Aliasing issues in ACR 6.4 output, jagged edges

In images with high frequency detail, aliasing occurs that is most visible in diagonal directions. These jagged edges are noticable in the output, and obviously get worse in enlargements which is also the main reason I post this.
To date, I've found 2 workarounds:
process in ACR, duplicate layer in Photoshop, apply gaussian blur around 0,5px, and manually paint on the offending jagged edges
use another raw converter
For demonstration purposes, I've taken an old and unspectacular D3X NEF from imaging-resource.com. It's a picture of a house and some trees etc. I've used:
Camera Raw 6.4 with default settings (first row): aliased edges
Capture One Pro 6.2 with default settings (middle row): anti-aliased edges but introduction of false (green) colour
Raw Developer 1.9.1 with default settings (bottom row): anti-aliased edges free from artifacts
Some (100%) area's where the aliasing shows:
At first I thought the difference was due to the sharpening in these 3 convertors. Forgive me if I omit showing a comparison and just assert that turning of sharpening and replacing it with Photoshop remove lens blur, didn't help. It just showed the defects apparantly already present in the (ACR and C1 processed) file.
The result however from a properly sharpened, denoised, and upsampled TIFF that originates from Raw Developer is impressive. However, given the fact that Raw Developer is Apple OSX only, and I do post-processing on Windows, it introduces a bit of an unpracticality.
Is there any possibility to eliminate this unpleasant aliasing in ACR, so I can keep a high quality Adobe-only workflow?

The "blocky" details are easily reproduced in that image. Looks like something that needs to be tuned up to me.
Note that you have the option of choosing the 2003 process in Camera Raw, which appears to avoid that issue.
I just want to add one thing: There's no upsampled resolution available for this particular camera. 6048 x 4032 is the largest size available. I for one prefer to convert my raw files directly to upsampled resolutions on the theory that it might improve this kind of thing (and it does seem to deliever more accurate detail with my now out-of-date Canon cameras). At some point in the past I requested that Camera Raw make several upsampled resolutions available beyond the "native" camera size for any/all cameras. I hereby renew that request.
-Noel

Similar Messages

Why does this logo have jagged edges?

I'm working on a new logo and before I get too far along I need to resolve this issue; why does this shape have jagged edges when posted on the web?
you can see it on-line auctionontario.ca
Thx

auctioneer,
Obviously, you are using the transparency available for the GIF format.
In addition, you should tick the Anti-Aliasing which is, unfortunately, hidden away like a hidden feature in the Image Size window within Save for Web.

Shape jagged edges issue?

I'm creating objects in illustrator (CMYK, 300dpi) for print purposes and the thing that bothers me is the jagged edges with a light pink color between the fill and stroke of the shape (see image) at any zoom level.
This shape, created in Illustrator, is being imported into a Photoshop collage at the same resolution on a dark grey background, where the jagged edges become even more striking.
Will this look as it should when it comes out of printing house? I know there's a difference between shape handling in Ai and Ps because of the different output media for each another...but still the screen appearance is disturbing.

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
I'm creating objects in illustrator (CMYK, 300dpi) for print purposes and the thing that bothers me is the jagged edges with a light pink color between the fill and stroke of the shape (see image) at any zoom level.
I'll assume your screenshot is from Illustrator, not from Photoshop after importing the AI elements. That is, I'll assume that both the red shape and the black shape are native to Illustrator, both are vector paths with ordinary fills applied (no raster-based effects), and you want to bring both of them into Photoshop. The undesirable "light pink" is what you're seeing in Illustrator.
First, understand that in Illustrator you are not creating pixels. You're creating paths. Paths are mathematically-defined curves. You apply fills, which are just another kind of command, not pixels. Now...as you work in Illustrator, Illustrator has to display what you are creating on your monitor as pixels, even though what it's creating are not pixels. In other words, it's "printing" the mathematical shapes to your monitor. Your monitor is acting as the "printer." The monitor has pixels, but your objects (the paths) don't.
By default, Illustrator "prints" to your monitor using an algorithm called anti-aliasing, which is just a routine that disguises the inhernent jaggedness of the large, crude monitor pixels in order to make the on-screen appearance smoother.
You can turn that anti-aliasing behavior off in Illustrator's preferences. Turn it off and you'll see the edge between the black and red objects become more jagged, but the pink goes away. The degree of jaggedness will stay the same regardless of zoom, because the jaggedness you're seeing is the physical jaggedness of the pixels of the output device (your monitor).
Well, the same principle applies to anti-aliasing. You say the undesirable light pink along the edges occurs "at any zoom". (Again, I'll assume you're doing the zooming in Illustrator, not Photoshop.) So if you have antialiasing turned on, and if you zoom in alot, you still see the unwanted pink edge. But now ask yourself: Does the pink edge actually grow larger as I zoom in? If it doesn't, it's not "real"; it's just the result of the anti-aliasing routine that Illustrator is using when it "prints" to your monitor.
Further, you already know that you have not created any pink objects, right? So the unwanted pink edge is just an anti-aliasing artifact when viewing the artwork in Illustrator on your monitor. That is, since you haven't created any pink objects, there won't be any pink objects when you save the Illustrator file.
Now...all the above applies while working in Illustrator. Read on...
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
This shape, created in Illustrator, is being imported into a Photoshop collage at the same resolution on a dark grey background, where the jagged edges become even more striking.
The artwork is "being imported" into Photoshop how? If you paste or import the vector artwork into Photoshop, it is going to be rasterized (converted to pixels). If you export the artwork from Illustrator to a raster image, it is going to be rasterized. Either way, somewhere along you are going to be presented an option to let you choose whether the imported or exported vector paths use anti-aliasing when that rasterization occurs. If you choose to apply anti-aliasing during the export or import, then yes those pink pixels are going to actually exist in the resulting raster image. However, the degree to which they are visible will depend on the size of the pixels relative to the scale at which they are printed.
So again, ask yourself the same question, but this time, in the context of Photoshop: When I zoom in alot (in Photoshop), does the unwanted pink edge grow larger? If it does, it's real pixels, and yes, it will print. But again, how visible it will be in print depends on printing scale.
Understand also: Such edges are not necessarily undesirable. In raster imaging, one often goes to great lengths to add such "edges" between adjacent pixels of different color. That's essentially what sharpening does. Sharpening actually alters the colors of adjacent differently-colored pixels so as to increase their difference. In the case of any color against black (since black can't get darker), this would result in an "edge" of pixels that are lighter than the non-black color.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Will this look as it should when it comes out of printing house?
That's where you have to define "as it should". When you rasterize the vector objects into another raster image in Photoshop, it all ultimately becomes one raster image. Zoom in and see if the pink pixels are actually there.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
I know there's a difference between shape handling in Ai and Ps because of the different output media for each another
That doesn't make sense. If this is something that you know, you need to find a better way to state it.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
...but still the screen appearance is disturbing.
On-screen appearance is always disturbing. Anti-aliasing is just one flavor of disturbance. Color accuracy is another. The fact is, a monitor is a very very different kind of output device from a printing press, and the two are never going to look the same. That's why the answer to whether it prints "as it should" lies in the printed results, and that's where you have to look for the answer. But if you send a raster image to a printer, if the unwanted pink pixels are actually there in the image file, then yes, they will print. You can determine whether they actually exist in the final raster image by examining it in Photoshop.
JET

Issue w/ ACR v6.x/v5.x and WB settings stored in .X3F files by Sigma SPP converter

Hi,
if I will use Sigma SPP raw converter (3.5.x or 4.x) to work with .X3F raw files and select "monochrome" WB there and then quit SPP leaving that setting (SPP stores processing settings in .X3F files, almost like you can do w/ .DNG files) then Adobe ACR v5.x / 6.x for whatever reason will allow to process .X3F as a greyscale image, I mean ACR will have a lot of controls disable (like WB, vibrance, saturation, ...). So I need to go back to SPP and change WB settings to anything different from "monochrome" to be able to process .X3F in ACR normally. Can it be fixed or Adobe is using some Sigma provided SDK to open .X3F files and locked into what Sigma says it can or can't ? Because it looks stupid that settings used in Sigma's raw converter are affecting what ACR can or can't do !
Thank you.

I recently processed some pics inside SPP, and it's amazing how much
better the colors are (a bit too saturated sometimes), I can't get the
same results at all in ACR/LR.
when we are talking about "better" it is a matter of personal preferences... and then you can create your own profiles for ACR, you can't for SPP... then you ought to try SilkyPix for Sigma raws.
I was under the impression that adobe was using a black box provided by
Sigma to read the files (a lot of things point to it : the monochrome WB
issue, the mandatory noise reduction...)
I doubt it is a black box - they should have a source code, just may be they signed an agreement which limits what they can do ? which makes me wonder whether ISL (SilkyPix) has the same arrangement with Sigma as SilkyPix does not have for example "monochrome" issue (like ACR which gets stuck into B/W mode if the raw file was left marked as monochrome by SPP)... or ISL reverse engineered the file format and wrote the code all by itself ?
PS:
Sigma .X3F @ ISO3200 NR by ACR
vs the same by SilkyPix w/o NR and NR done in postprocessing

Clip within a clip equals jagged edges

I have placed an video clip (Dad) incide of another video clip (son) to look as if the Dad is coming in over a video telecast on a black laptop. Problem is I am seeing jagged edges along two sides of the Dad clip. Is this caused by aliasing? Is there a way to smooth out the edge? Thanks!
alex

First, are you looking at the output on an NTSC monitor or television, or on your computer screen. The computer screen will not give you a true look at your final product and this type of issue is often "not really there"
If it is "really there" after checking output on a monitor or television, you might try feathering the edges of the "box" (MOTION > CROP > FEATHER EDGES)
rh

How do I get rid of jagged edges in Photoshop?

Can someone tell me how to get rid of jagged edges in Photoshop? I've tried using the refine tool and checking the anti-aliasing/smooth option, but neither appears to work. Here is the problem. I use Photoshop to create the images for heat transfers that I press on to T Shirts. In transparent mode, I cannot see the edges, nor can I see them once the transfer has been printed, but when I press the image on to a T-shirt the edges are extremely jagged. Also, when I add a solid blue background in Photoshop, I can see the edges. I am using the TW Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold font (140.13 pt).
Additional Questions:
Are there fonts that inherently behave this way when stretched?
Are there fonts that hold up more consistently when stretched?
Will rasterizing the image resolve this problem, or at least give me a higher quality image when stretched?
Is there a way of using inches instead of points for font size and if so, where do I change it?
Is there anyone out there who uses Photoshop to create text and images for T-Shirts? If you have the answer to any of my questions, please respond ASAP. It is extremely important that I be able to get consistent results clean, smooth images that transfer well onto fabric. I am attaching my text image on transparent background, as wells as a solid blue background. You may have to zoom in on the gold and black image to see the jagged edges on the fabric.

You have AA set to None in the Options bar is my guess. Use whatever option looks best, but never use None.

Saving Shapes to PNG Causes Jagged Edges

Hello,
I use a Mac and I have Illustrator CS6 and I've noticed something strange. I create shapes using the pentool. When I save the shape to a PNG with a transparent background, it looks smooth, however when I import and resize the shape it pixelates and it has jagged edges. I've attached a screenshot so you can see what I mean.
I'm wondering if it's a setting or something that I don't have turned on (or off). Or perhaps it's something else. I'm curious why this is happening. I’ve turned on the Anit-aliased Artwork and changed the ppi to 300…but to no avail.
Any help would be appreciated…but I’m new to Illustrator and have no idea, so please use detailed and basic instructions that a noob can understand.
Thanks in advance.

peta2005 wrote:
however when I import and resize the shape it pixelates and it has jagged edges.
You answered your own question. A png is a raster image therefore resizing the image will pixelate it.

How can I get rid of "Jagged Edges" in FCP from .psd/.tif/.tga text files?

Hi guys,
I posted this once before but don't know if anyone looked at it or not.
I am getting "Jagged Edges" in .psd/ .jpg/ .tif/ .tga text files
when I edit them in FCP5.1.4.
What is going wrong?
It is getting very frustrating for me at this point.
Can someone help me out please?
Thanks,
Zia

The usual questions...
Have the clips you're looking at been "fully" rendered?
Are you looking at the computer monitor or an external broadcast monitor?
You can't judge what you've got unless you look at FCP output on a broadcast monitor.
rh

How do I remove white jagged edges after making image transparent?

How do I remove white jagged edges after making image transparent? Is there a feature to help out with this?

It's a file format limitation. GIF supports 1 bit of transparency. That is 2^1 (which equals 2 total) levels of transparency. This equates to either NO transparency at all, or specifying 1 single color of the 256 total possible values to being fully transparent.
This will leave a very ugly fringe around the edge no matter what; it will only not be visible in color that match or are close to the fringe color; and then, that's a perception issue.
Try creating an alpha channel and saving the image as a PNG. That supports 8 bits of transparency, which equals 2^8 or 256 total different levels of transparency. This will let your image have very smooth edges with no jagged transitions.

Jpg jagged edges

Hi,
I'm making a video from jpgs -- all were taken by a professional photographer, really big file sizes, so that they are down to about 26% to fill the screen. Problem is the jagged edges, particularly on straight lines -- and there are a lot of these because it's architectural photography.
Tried Gaussian Blur in FCP, but it softens the photos too much.
Any other ideas?
thanks,
Eve

Let's try this from the top.
Recognize that NOTHING on the TV will ever ever look as sharp and as detailed as the original images.
1. A pro photographer should be able to deliver files in TIF or PSD - lossless formats. JPG is a lossy format designed to compress images for transmission over the internet and display on computer monitors. It was intended to be used by people who care more about small file size than maintaining image fidelity.
2. Unless you are doing moves (pan/zoom) on the images, you should reduce their pixel count to something close to the codec size. For DV, the equivalent square pixel size is 720x540. Best to do this in Photoshop (or other image editing software) before importing into FCP as FCP does not have the most sophisticated scaling engine.
3. Deinterlacing still images makes no sense what so ever. Deinterlacing takes half the image and throws it away then adds back the missing lines of information interpolated from the remaining lines. Why would you do this on a still image?
4. Images with a great deal of contrast and or thin horizontal edge detail will benefit from a slight vertical gausian blur - .5. This will make the detail that exists on only one scan line (which may appear to vibrate) blend over two scan lines so the image will counterintuitively look sharper - or at least more stable. Setting the Field dominance to "none" will also help as it tells FCP to render by frame not by field.
5. Keep in mind the color space of the DVD is the same as DV - 4:1:1. Unless you are manipulating the images (color correcting, composting, overlay titling, etc) your images will not improve with ProRes or DV50 codecs and the editing file sizes will grow significantly. If you are engaging in those activities, you will see a benefit.
6. Unless you are planning to make some variant of an high definition DVD (currently Blu-ray), it doesn't make any sense to me to work in an HD format for editing then down convert to DV size for burning. Why not simply work at the size/aspect ratio of the final output?
7. As noted, you really MUST have a TV monitor connected to view the material as you edit/play it back. Otherwise, you will have no idea how your work will display without burning to disk.
Have fun.
x

The end of jagged edges in iMovie using stills

It took an astonishing 14 months, but I have finally beaten the dreaded jagged edge quality issue in iMovie when using still photos. If you're reading this, you're a sufferer. How could the software be so bad as to ruin every picture you put in there? It's all about knowing the settings, and that can be difficult without some help.
It feels as though I've really gone through the mill with this programme, but here's your fix - or at least, a fix that worked for me.
Initially, I was using the first version of iMovie and the first version of OSX. In that environment I found the problem unsolvable. I didn't get anywhere until I upgraded to Panther (10.3.9) and iMovie HD 5.0.2. Here there are many more options and settings, but it is still a minefield. I tried almost every setting there is, and have the 'coasters' to prove it.
My fix is for widescreen. Choose HDV720P. Select your frame rate in the preferences box at 25 (which is PAL for use in the UK) And that's it. It produces a stable, high quality movie where all the effects available work perfectly - and no jagged edges!
If, as I do, you use Photo to Movie for more adventurous multiple pan and scans for sections of your movie, export from that software using 'higher quality' on rendering, select 16.9 widescreen, and DV stream PAL as your export format. This stops iMovie from trying to resample it, and very possibly giving a choppy or jerky movement to your imports. Using the above settings will give a perfect result, and you can freely use iMovie's transitions to join an imported item to footage created in iMovie.
I've now produced many very successful movies on these settings. It works for me, I really hope it works for you. iMovie can drive you up the wall when it doesn't give the results you know it can be capable of.
Quicksilver G4 Mac OS X (10.3.9)

Thanks for the idea, Steve. I like working with the HDV 720P high def projects for slideshows too. The quality is awfully nice to work with and it delivers projects that will work far better with tomorrow's hardware. Although we can't burn HD DVDs yet, hopefully that day will come soon, and the HDV slideshows we create today will look very good on the HDTVs we own tomorrow. They look good today, but they will look even better tomorrow.
It should be noted, however, that it's not necessary to create an HDV project to avoid the jaggies on still images. The cause of the jaggies in DV projects -- the type of projects we mostly make -- is well known and can be avoided. It doesn't require third-party software like Photo to Movie, but it does require avoiding a bug.
iMovie adds the jaggies after we press the Create iDVD Project button in the iDVD tab of iMovie. When that button is pressed, iMovie will ask permission to render any UN-rendered clips, including any unrendered KB images. If you grant permission to render, iMovie adds the jaggies while rendering those images.
If the clips have been previously rendered by Ken Burns, or if you refuse permission to render after pressing the button so iDVD renders them later, you don't get the jaggies.
I use Ken Burns to render images as they are imported, which it does with great quality. Once rendered, iMovie won't ask to render those images again. One reason I render with Ken Burns is so I can grant iMovie to render OTHER clips when it asks permission.
Ken Burns will render the image if the KB checkbox is turned ON when the image is imported. So turning on the checkbox avoids the bug.
If the checkbox isn't on when you import an image, you can select that KB clip in the timeline later, turn the checkbox ON, and Update the image.
Regrettably, once iMovie has added jaggies to clips they cannot be repaired. It's necessary to re-import the image and discard the flawed clip.
Karl

Can't get rid of jagged edges of aligned objects

I have the annoying problem of jagged edges on aligned objects in Illustrator. This image demonstrates it well: http://i.imgur.com/AIyK6vK.png
You can see the white background shining through where objects align to each other. I thought this was only a display thing which wouldn't show up on print or export, but I get the same aweful results when exporting to png, pasting as a smart object in PS etc. How do I fix this?
Thanks!

I've tried that aswell and it looks a bit better, but that isn't always (never?) a good solution.
Jacob, I've had no luck with the other thread, I was already using smart guides. This is a strange problem. I've not seen a lot about this anywhere else, don't you guys have this issue?
There is one better solution than a background layer. Select all objects and offset the path buy a very small number, maybe 0,01 mm but that is also more of a "hack" than a real solution..

Jagged edges on text

My text has jagged edges after I render in FCP 4.5. This also happens when I import files from After Effects and Live Type. I recently lost all of my sequence and render settings, so my thinking is that it's one of those settings. Any ideas?

By default FCP sequences are in the DV codec which looks as if it loses resolution when viewed on a computer monitor. If you're outputting your video to an NTSC monitor via firewire, DV should look fine ... you must be looking in the Canvas.
(DV doesn't really lose much resolution on computers ... if you open a DV video file in Quicktime & go to Movie Properties-->Video Properties, you can select "High Quality." The Powers That Be at Apple so ordained this setup because computers used to have trouble playing back full-resolution video at 29.97 fps ... not really the case nowadays but they keep playing DV at "low quality" by default.)
If you change your sequence codec to Animation it will look sharp & crisp. But be careful, Animation files will eat up space on your scratch disk like CA-RAAAAAAZY. So either you need oodles of space or short animations.
Message was edited by: Caillera

Vector Circle Has Jagged Edges - Why?

I'm creating a button logo in Fireworks for print use and
wanted to use Vector shapes as I thought they didn't distort.
I'm working in CMYK at 300DPI.
So I start out with a white vector circle for the outer-ring
to the button using an Anti-Alias edge:
White
Button
Then I add the inner vector cirle, same deal as before:
Blue inner
circle
So far so good.
Now I add an outer bevel effect to the blue circle to give
the button effect and....
WOOOOOAAAAHHH!!!!
The blue circle's edges have gone jagged! What happened
there? I thought that Vector shapes retained their edges because
they weren't confined to tiny pixels. What's going on, why aren't
the edges retaining their smoothness once I've applied an effect to
the shape?

For now, if you recreate the effect with an inner bevel
instead you will
get rid of the jaggies. (softness = 7)
alex
thedrumdoctor wrote:
>
quote:
Originally posted by:
Newsgroup User
> thedrumdoctor wrote:
> > I tried the an export as a 24 Bit PNG and the edges
remaind jagged.
> >
> > I tried the same experiment in Photoshop with the
Vectors shapes there and
> the edges were perfect. Looks like Photoshop wins!
>
> Not sure what I am doing differently. I created a 300
dpi image in FW,
> drew the circle, filled it with blue and added a soft
bevel. No jagged
> edges. At 100% magnification things look fine on screen.
>
> Did similar in PS and got a very similar result,
although the bevel is a
> bit smoother.
>
> Are you referring to printed work, or screen work?
>
> Would really appreciate seeing the original png and
samples of the
> Photoshop vs Fireworks end results. If it's a
reproducible issue, it
> should be reported as a bug for future releases.
>
> --
> Jim Babbage - .:Community MX:. & .:Adobe Community
Expert:.
>
http://www.communityMX.com/
> CommunityMX - Free Resources:
>
http://www.communitymx.com/free.cfm
> ---
> .:Adobe Community Expert for Fireworks:.
> Adobe Community Expert
>
http://tinyurl.com/2a7dyp
> ---
> See my work on Flickr
>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jim_babbage/
>
>
>
> Well, I've repeated the exercise with a new png file and
uploaded it here
>
http://www.nlauro.f9.co.uk/images/test.vector.circles.png
>
> As you can see, the edges are still jagged on the blue
circle. You can
> download this and see for yourself anyway.
>
> This was done in Fireworks MX so I'm not using the
latest release of Fireworks.
>
> The shape was eventually destined for print work by the
way. As much as I
> don't like the clumsy way PS forces you to create vector
shapes, it produced a
> near perfect smooth edge on the same experiment.
>

Jagged edges on photos.

Hello.
I got a huge problem when trying to incorporate pics in PSE12.
I have downsized all pics to 2000X1500 using PS.
My problem is that the photos comes out with jagged edges and really bad quality.
I have tried all sorts of things. Saving it to PC helped a little but still jagged edges and overall really bad quality.
Tried different sizes, still same.
Even tried downsizing to 720 and burn to disc, playback on ps4. Still same.
The quality of video is fine and looks alot better then Pictures. I can just pause the video and it looks
crisper with no jagged edges.
I have never experienced this Before with older versions of PSE.
And No! This is not a resolution issue. I know they wont look as crisp as original
photos but they should be on par with videoquality and as of now they are not.

Vinjack
Just what program are you working with - Photoshop Elements 12 or Premiere Elements 12. The "PSE" abbreviation is typically used with Photoshop Elements.
In order for us to help you, please clarify your posting. If this is a Photoshop Elements question, you have posted in the wrong forum. You want the Adobe Photoshop Elements Forum (photo editing) and not where you are now the Adobe Premiere Elements Forum (video editing). It is your mention of "Timeline" incorporated in the "PSE" description that is confusing. By any chance are you working in the Elements Organizer Slideshow Editor of a Photoshop Elements program? Do you have any version of Premiere Elements at all?
Looking forward to your follow up.
Thanks.
ATR

Aliasing issues in ACR 6.4 output, jagged edges

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for