aspect ratio to 16x9.
    Then imported into FCE and did serious editing (music, effects, titles, etc.).  When finished I tried exporting as both a QT self-contained movie and QT conversion (using DV/DVCPRO and 16:9) but the quality is terrible and when I make a iDVD the picture is squeezed and distorted into a 4:3 ratio despite the fact that the IDVD is set to 16:9. I have spent over a month on this project and have fellow travelers waiting for my “creative” touch.  Can anyone tell me where I went wrong on both aspect ratio and quality? Thanks.
    PS: Am using MacBook Pro, OS 10.7.4 FCE 4.0.1 and iPhoto-11 9.3.2

    Hi
    I'm not shure - but I can share my thoughts
    I tried exporting as both a QT self-contained movie and QT conversion (using DV/DVCPRO and 16:9)
    I DO NEVER - Use Export as QuickTime CONVERSION
    I DO - Share as QuickTime .mov - straight off
    I had problems with 16x9 until I understood that
    • I had to select type of project as WideScreen in FC
    • Browser Window in FinalCut E and Pro - can extend far to the Right with several Columns. One Column states Anamorphic. When set my material to this. THEN introduced it into TimeLine. Can not be done in after hand.
    • Export as above
    • In iDVD there are TWO places to set 16x9
    - When creating a NEW iDVD Project - SELECT --> WideSrceen
    - In iDVD Project / Projectinfo [ Shift+cmd+I ]- ALSO set 16x9
    Yours Bengt W

  • First Project - Poor resolution when working between FCE and LT

    I've put together a 1 minute sequence in FCE 4 (1920X1080) and it looks great when I export to QuickTime movie.
    I then use that movie as a background in LiveType, adding a bunch of titles and graphics.
    If I then render the movie in LiveType the rendered movie chokes and skips. If I import it back into FCE and export it back to a QT movie, it looks poor - compression artifacts and the text doesn't look crisp.
    Is there a better way to:
    1) Sequence and edit my clips (1 min movie)
    2) Add tiles/graphics throughout
    3) Output to HD format
    Thanks!

    I figured it out.....
    Rather than rendering the movie in LT and importing to FCE, I just imported the LT project itself. Working between the two apps simultaneously, I can position the text and graphics from LiveType, save, then instantly see the results in FCE.
    Everything is looking crisper....

Maybe you are looking for

  • Crystal Report Viewer integration with Sharepoint 2010

    We had a requirement in our project to view crystal report off an hyper link embedded into sharepoint web part developed using ASP .NET. The report accepted few parameters from the sharepoint page and passed those on to the SQL server to retrive data

  • Wont open after upgrading---i figured it out!!! but still have one question

    ok well i updated my ipod to the new version but it wouldnt open i tried everything i could but it didnt work! i unistalled it and reinstalled it at least 5 times and still nothing, i tried what everyone said to do on here and nothing. well finally i

  • Do search engines make use of IPTC Core metadata?

    I'm using Bridge to organise a large group of maps (the maps are JPEG images), which will be published on my organisation's website. These maps are about niche topics and very specific areas of the UK. I'm wondering if there are any SEO benefits from

  • Loading a grid or matrix with external data

    Hi, we have two SAP companies defined, from one company I need to perform a search on the second company and provide a grid or a matrix with the results. We are using the 2007 SDK is it possible to do this? Many thanks. Mike.

  • TM doesn't access all of the backups prior to re-install of OS

    1. Various problems led me to get a new hard drive under warranty. 2. Prior to replacing drive, I made sure I had done a recent TM backup onto my external Firewire drive. 3. After reinstalling apps, updating OS, etc, I began to move data from TM to m