'08 compared to '06 - image quality

Has anyone proved if '08 burns better quality DVD images than the '06 version?

I have tried using '08 an must say that using the "pro quality" setting, the images areonly slightly better than they were on '06. In short, they are absolutely terrible.
I am a photographer, and had planned on using iDVD for putting together a little presentation DVD to leave with potential clients. However, due to the terrible quality of the images once the DVD is burned, this program is totally unusable to me. I honestly don't think the image quality is even good enough for someone just wanting to put together a DVD of family pictures for their own use.
I bought ilife '08, due to Apple's claims that they had fixed this problem with "professional quality encoding". They did not.
I cannoot remember the last time I bought a product I was so dissatisfied with.

Similar Messages

Please help! Elements 11 image quality poor compared to LR

Hello, I just started using elements and am very irritated because the image quality is very poor compared to when i am viewing in LR. Its not the conversion - i have tried pulling directly from the camear. It looks great in Camera Raw 7.1 but the second i pull it into editor, it lines get jagged. Adobe help is telling me this is normal. Surely not?? Something about a halo around pixels? Image on left is Elements 11, right is Lightroom and Zoomed in so you can see how sharp it is. PLEASE help. im so frustrated!

In the pse 11 editor are you looking at the image at 100% view (actual pixels)?
(Other viewing percents can be misleading in the pse 11 editor)
Double click on the zoom tool in the tol box to get 100% view.
Also you should be on camera raw 7.4 available from Help>Updates within the pse 11 editor.
Is that lightroom 4.4?

NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?

Jeff,
I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again

Secondary Display image quality is poor (at 1:1) in Library module

I'm not a frequent user of the Secondary Display feature, so I can't say state whether this particular issue is new in 2.3RC or if it also was seen in a previous version. I submitted a bug report since I searched but did not find any previous mention of this sort of thing. Anyone else notice this?
Here's my problem: When I'm using LR's Develop module and activate the Secondary Display (SD) window, the SD images for all zoom ratios seem identical in quality (sharpness. color) to the images seen in the main screen--as expected. However when I switch over to Library module and use 1:1 zoom, the SD image becomes relatively degraded (i.e., quite blurry/pixelated) compared to the main window. When SD is set at the lower zoom ratios (still in Library module) its quality seems fine--i.e., more or less indistinguishable from the main screen. It's only when SD is used at 1:1 in the Library module that it appears "buggy".
I'm using a Mac Power PC G4, OSX 10.4.11.
Phil
P.S. I should mention that the image quality at 1:1 zoom in Library Module's Secondary Display is not only worse than the main Library screen, it's also significantly worse (less sharp) than seen in the Develop module--and that's certainly not unexpected.

>Gordon McKinney:What happens is the second display doesn't render a 1:1 for optimal sharpness.
For me it isn't just sharpness. I can make a change that is fairly radical and have it show up immediately in the main monitor--both in the navigation panel and in the main display panel. The image on the 2nd monitor remains unchanged.
If I then use the history panel to move back to the previous state and then re-select the final state the image on the secondary display
usually, not always gets updated. Sometimes it takes a 2nd or a third cycle from previous to latest history state. This 'missed update' in the 2nd monitor doesn't happen 100% of the time, but it does happen quite often.
LR 2.3RC, Vista Ultimate x64, 8GB DRAM, nVidia 9800 GTX+ with latest drivers.

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.

Image quality of HDTV vs. monitor

How does the image quality compare, of sending the output of a Powermac to an LCD HDTV with a VGA input, vs. getting a regular LCD monitor (with DVI input)?
I can get a 23" or greater HDTV for about the same price as the Apple 20" Cinema display. Unless the image quality would be significantly worse, this would seem to be the better option as I could also watch TV or hook up a video game console as well. I could kill two birds with one stone and get both a better TV and monitor than what I already have, with just one purchase.
Or a related question, if I were to get an adapter to output to S-Video or Component for use on my current SDTV, is the image quality acceptable? I've tried it in the past with my PC and I wasn't too impressed.
PowerMac G5 Dual 1.8 Mac OS X (10.4.5) 5G iPod 60GB

How does the image quality compare, of sending the
output of a Powermac to an LCD HDTV with a VGA input,
vs. getting a regular LCD monitor (with DVI input)?
It depends a lot on the HDTV. Some HDTV only display 780 lines which is not much for a modern computer. Other potential problems are overscan (menu bar and dock off the edge) and non-square pixels (distorted images). DVI will give a shaper picture but some HDTV DVI ports do not wok well with computers. Sometimes the manual for the HDTV will give useful information, sometimes you just have to try it and see how it looks.
I can get a 23" or greater HDTV for about the same
price as the Apple 20" Cinema display. Unless the
image quality would be significantly worse, this
would seem to be the better option as I could also
watch TV or hook up a video game console as well. I
could kill two birds with one stone and get both a
better TV and monitor than what I already have, with
just one purchase.
A better choice might be a non-Apple computer monitor with DVI and video or TV input. Some have a buit-in TV tuner and speakers.
Or a related question, if I were to get an adapter to
output to S-Video or Component for use on my current
SDTV, is the image quality acceptable? I've tried it
in the past with my PC and I wasn't too impressed.
With SDTV the best you can get is about 640 X 480 interlaced. This is not much, and fine detail will flicker due to the interlace.

5D Mark II raw image quality

There's been a post by A Museman (earlier this year) on "5D Mark II raw image quality" that attempts to discuss the differences and problems with Aperture with flat / poor quality raw photo's as compared to sharper, clearer, more saturated pictures processed in Digital Photo Professional.
That thread "seems" to have faded in discussion. I am still having problems with Aperture and raw photo quality from my Canon 5D Mark II camera.
Can someone shed some light on this subject, in that has the problem been been identified, validate, resolved or does the problem still exist (as it does for me).
This problem is causing me a lot of frustration since I want to use Aperture because of its organization and potential processing capability. Although I get superior results with DPP, it does cause a lot of file storage requirements by having large raw and jpeg files for the same picture (in essence it doubles the file storage requirements).

On my end there are no issues. I get absolutely beautiful portrait renderings out of aperture and my 5d2 - the dynamic range is amazing with this combo. I can often adjust exposure 3+ stops if needed before getting into too much noise.
The best output I've ever had - completely smokes the ACR rendering of skin tones.
Aperture 2 doesn't apply the "Picture Style" preset to the raw decode like DPP does. This makes raw images look flat in comparison to the camera rendered jpeg - shoot in "faithful" mode and you will have a pretty much exact match.
So My quick recipe to match the default setting is adding a little vibrancy, definition, and contrast. FWIW I would turn off the auto lighting optimizer, and the highlight tone priority if using aperture.

DVD Playback - Image Quality Issues...

I'm curious to know if others are experience sub-par image quality when playing standard DVDs in the iMac with a 24" screen. The picture of the DVDs is sub-par compared to playback of the same DVD on a regular TV monitor. Also, playback is jumpy and or pixelated (looks like digitizing errors) despite the DVD being new and which plays back normally on a typical DVD player and TV monitor.
Is anyone having similar issues? My computer is new, so this seems odd...

Hi AM249
Welcome to Apple Discussions
SuperDrives are way more senitive that tray load players, is the DVD scrached or dirty?
Dennis

Image quality takes a hit in Word PDF conversion despite Compression being Off (Acrobat 9)

When converting a Word doc to PDF, the image quality for embedded pictures seems to be taking a hit. In the resultant PDF, the large pictures have jagged edges, even though when I increase the size in the Word doc the picture looks smooth and high quality.
Under preferences I've changed the Conversion Settings>Images to have Downsampling off for Color/Grayscale/Monochrome images, and also set Compression to Off. I've also tried setting Compression to Automatic (JPEG) with Maximum quality for Color/Grayscale. Both Compression Off and Maximum quality seem to have almost the same image quality, even though Compression Off doubles the size of the file. Neither has quality quite at the level it is in the Word doc.
Is there some way to have the image quality for pictures in the PDF equal what it looks like in Word? Are there any more settings I should be aware of?
I have Acrobat 9 Pro Extended and Office 2007 on Vista 64.

What's the original file format of the images you're inserting into Word, and are they at 100% scale?
We've seen issues with scaled high-res images (like header logos) which printed to PDF perfectly with a GIF or JPEG image, but failed dismally with a PNG even though the image resolution was identical and on-screen view was the same. Word has a quirky way of handling image data sent to the print spool compared to what's shown on-screen.

Image quality in iMovie

Hi guys,
I am trying to use iMovie to put together a slide show (I am a wildlife photographer) and it seems great for the job
There are a couple of bugs within iMovie itself but mostly no big deal, except for one that is bugging me.
The images I have generated are perfect quality when viewed in Adobe Lightroom, iPhoto or any other app, but in iMovie there appear to be far fewer colours so that (for example) the sky in an image is heavily pixelated. I can only guess there are fewer colours in the image.
I am confused because in one of the articles I read it claimed that iMovie was directly accessing the file on disk.
I simply dragged and dropped the hi-res images (they are all between 5 and 15 meg size) into iMovie.
Has anyone else come across this? How can I make the images in iMovie look proper so that I can export the

Are our events all co-mingled? Since ownership is ignored I assume we can see each other's video clips? This seems pretty messy to me and prevents any sort of privacy. In fact this basically breaks the whole user model.
Since still images are not stored as an event in iMovie '08, adding an image from iPhoto, your desktop, etc. adds a copy of the file to you project to serve as the "source" for later export of your project. In addition, since there is a maximum size associated with your project, this "stored" image may be scaled if the original height is greater than 1080 pixels. Therefore, my recommendation was to actually look at the "stored, scaled" file in your project so as to compare it with your original files to see there there was any loss in image quality. You can manually open the project "package" using the "contextual" menu option "Show Package Contents" at the Finder level.
I opened it in iMovie but can't see that option nor an option for setting colours to millions (which would probably solve my problem).
The ideal here is to open the file stored in your project and look at it in the QT Player for comparison with the original file. When I said "color depth should be millions," I was referring to the color depth you should find in the inspector window when you open the files in the QT player. Both should normally read "millions" unless you saved them otherwise.

How to improve image quality for book

I recently had a book printed from iPhoto 9 (large, hardcover) and the images in the book seem dull and dark compared to the actual images. For example, in one image of a church taken at dusk you can clearly see the outline of the church, including some details, and even people in front of it - but in the book, this area is completely black. I have had books printed before from iPhoto8 and had been happy with the past results.
Apple is refunding my purchase and letting me submit the book again, but told me if I don't edit the photos, I may have the same issue (though they also said it could have been a printer issue that day). Customer support did agree that the image quality itself is good. So, my question is, before I resubmit this book - in general, what attributes or combination of attributes are best to change to make the images more vibrant and not dark when printed for the book (ie. increase color saturation and exposure?)
Thank you.

Thanks. I did indeed preview the book before, and I have followed their tips. As, I said, I have purchased several books in the past and no issue. Apple even sent a couple pictures back to me as an attachment to show what they received, and they matched what I sent, but NOT what was printed. What printed is definitely much darker and in many cases you can't even make out the detail that you could in the images (including the ones they sent back to me for comparison). Maybe the printer really was off. I'll try a few enhancements and try again.

Poor image quality after burning with idvd

I used Final Cut Express to make a 45min movie. When I preview the finished product as a Quicktime file it looks great. BUT when I burn it with idvd, the quality of the video is terrible! Jagged diagonal lines, some color loss, some dancing pixels,...
I have been trying to find the solution to this problem for days on end, I have burned about 20 dvd's now, all in different settings and so on, but the quality is not improved.
First I thought it was my tv, but then I put the dvd in my mac and compared the same scene from my quicktime file with the scene on the dvd, and the difference in quality is staggering! For instance, diagonal white road markings are crisp on the quicktime file, but jagged on the dvd.
What is idvd doing with my movie????? Help me!

My Final Cut Express movie (.mov file) is crisp, and interlaced.
You are missing the point - your CRISP FCE movie is mpg-2 compressed by iDVD - that's what DVDs are - mpg-2 compressed video content. Unfortunately, mpg-2 is a very low quality CODEC compared to modern CODECs like h.264.
The best image quality out of iDVD will result in using the 'Best Performance' mode of encoding - this requires your content be under 60 minutes for a single-layer disc.
'Best Performance' encoding uses fixed bit-rate encoding that produces a DVD with about as high playback bit-rate as can be supported by set-top DVD players.
You have three choices: (1) live with the mpg-2 compression on a DVD because you can't do anything about it, (2) use the h.264 CODEC out of FCE and create a data DVD with the file that can be played back in computers, (3) make a Blu-ray disc if you have the equipment and buy the software.

Image quality in Viewer vs Full Screen

I've seen lots of discussions about this in earlier version (pre 1.5x), but they seem to be backward from what I'm seeing. I have an extremely noticable difference in image quality in the viewer vs full screen. At first, I just thought my images weren't any good. Then, I brought the same raw files up in Photoshop and they were pretty good. I looked in Aperture in Full Screen mode, and it was close or equivalent to Photoshop.
Is anybody else seeing the image be downright bad (looks horribly out of focus) in the viewer but good in full screen? I'm not talking about the thumbnails.
I'm using an iMac G5 20". I know that my video card is probably underpowered for this, but that should only affect speed (which is mostly tolerable).
iMac G5 20 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

I think I read in the manual that Aperture uses a different type of on-screen sharpening for windowed, full screen, and show master. Probably trying to speed it up in windowed by using a cheaper method.
They all should look the same when viewed at 100%.
And for what it's worth, I think Aperture does a lot better job than most programs when viewed at odd sizes. I don't have much to compare it to, but iPhoto and Adobe Elements look awful in comparison.

Poor image quality with save for web

It doesn't matter whether i'm exporting from Ai or Ps or whether it's CS6 or CC. I have changed the raster settings in Ai and i've also tried all optimization options with all different export file types (jpg, png, gif) at all different quality settings. It doesn't matter if I start with an ai, eps, pdf, png... the export result is always poor quality.
I have tried exporting at 300ppi and that does fix the quality issue and bloats the file size, but this way (the export route) is so time consuming since you have to resize your artwork each time as well as the artboard so that it doesn't cut off pixels. Save for web never used to have these quality issues and it also never used to cut off pixels around the edges. These workarounds prove very time consuming and produce file sizes that are not ideal.
When i first noticed this issue I was using Mavericks with CS6 and since am using Yosemite and Creative Cloud.
Steps to reproduce:
1. Create any bitmap or vector graphic in Ai or Ps, It doesn't matter whether you convert text to outlines or not
2. Save for web
3. View image in any application or browser to see poor quality and pixel trimming. Others running the same version and system are not having this issue, but I have checked many forums and found many others that do have this same issue but can't seem to find a solution.
Results:stair stepping, degradation, pixel trimming, general poor image quality
Expected results: Previously the save for web feature allowed for a decent quality image

I thought of that too so I tested on another machine with retina display and the file i saved on my machine looked bad on my machine and on the other comparable machine/display. So I sent them the original vector ai file and watched while they saved it the exact same way on their machine and the file looked fine on both of our machines/displays.
All of the settings they used appeared the same as what I used but with different results. I don't recall changing anything but does anyone know if there is some setting that could have been changed that is causing this issue?

Image quality in second life

I'm running an nvidia geforce MX 4000 and up until recently the quality on Second Life was adequate, if laggy at times. Then I had a hard disk crash, and had to reinstall everything from the ground up.
Now for some reason SL has a real problem with color depth, as though it's not really 32 bits (depth 24, whatever). Everything is kind of washed-out and lacking details.
I have the proprietary nvidia driver and glxgears shows a whopping 814fps (much faster than it used to go, actually) and I have tweaked the SL display settings every way possible without any improvement.
Has anyone else experienced this, or have any suggestion on where I can look for the cause? I don't really have any other GL-intensive programs to compare it against. glxgears looks fine, but that doesn't have the high resolution detail of a typical SL scene, so I don't know if it's just the one program or the display on my end.

This is true for all versions of CR. The KB [1217914 - Poor image quality when viewing report in DHTML viewer through .NET application|http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/com.sap.km.cm.docs/oss_notes_boj/sdn_oss_boj_erq/sap(bD1lbiZjPTAwMQ==)/bc/bsp/spn/scn_bosap/notes%7B6163636573733d36393736354636443646363436353344333933393338323636393736354637333631373036453646373436353733354636453735364436323635373233443330333033303331333233313337333933313334%7D.do] also documents this behavior.
Ludek

'08 compared to '06 - image quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for