Adjustments affecting playback preview quality?

Hi,
I'm probably doing soemthing wrong again.
My video preview plays fine until I add any kind of adjustments to a clip, even as simple a vibrancy adjustmment. After I render then the preview gets very degraded and blocky.
i just undid all of my adjustments to my movie and re-rendred and instead of it being a green line through every clip, half have no line. The ones with no line playpback fine, but the ones with green lines playback bad quality.
Of course if I ad an adjustment to the clips that look fine,adn render, they get bad again.
I know this only afects the preview (atleast i think it is, the output looks ok) but its  abit diffcult working with video and trying to make proper adjustments when its difficult to see what you are doing because the quality turns to mush.
Still learning PE11, and i need to get this little project done in the next 2 weeks or so.
I tried searching about this bit can't seem to find an answer
Thanks
Jim

Yes its still doing it with a photo
I loaded this into the same AVCHD 60 project...
(photo shot with Canon 5D Mark III)
Added vibrancy and some brightness, rendered and it changes it to this...
There is a MUCH bigger drop off in quality however with the video than this...... but as you can see its still doing it.
And  my computer should have no problems handling this video..... Quad 3.5GHz i7, 16GB, nVidia 670, PE11 running off SSD on Mac
I also just  tested it on a 1080i 30 created project and it was much worse than the exmaple above.
EDIT:
Something else I think i should mention, I didn't think of this until now, but I'm not sure this should matter, but my mac is a hackintosh I build myself in December.  I've had absolutely zero isues with it or any conflicts with any other programs or software.  Unless there is some conflict with the video card and this software, but from my knowlsege that shouldn't happen.
I have Win7 running on a seperate SSD drive, i'm going to try and get some video editing software on there, maybe a PE11 trial, and see what happens.Just to rule that out.

Similar Messages

  • Questions on preview quality and where Aperture uses them

    I have been reading Apple's Aperture articles about preview quality and how Aperture shares images with the outside world. I had always assumed that the full quality image in Aperture was used for printing, exporting and sharing, but it seems that, at least for sharing, it is the preview that Aperture creates that is shared.
    I have just increased the quality of the previews that Aperture generates from 5 to 9 and forced Aperture to re-render all previews. It seems to me that the images on screen and in slide shows and other iLife documents, are now much clearer and brighter (the downside of this is that my Aperture library file has grown by 4 gigabytes).
    This leads me to ask four questions about Aperture and preview use (if I may?).
    Is a jpeg on a high setting (9) visibly better than one on a medium setting (5), or am I being led to see what I expect to see?
    Apart from editing, slideshows and iLife and iWork documents, in what situations does Aperture use previews where high or low quality might make a difference?
    Does Aperture use previews to compile photo books? If so, does the quality of the preview affect the quality of the final printed book?
    Is it possible to set Aperture to produce high quality previews for images above a certain star rating and low quality previews for the rest?
    Thanks for any answers you may have.
    Alasdair

    Previews are used within Aperture to quickly show an image in the main viewer before the master has been fully loaded, they are also used to see the referenced masters even if the external location is not available at that moment (not adjustments can be done then, but at least you can see the image)
    Previews are used outside Aperture to share the images with adjustments without exporting every image. It comes in handy that you can drag an image from Aperture's browser to another app or the desktop (what you get there is the preview). iMovie or other iApps use previews, the bigger size and quality the better quality you'll get.
    Once you set up the size and quality of the previews in Aperture's Preferences the previews are created with those settings. I guess you could lower the settings, in the browser select the images you don't need big previews, ctrl+click and 'update preview' to force create low res previews for those. After that you can put the settings back. But if you do any change to those images the previews will be updated. Certainly I don't see the point of having different previews, do some test find the settings that work best for you and keep it like that.
    Turn automatic previews off and create manually the previews you need, I have a smart album with images rated 3 or more stars and I use it to select and create previews manually to those images.

  • Library. Image Preview Quality & weird behaviour.

    Hi. I'll try to explain this the best I can.
    I never noticed this with Lightroom 2.4 ... I don't know if this has always happend but went unnoticed or is just happening after Lightroom 3 was installed.
    You browse the library, the thumbnails, as usual and the first time you click a thumbnail you get a full screen preview, wich quality I suppose is controlled by the 'standard preview quality' setting.
    Once in full screen, click and you get the 1:1 preview (or any other zoom factor, but I chose 1:1). This one is generated previously or as needed.
    I have the standard preview setting at maximum size, maximum quality.
    When I click on a thumbnail to open the full screen preview I get this preview (just cropped and zoomed part to explain what I'm seeing) :
    Notice the jagged lines everywhere ? It's noticiable at normal full screen as somewhat deformed noses, eyes, etc. Here I enlarged it to make it even more evident.
    Well ... then I click to get 1:1 zoom, wich prompts lightroom to generate a 1:1 preview. Once done, I click back to the normal full screen preview. Now, this is the image I see :
    See the change ? Now is softer, there's no jagged lines. No deformed eyes, just a good an clean image.
    Well ... If I close the full screen preview and then I open it again, the image I get is not this second softer version already generated by lightroom after the 1:1 preview ... no, I get the first picture again, the jagged one.
    Even more, If when I'm in thumbnails mode I click an image to get the full screen preview, and then browse the next images in this full screen mode... every image is jagged like this ... BUT, If I first click to enter the 1:1 preview and click back to standard preview ... then ALL the remaining images show the softer version, not the jagged one.
    This only happens in library module, not in the develop module.
    Was this behaviour always present ? Is this a bug ? Is it by design ?
    (I hope I've explained it well enough, it's confusing and english, as you might have noticed by now is not my best language.)
    Any question, help or comment is appreciated.

    I know and hate this bug since version 1.0. It's still there in LR3. And I taught myself how to avoid it.
    You run into this bug when you switch from Grid to Loupe and back by double-clicking the mouse. To avoid it, you should either:
    Use the keyboard shortcuts instead of mouse (Enter, Esc and Z);
    or, in Loupe mode, to switch to Grid, double-click the gray area around the photograph instead of actual image area.
    Steps to reproduce the bug:
    Scenario 1:
    1. Go to grid view.
    2. Double-click a thumbnail to go to Loupe Fit.
        The image is smooth.
    3. Double-click on image (not gray area) to go back to Grid.
    4. Double-click a thumbnail to go to Loupe Fit again.
        The image is jagged.
    5. Zoom to 1:1 and back to Fit.
        The image is smooth.
    Scenario 2:
    1. Go to grid view.
    2. Double-click a thumbnail to go to Loupe Fit.
        The image is smooth.
    3. Double-click on gray area surrounding the image (not the actual image area) to go back to Grid.
    4. Double-clcik a thumbnail to go to Loupe Fit again.
        The image is smooth.
    5. Zoom to 1:1 and back to Fit.
        The image is smooth.

  • Preview Quality of Path Edges

    Is there a way I can improve the preview quality of path edges? From what I can tell, Illustrator is showing me underlying layers, even when it shouldn't.
    For instance, take the following simple drawing:
    Top Layer: Black Fill Square
    Middle Layer: Yellow Fill Square
    BACKGROUND: Black
    If the two squares are exactly the same size and have exactly the same X and Y coordinates, and I zoom out to 100%, I can see the edge of the yellow squares. I spend a great deal of time trying to zoom way in to make sure everything is as pixel perfect as can be (Ok, I know they are vectors). It doesn't matter which preview mode I am in.
    If it matters, my screen resolution is WUXGA (1920x1200) on Windows 7.

    That's what I figured since everything prints fine and if I zoom WAY in, it looks OK, but I was hoping there was a fix.

  • Standard Preview Size/Preview Quality

    This may be a silly question, but in Library mode, under Edit>Catalogue Settings>File Handling, you have options under Preview Cache for 'Standard Preview Size' (1024/1440/1680/2048/2880 pixels) and Preview Quality (High/Medium/Low)... but what do these settings actually do; I've tried changing them & not noticed and difference??

    Les_Cornwell wrote:
    Thanks again Rob
    You bet .
    Les_Cornwell wrote:
    I've tried all the different size options, namely 1024 through to 2880 & low/Medium/high and none make any obvious difference at all.
    So are previews only created as required when you view a picture in full screen mode or does LR create a preview for all your files?
    Every image you look at in Library module comes from the (library) previews, there are up to 8 possible jpegs:
    * a tiny thumbnail in root-pixels.db
    * up to 7 jpegs ranging from small to 1:1 in the "preview pyramid" (each smaller is half the dimensions of it's bigger sibling).
    Try this with a 10 photo test catalog:
    If you have a big monitor and set standard preview size to 1024, then (with Lr closed) delete all previews, then restart Lr and wait for all the "..." indicators to be extinguished (indicating standard previews have been built), then step from photo to photo in loupe view with all panels collapsed (loupe view "real-estate" maximized), you should see "loading" indicator, since it needs a bigger preview than you've got built. What it will do then is build 1:1 previews and all the smaller ones along with it, which is suboptimal from a performance point of view. If you try and zoom in to 1:1 after the "loading", there will be no additional loading, since 1:1 previews were already built.
    Then, repeat the test with preview size at max - no loading indicators, right? (when stepping in loupe view after standard previews have finished being built, I mean). Except now if you try to zoom in there will be "loading", since 1:1 preview were not required to display the loupe view, they will need to be built for the zoomed (1:1) view.
    The only difference between big enough and too big will be an ever-so-slightly greater lag when stepping in the loupe view and no 1:1 preview exists (when preview is too big I mean), since it's loading a bigger standard preview than is actually needed. Reminder: if preview is not big enough, there will be an ever-so-slightly bigger lag when stepping in loupe view too (e.g. vs. just big enough), since it's using the 1:1 preview instead of standard (which wasn't big enough). So, tester beware... (somewhat counter-intuitively, in some cases, it will be faster loading a preview when settings are, in general, too big, because it can get away with loading the next size down, which is an even better fit, e.g. if image is cropped just so - all of these little nuances make it especially tricky to test & evaluate, so consider doing initial tests using uniform-size uncropped images, to reduce the number of variables - it's confusing enough as it is ;-}).
    Note: as previously mentioned, there is considerable complexity (and bugs) in the preview system, and I may not have described it perfectly, so it wouldn't surprise me if your results were not exactly like that, but I just went and retested on my system, and what happened is exactly as I described above (win7/64), as I read it anyway...
    Regarding quality, you should see difference in some photos not others, but ONLY if it didn't resort to the 1:1 preview which may be higher quality than the standard and is independent of the standard quality setting. (I think somebody may have stated that you'd need to zoom in to see differences in standard preview quality settings, but that is wrong - the only way to see differences in standard preview quality settings is if you are in fact viewing standard previews, which you aren't when zoomed in to 1:1, and anyway it can be ellusive - see paragraphs above...).
    PS - If you want to compare jpeg quality of standard previews, one way is to export them using PreviewExporter. Again, it's tricky, since you need to assure you aren't exporting a scaled down version of the 1:1 instead of a true standard preview. After exporting you can compare outside Lightroom, so you don't have the "preview of a preview" issue going... I use Beyond Compare by Scooter Software for doing objective comparison of like-sized jpegs, but you can compare subjectively using any ol' viewer, e.g. as built into OS.
    Too much?
    UPDATE:
    Les_Cornwell wrote:
    does LR create a preview for all your files?
    No - they are created on an as-needed basis (thus the reason we hear many complaints about how stale or non-existent previews should be built in the background, to minimize "loading" in library module, e.g. after making dev changes to a large bunch), but note: standard previews may be considered "needed" when thumbnail is in view in grid or filmstrip (but not considered needed if thumbnail is off-screen, even if existing in filmstrip and/or grid).
    R
    Message was UPDATED by: Rob Cole

  • My clips have a yellow line on the timeline sequence. Does this affect my video quality output if I don't render?

    I use Adobe CS 6 to edit and I use Sony NX 3 to record. Every time I import my clips. It has a yellow line on the timeline sequence, even when I make new clip from the sequence.. My question is, does this affect my video quality output if i did not render the yellow line out? Please someone help me

    Please see this link for more info about red and yellow bars - http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2011/02/red-yellow-and-green-render-bars.html
    If you shoot 1080p, you will likely have better results going to DVD than if you start with 1080i. It's hard enough downscaling with decent quality, then if you add in interlacing issues...
    When exporting from Premiere to create a DVD, choose "MPEG-2 DVD" as the format, and then choose a preset such as "NTSC Widescreen Progressive".
    There is a checkbox at bottom of export window for "Max Render Quality"  - use that for best downscaling results.
    Use 2-Pass VBR encoding. Use a bitrate calculator to determine best bitrate for length of movie, or quick option is 560/minutes = bitrate. But don't exceed 8.0 on shorter movies. I typically round down a little for safety margin, such as 560/120 = 4.6, encode at 4.5 and no worries.
    The export will result in TWO files, .m2v video and .wav audio, import both into Encore for authoring. Encore will convert the .wav to Dolby AC3, reducing file size. Video should NOT get transcoded. And as others said, don't expect HD quality when viewing a DVD...definitely not HD video any longer. But do be sure to use an upscaling player, this makes all the difference. If you run a yellow composite cable from DVD to TV, it will look horrible. Use HDMI with upscaling DVD/Blu-ray player for improved result.
    Good luck
    Jeff Pulera
    Safe Harbor Computers

  • Preview Quality Setting--is low good enough?

    I tried importing a set of images at different preview quality settings: 10 jpegs, 27MB total, 1440 pixels standard preview size. At low quality, standard previews took 1.8MB, adding 1:1 previews increased it to 7.6 MB. Medium quality was 2.9 and 12.8MB, while high was 6.2 and 30.2MB! Doing side-by-side comparisons on-screen, I can see absolutely no difference between low and high-quality previews, either standard or 1:1. Is there any reason not to use the low-quality setting and save a bunch of storage space?

    Fred,
    This is interesting.
    For the standard preview, I definitely see a difference in quality between Low, Medium, and High... the High setting being the only acceptable one for me.
    However, when I have Previews set to Low, and the standard preview looks terrible, once I render the 1:1 preview (keeping the Previews setting to Low), the image looks fine.
    There could be two possible explanations:
    1.) The 'Previews' setting of Low, Medium, & High *does not* apply to 1:1 previews.
    --or--
    2.) Since my image is a 20MP image (huge), even rendering a 'low-quality' 1:1 preview is all right, because by the time you zoom out to fit-to-screen, the resizing/downsampling makes the preview look acceptable.
    Anyone care to chime in on which of the above 2 scenarios is more likely? Or if there is a 3rd that I am missing?
    Thanks,
    Rishi

  • Playback/Previewing Problems

    The playback/preview button is not working on my Premiere Elements 7.  I have tried hitting the button, the space bar and the full screen preview, but to no avail.  What should I do?
    Thanks

    OK, you have Imported VOB, which mostly contain MPEG-2 AV files in the VOB container. Are all of your source files VOB's? Are these from a miniDVD camera? Which one, make/model? What is your Project Preset, and how did you Import the VOB's? Very likely something in there.
    This ARTICLE will give you a bit more background on VOB's, and what they can contain.
    Good luck, and thanks for the screen-cap, as it showed a lot.
    Hunt

  • TS1424 i downloaded a song and it shows the time length all to be correct but while playing the song will only play for about 30 seconds then skip to the next song in my list (all lists) - in short i payed for a song that is only of a preview quality

    i downloaded a song and it shows the time length all to be correct but while playing the song will only play for about 30 seconds then skip to the next song in my list (all lists) - in short i payed for a song that is only of a preview quality
    Either this needs to get fixed or i will request my money back because i will not work for my money while other lie about what i spend it on.

    Try deleting the problematic tune (electing to remove original file if/when prompted) and then re-downloading the file from the iTunes store.
    You can re-download content purchased from the iTunes store (availability varies depending on location) using the purchased option from the Quick Links section in the top right corner of the iTunes homepage in your iTunes application on your computer.
    You can re-download content purchased from the iTunes store (availability varies depending on location) using the purchased option at the bottom of the screen of the iTunes app (or video app on your iOS device.
    If the problem re-occurs, select the content which is causing a problem and use the 'Report a problem' button in Your Purchase History using your computer.

  • Imovie HD skipping during playback/preview

    HELP! I'm editing a 32 GB movie in iMovie HD, During simple Playbacks / previews the movie is skipping and becomes impossible to view, (unless I scroll the timeline)
    I'm working w/ a brand new G4 ibook w/ 512 and 60GB HD totally dedicated to this project.(this problem has beome progressively worse as the file gets bigger) Is it HD space I'm lacking or Power or memory? I'm prepared to turn in my laptop for a desktop just to finish this movie, will the imac 1.9 G5 w/ 160 HD solve my problem?

    Hi Anna - welcome to the forum!
    1. The HD may be 60 GB, but how much AVAILABLE space do you have?
    2. For the size of your project, 512mb RAM is probably minimum - I think you should increase that to at least 750.
    3. The iBook is OK for iMovie projects generally (I sometimes use one also), but your project is extremely large - much larger than would be considered usual.
    4. I also use a large capacity external HD and that may be an option for you - maybe 200GB (formatted for Mac - (Mac OS Extended).
    4. Remember that if you intend making a DVD, that iDVD has a maximum size of 120 minutes, and yours is well over that.
    Obviously a more powerful computer is better, but I would try adding RAM to your iBook before spending mega-dollars. Even on my desktop computer, a project as long as yours would begin to display similar problems to the one you are experiencing.
    Does this help?

  • Does the low bitrate of x-fi 5.1 pro affect playback quality of higher bitrates?

    I needed a 5.1 sound card for my laptop, and this was the only one I could afford used -- so far Im pretty satisfied, it works for cheap.
    but I need to know if its important to save up for a better one right away --
    I was concerned that since it only supports 44.8 and 96kbps that higher encoded audio like 128kbps and greater may not play back at the same quality they were recorded -- this is important because I ONLY use digital audio -- I have no analog -- videos are blu-ray rips, audio is FLAC or high encoded MP3, no cds, dvds, physical blu-rays.
    so the encoding is often 128kbps or higher. sometimes even 196.
    right now im keeping it until I can afford better regardless -- but is playback of these higher bitrates lower quality since it is being output at only 44.8 or 96?
    just wondering, been finding it hard to get a straight simple answer to this. lots of people insist I never have audio play back at higher than 44.8 or 96, but I find that impossible since LOTS of my audio is encoded either lossless or at a higher rate.

    So are you only getting sound out of the front center channel? I have this issue only from certain audio sources, such as YouTube videos, where all front right and left channel audio is put out through the center channel only. Are you not getting sounds from the front channels when using any type of media (mp3, games, DVDs)?
    The only other reasons I was having issues like this were as follows: I hadn't checked the mixer settings yet in the windows and creative control panels to ensure volume levels were set correctly for all channels; I hadn't yet set my speakers to 5. sound (although this only affected the rear channels).
    Let me know what you find. Also, have you tried the utility in the Creative control panel that lets you click each speaker to test it yet?

  • Why is playback video quality not as good as the source?

    Hi.  I'm not new to PrE but am new to the forum.
    I've been using PrE 2 for about 7 years.  I got a newer computer running Windows 7 and basically was forced to upgrade to PrE 12 because PrE 2 didn't run very well on the newer machine. Once I installed PrE 12, I was eager to jump into my first project on this machine.
    I expected that with a newer machine and the latest software, I would get outstanding results--hopefully much better than what I always got with PrE 2 on the old machine.  With PrE 2, it was not uncommon that the imported video seemed lossy on playback or for whatever other reason seemed not as good as the source video.
    Unfortunately, the results on the new/new were no better than the old/old.  So I switched to my wife's (even newer) machine running Windows 8 and got the same results.  Then I thought that perhaps the output to DVD would be better than what I saw in the PrE editor.  No dice.
    The video quality of the source isn't the greatest (see below), but I expected that the PrE 12 would be no worse.
    What went wrong?
    Here's what i'm working with on the current project:
    Machine 1:
    HP EliteBook 8560w
    Intel Core i7-2640M 2.8 GHz CPU
    Window 7 Enterprise SP1
    2 GB RAM
    360 GB available HD space
    Machine 2:
    Dell Inspiron 3521
    Intel Pentium 2117U 1.8 GHz CPU
    Windows 8 Touchscreen
    4 GB RAM
    400+ GB available HD space
    Video Source:
    iPhone 4 video (MOV format)
    Thanks for ANY help you can give me.
    BTW, I noticed that Steve Grisetti is one of the frequent commenters on this forum.  In case you're reading this, Steve, I want to thank you and Chuck E. for your PrE books.  I purchased one several years ago and found it extremely helpful.  And surprisingly, I found that with PrE 12 I could still use the book that I purchased before because most of it was still relevant to the new software.  Still a great purchase!!

    kcarter
    Please excuse if I mention things you may already be aware of, but I did not want to take anything for granted.
    The installed RAM on Machine 1 is too low for HD work, and I wonder about the processor on Machine 2 even though it has more installed RAM than that on Machine 1. For now, I will bypass the usual drills and get to the source media and project settings.
    1. From what I can put together, your source media from iPhone 4 are 720p up to 30 frames per second. That usually translates into a variable frame rate which can be problematic for Premiere Elements. The variable can lead to audio out of sync, but not necessarily. If all else fails, then it is onto HandBrake or the like to change the variable into a constant frame rate.
    2. One of the features of version 11 and 12 is the program taking over the setting of the project setting based on the properties of the first video drag to the Timeline. Some times it does it OK, sometimes not. When not, then you set the project preset manually yourself based on what you know to be the properties of your source media. Please refer to the following which includes how to set the project preset manually.
    http://www.atr935.blogspot.com/2013/04/pe11-accuracy-of-automatic-project.html
    Based on what I have read about the properties of the iPhone 4 video, I would suggest the project preset (assuming a NTSC set up)
    NTSC
    AVCHD
    AVCHD-LITE 720p30
    One of the important things to remember is that Premiere Elements 11 and 12 have as their default project preset
    NTSC
    AVCHD
    Full HD1080i30
    and not the NTSC DV Standard of versions earlier than 11.
    When 11 and 12 do not get the automatic project preset correct, they do not give you the closest fit, rather they give you their
    default NTSC AVCHD Full HD1080i30 which is not going to be appropriate for 720p video.
    Classically it is written if you have the correct project preset you should have no colored line over the content when you bring the video to
    the Timeline manually set. But, just the variable frame rate can trigger the unrendered indicator (orange instead of red in versions 11 and 12).
    So, rendering the Timeline would be indicated to get the best possible preview under these circumstances.
    Do you have the latest version of QuickTime installed on either of your computers?
    More later.
    ATR

  • Just read on Vimeo.. can your hardware affect your video quality?

    I read this on Vimeo:
    What is hardware-accelerated decoding, and how do I disable it?
    All videos need to be decoded in order to be viewed. In other words, the data within a video file is interpreted and rendered as sound and images for playback. On Vimeo, videos are decoded using either your browser’s native decoding technology or Adobe Flash.
    Hardware-accelerated decoding means that your computer’s hardware is used in addition to your browser or Flash to decode the video. Depending on your particular hardware configuration, this may affect the look or sound of video playback on Vimeo (and across the wide world of the Internet).
    When troubleshooting playback issues, you may want to try enabling or disabling hardware-accelerated decoding. How you do so will depend on whether your browser uses Vimeo's Flash or HTML5 player. (FYI: Not all browsers or operating systems utilize hardware-accelerated decoding.)
    Just confused and was wondering does this mean that the particular computer I edit, render and upload my videos from may effect their quality?
    Thanks.

    I apologize regarding my second question!  I was going through the "More Like This" sidebar and when I found that code I didn`t realize that it was not from a post in the "LCCS Forum", but the "Actionscript Forum".  Sorry for that!  I guess LCCS does handle all of the video setup!
    I`m currently making a settings window where we can test various video settings (quality, fps, resolution, etc...) via slider components and then applied.  I just had one more question:  Can all these settings be adjusted/changed in real time, or does the Session have to be restarted?  I heard somewhere that fps can not be changed in real time.  Is this true?
    Thanks,
    Matt

  • Full-screen (spacebar) preview quality testing

    [For background story, please read http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1056763 but be warned, it's very l-o-n-g!]
    In brief: some people have noted that Bridge full-screen (spacebar) previews (FSPs) don't accurately reflect the sharpness of a photograph. Sometimes this can be explained by individual configuration problems, but it's clear that this is a common issue amongst people using Bridge to assess/score photograph sharpness, without having to build/examine 100% previews for every image.
    [It's worth noting that one common reason why FSPs aren't very sharp is because the Bridge advanced preference "Generate Monitor-Size Previews" hasn't been ticked, as this produces a higher resolution image cache.  Another cause of very fuzzy previews is random and unexplained, but can usually be solved by restarting Bridge and/or clearing the cache for the selection.]
    This discussion concerns the lack of sharpness seen only in FSPs.  It can be described as "a subtle but significant loss of detail and sharpness, similar to a slightly out of focus photograph"; imagine a photo with a little bit of blur filter, or a Photoshop PSD at a non-standard zoom setting.  This "softening" of the image is caused by Bridge asking the graphics processor to resize the image cache to fit the display.  If you select the Bridge advanced preference "Use Software Rendering", you can improve a poor FSP slightly, at the expense of speed, by bypassing the graphics processor.
    The test
    Visit this web page and download the last image ("2362x3543 pixel, 4.5 Mb") to your computer.
    Browse to this image in Bridge, and view it full-screen by pressing Spacebar.  Take a screen capture, and save it as a TIFF or PSD.
    Adjust your slideshow settings (Ctrl/Cmd-Shift-L), picking "Scaled to Fill", then click on "Play".  Save the screen capture, as above.
    You now have two screen captures: one FSP, and one cache JPEG reference shot.  Examine them side by side at 100%, or layer them in Photoshop and use the hide layer button to flick between images.  Pay particular attention to the two left-hand photos, the sharpness check text, and the converging lines.
    Make a note of your computer's operating system, graphics processor and driver version, as well as your largest display's pixel dimensions.
    Post this information below, together with high quality (10) JPEGs of both screen captures, labelled FSP and REF, and any observations, so we can all see.

    OK, it usually takes me a while to let the penny drop, especially when it comes to maths...
    I also am busy with the transition of my new Mac pro but with al this here are my results. I include several screenshots but due to upload limit of 2 MB per image in here I downsized the original screenshots a lot, but hopefully it will be clear.
    For full screen screenshots I have the asked FSP and REF but also the 100% preview in Bridge with space bar and click. Don't know what your file size is but using EOS 1Dx with 18 MP CR2 files (converted to DNG) it does take me about 1,5 - 2 seconds for both loupe and FSP to build a 100 % preview, and I seem to recall this was not very different behavior on my previous (6 year old) Mac Pro.
    You are right (of course... :-) ) regarding the difference between FSP and REF, when studying closely there is a significant detail difference between the FSP and the REF. However, only the 100 % preview matches the original jpeg. The FSP file is on closer look not so good with details but the REF file is only slightly better, both are not correct and therefor the 100 % is still needed.
    Here is the FSP screenshot:
    and here the REF screenshot:
    also the 100 % preview in full screen screenshot:
    and finally a composed file with details from original, 100 % REF and FSP:
    As said before, at first sight I can't spot significant difference between all options and the full screen (as the preview panel HQ preview) let's me spot the vast majority of unsharpness issues, hence my multiple rounds of sorting and incases of doubt the 100 % option.
    So while your theory is correct I'm afraid I  (still) doubt the usefulness of this all. If neither the FSP and the REF (although the latter does show a bit better result) can match the results of the original but the 100 % does it well I don't see an easy solution for improvement.
    I agree with the quality from the screenshots Curt provided, but Curt also uses the embedded thumbnail instead of HQ preview option. Depending on his needs and hard ware availability it would be nice to see new results with the HQ and monitor sized previews options enabled.
    regards
    Omke

  • Why is the preview-quality of my fotos different (worse) in the timeline compared to the original image?

    After importing fotos and videos into an new project for a film the quality of the original image in the preview of the timeline is terrible. When double-clicking in the picture however, the quality of the image is fine. This makes it impossible to use any effects (color, saturation, contrast) on the picture - as it doesn`t actually look like that...is there anything I can do?
    I`m attaching a screenshot of the image in timeline and the original.
    Thanks!
    Maike

    Hi A.T.,
    Thanks for the quick reply. Please see my answers below:
    I`m using a 15 " Macbook Pro with Retina and Adobe Elements Version 13.1 - German Version. I do not know, what eLive is - sorry.
    My video card/graphics card is absolutely up to date - the Macbook I`m using is only a year old.
    The original images are .jpeg.
    Dimensions: 4000 x 3000 px.
    To some of the pictures I have applied effects with Snapseed (App) or iPhoto-Editor. But not to all of them - and I do have this washed-out-effect on those as well.
    In Elements Organizer the thumbnails and the pictures are absolutely OK.
    I did try to correct the colours in Premiere Elements Editor with the color correction tools when I first discovered the washed-out-effect - but this is of course totally useless, as actually the original picture is OK - so I got back to the original.
    I did not consciously use any manual presets to match the properties of the source media. Or at least not as far as I remember. I did import the original fotos into the organizer, used the "video story" presets to arrange the pictures and then proceeded to the timeline where I first noticed the strange effect.
    I hope you can tackle the issue better with these questions answered?
    Thanks,
    Maike

Maybe you are looking for