Aperture 3.0.2 image export takes a huge time

Hi everyone!
Yesterday I postprocessed 12 RAWs of portraits from 5D mk2 using similar techniques for each photo:
- exposure +20
- brightness +7
- vibrancy +10
- levels on eyes
- skin retouching/cloning ~150-250 brush strokes
- skin smoothing tool
- edge sharpening
- vignetting
I was so surprised with the results on each processed photo that I even realised that Photoshop times past for me.
After that I started exporting all 12 photos into JPEG and it took 2 hours! It's unbelievable price for such a good retouching tools that appeared in A3!
Has someone suffers the way I am?

Its likely to be the skin smoothing - this is extremely intensive for rendering and images with this adjustment can take a long time.
I guess its the price to pay for real time rendering on export and non-destructive editing.
I've found I can reduce this time if I make sure I export with nothing else open, and preferably after a reboot so I have the maximum amount of available ram for Aperture and nothing else eating CPU cycles.
YMMV, but that works for me. If I'm going to be exporting a large number of images where skin smoothing has been used, I tend to start it and walk away for a while! A bit of extra rendering time is worth it for me for the power of the tools I have at my disposal!

Similar Messages

  • Logging into arch takes a huge time after the boot up stage

    With a recent update of Arch linux I found that the login manager responds too slow to user inputs. I am using SLIM as login manager with 'archlinux-darch-grey' as the login theme and with XFCE as the desktop environment.
    Once the login screen flashes up, it takes quite a while for SLIM to display the text I have entered for username and move to the password screen when I press enter. It again takes quite a time to respond to the password I enter. This used to happen before also, once in a while. But the response delay was not too much at that time. However, with the latest update the delay has increased like anything and it happens for every boot, which is quite frustrating.
    Is there any fix for this?
    Last edited by matrix13 (2013-05-10 01:45:18)

    Apologies for the long delay in replying. I was travelling.
    I did the following.
    [matrix@black ~]$ systemd-analyze; systemd-analyze blame
    Startup finished in 3.944s (kernel) + 42.349s (userspace) = 46.294s
    36.669s [email protected]
    3.913s net-auto-wireless.service
    1.094s lightdm.service
    1.091s systemd-logind.service
    477ms systemd-udev-trigger.service
    459ms polkit.service
    447ms systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev.service
    446ms sys-kernel-config.mount
    446ms systemd-vconsole-setup.service
    446ms sys-kernel-debug.mount
    446ms dev-mqueue.mount
    424ms [email protected]
    411ms dev-hugepages.mount
    380ms systemd-remount-fs.service
    274ms upower.service
    220ms systemd-random-seed-load.service
    202ms systemd-user-sessions.service
    141ms udisks2.service
    140ms alsa-restore.service
    135ms systemd-sysctl.service
    114ms systemd-update-utmp.service
    110ms systemd-journal-flush.service
    57ms systemd-tmpfiles-clean.service
    32ms systemd-udevd.service
    23ms dev-sda10.swap
    20ms systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service
    16ms home.mount
    1ms sys-fs-fuse-connections.mount
    943us tmp.mount
    I find that [email protected] is eating away most of the time and added to that net-auto-wireless.service. How do I fix this?
    Also my machine is up-to date and it still runs netcfg, and not netctl. Shouldn't it be like that?

  • Client Export takes a long time...

    Hi,
    I have a 500 GB of Client Export and I can see it has been creating 3 files and the speed is 50 GB/24 h.
    It will take me 10 days to get the export done....
    HW is a 10 GB of RAM 2 CPU (Dualcore)
    1. Is there anyway we can a better speed ?
    2. Will the Import go faster or slower ?
    Br, Martin

    Hi,
    Try using parallel process. Refer to SAP Note 541311 and 550226. Please post your platform details.
    Hope this helps.
    Manoj Chintawar
    Edited by: Manoj Chintawar on Feb 19, 2009 2:04 PM

  • Thousands of paths take a huge time to treat !

    Hello,
    I tried this wonderfull way of scripting called ExtendScript by using an autocad file. I counted 220 000 paths. I wanted to try a small script to change the width of some paths, but this little script :
    var doc = app.activeDocument;
    var lengthPI = doc.pathItems.length;
    for (var i = 0; i < lengthPI ; i++ ) {
       if( doc.pathItems[i].editable ) {}
    //add this line in order to see the speed of this script
    if ( i % 100 == 0) $.writeln( i );
    takes a very very very long time. It takes almost 1 minute for 1000 paths.
    If I delete some paths, I can manage to have 30000 paths. The script becomes much faster, but it takes about 15s for 1000 paths, which is still very slow.
    On the other hand, if I select a path, and make a selection with Selection > Same > Stroke weight, and treat it as a script, it can select 100 000 paths in 1s.
    So my question is : how can I write the same script with ExtendScript to make it work in 1s ?
    Thank you very much !

    Thanks for your replies !
    Yes I know that a script can't be as fast as a compiled program, but I was wondering which kind of script were used inside Illustrator (the scripts in Window > script). Maybe it is in Javascript. Maybe it is a kind of XML used to point the compiled functions of Illustrator. If you have an answer it would be great. If you tell me that I will never manage to treat 200000 in less than 10s, that's ok. Just need to know...
    And to answer try67 : I'm using Illustrator CS3, I have a Mac Pro 2x2,8 GHz Quad Core with 6M RAM, under Mac Os 10.5.6.
    And here is the entire script (it doesn't do anything, it is just to see how fast it is) :
    var doc = app.activeDocument;
    var lengthPI = doc.pathItems.length;
    var date = new Date();
    var start = date.getTime();
    for (var i = 0; i < lengthPI ; i++ ) {
    pathRef = doc.pathItems[i];
    if( pathRef.editable ) {}
    if ( i % 1000 == 0) {
    var date2 = new Date();
    var stop = date2.getTime() - start;
    $.writeln( "for 1000 path : "+ stop+" ms");
    date = new Date();
    start = date.getTime();

  • I am using Indesign cs5 version 7.0.4 with a mac OS X version 10.9.4. I am having an issue where the save and save as option disappears. I am exporting the file as .idml and then resaving to avoid losing work but has to import all the images which takes a

    I am using Indesign cs5 version 7.0.4 with a mac OS X version 10.9.4. I am having an issue where the save and save as option disappears. I am exporting the file as .idml and then resaving to avoid losing work but has to import all the images which takes ages. Any help out there?

    I believe there are a couple of similar threads about CC or CC2014 behaving this way that might give yo some hints, but CS5 is not supported on your OS and may not run properly regardless of what you do. An in-place OS upgrade or an attempt to migrate the application would both be major problems for ID, so if you did either of those things you'll want to uninstall, run the cleaner tool (CS Cleaner Tool for installation problems | CCM, CS6, CS5.5, CS5, CS4, CS3) and reinstall.

  • Problem with displaying images exported to PS

    This is slightly different than the post about TIFF files not displaying properly.
    In Aperture 1.2, when I exported an image to PS and did extensive work on it, and then saved back to Aperture, it would appear in Aperture just as it looked in PS when I saved it.
    However, in 1.5, that does not happen. After I save the image, and then go back to Aperture, all of the changes I made in PS don't appear! However, if I again open the image in PS a second time, it will change to the PS version even before the image gets to PS (I can see it change right when I click "open with external editor").
    Is this a difference with how 1.2 and 1.5 handle the files? I'm guessing it has something to do with image previews, because I chose not to have Aperture generate previews when I installed 1.5 due to the slow-down issues I saw reported here.
    I'm starting to wonder what the point of upgrading to 1.5 was for me... if I can't take advantage of previews (accessing my Aperture library from other apps like Keynote, etc) and if the PS files I work on don't display properly, I'd rather go back to 1.2. This is a major problem in my workflow, since I often spend a lot of time working on images in PS, and I need to be able to see them that way when I return to Aperture.
    I'm hoping there's some setting somewhere I can use to fix this. Is there?

    David,
    I really appreciate your offer to help. However, I have the problem with all images in my library in all projects, so I'm not sure how useful it would be for you to work with a single image I upload to a server.
    I'm having the same problem on my MacBook too, though for some unknown reason there are certain projects on my MacBook that the process works fine with. I cannot tell any difference between those projects (that work) and those that don't.
    What's even more strange... if I quit Aperture, and re-open it, and then go through the process (open a file in PS2, save, return to Aperture) - it works fine! But ONLY ONE TIME. If I try the same process again, on that same image, or any other image in my library, it will not work. It only works the FIRST TIME I do it after opening Aperture. I tested this several times and got the same result.
    I am completely stumped here. I've tried generating previews for a project and turning all of the preview options on, but that doesn't solve the problem either.
    Anyone out there have a clue what might be happening? This is more than a minor inconvenience... if my image management system can't display the image as it should appear, it's unusable.
    Chris

  • Use Aperture to geotag photos, then export

    I am using my iPhone to track my location when I take pictures with my digital camera. The app on my iPhone produces a .gpx file, and Aperture uses it to geotag my photos. These geotags appear in Aperture and iPhoto. So far so good!
    I am also maintaining a Picasa photo library for my wife's Windows PC. I would like to export these geotagged pictures from Aperture or iPhoto so I can import them in to Picasa - but I want to keep the geotag information and not recompress the file. When I export pictures from Aperture, the files come out a different size - too different to merely be the geotag information. I think the picture is being recompressed.
    Can I export without recompressing? I think I'm missing something pretty simple!
    Thanks!

    Andreas Yankopolus wrote:
    $ exiftool -geotag trackname.gpx *.ORF
    Thanks Andreas! I'm assuming I would put my logger file in the same folder as the pictures, and then navigate to this folder in Terminal before giving the command? I don't know a lot about command line stuff.
    Frank Cagiano wrote:
    You keep using this term 'recompressing'  but you've never stated what image format you are importing into Aperture or how you are exporting the images from Aperture.
    If you could describe your workflow in some detail including how you are exporting from Aperture and the settings you are using and explain what problems you are having a solution  simpler then those proposed might be available.
    Sorry! I am pretty new to this. I am just using the JPEGs my little Canon S100 gives me. This camera actually has a built-in GPS, but it rarely works and if it does it take ages to lock on. My iPhone does a better job, so I am trying out different geotag apps to see if there is one I like. I am planning to upgrade my camera this year, and if I can get the iPhone geotagging working well I have many more choices of camera open to me. I may shoot in raw, but I really don't do much beyond cataloging my pictures to look at them later.

  • Images exported using Leopard are soft compared to Tiger.

    I've been working on exporting images for client preview and noticed that the images I'm exporting under Leopard seem a bit soft. I checked my export settings and everything looks the same as it did under Tiger.
    For comparisons sake, I exported several images that had previously been exported under Tiger and there is a definite difference. Side-by-side, the images exported using Leopard are much softer than the images exported using Tiger. The edits on these images were all previously done using Tiger.
    Has anyone else noticed this?
    I'm using 1.5.6 on 10.5.1.
    Thank you!
    Cheers,
    Anthony
    Message was edited by: Barbatto - Fixed Subject Line

    Janet Taylor wrote:
    Everything looks fine for me from Aperture and LR. I did a clean install of Leopard and all my apps on a Macbook Pro. Are you looking at images in photoshop to compare them? Preview is not a reliable way to check for sharpness right now, since some rocket scientist decide it would be cool if you couldn't scale in set increments anymore, and the randomly scaled rendition can be very soft. As a follow-on to that thought, are the images on your web site displaying at the size you exported them at? If they're being scaled on the web page, and safari is using the same rendering engine as Preview, it's possible that it's making the images look soft.
    hope i said something useful.
    Hi Janet,
    Hmmm, perhaps the fresh install is the way to go? I'm using Photo Mechanic view the exported images, not Preview or Safari. I only mentioned Preview in an earlier thread because in other discussions I've found, Preview appears to exhibit some of the same softness that myself and a few others are experiencing with our Aperture exports.
    Here's a screen grab of two images rendered side-by-side in PhotoMechanic. The top image was exported using Tiger while the bottom image was exported using Leopard. The actual edits on the image (white balance, sharpness, etc) were done previously in Tiger. The only thing I did to the image in Leopard was export it.
    http://www.barbatto.com/misc/comparison.jpg
    In this example, it's pretty obvious that the image exported with Leopard is much softer. Also note that the file size is slightly smaller for the Leopard exported image.
    As for the images on my website, most of them were exported with Aperture under Tiger. Since I've upgraded to Leopard and have been experiencing soft images, I've been using Canon's Digital Photo Professional to export any newer shots I've placed on my site.
    Regarding Lightroom, I installed the trial and its exports were flawless. They don't exhibit any of the softness I am experiencing with Aperture.
    So, right now, I'm at a loss. I experience this softness on both my MacPro and MacBook Pro. It should be noted that both machines were upgraded. Perhaps I should take some time and do a clean install on one of the machines and see if my results are any different. Or keep my fingers crossed that 10.5.2 will solve my problems
    Thanks for your comments!
    Cheers,
    Anthony

  • Aperture 2: Corrupts Masters on Export !!!

    Hello:
    This is serious stuff ! While evaluating Aperture 2 just found this issue. If you are using an external application (like Photoshop) to further adjust your images you might be in trouble.
    My setup: MacBook Pro 2.2, 4GB RAM, Aperture 2, Photoshop CS3.
    Aperture "External Editor File Format Preferences": PSD, TIFF: 300dpi (does not matter)
    Images: RAW from Canon 40D and EOS Digital Rebel
    Steps to reproduce:
    1. Select any image
    2. Hit "ShiftCommandO" to edit it in external editor (Photoshop CS3 in my case)
    3. Make any adjustments and "Close and Save"
    4. Make sure the new master in Aperture is created and your adjustments are applied
    5. Select this image and do "Export Master" ("ShiftCommandS")
    6. Open Exported Master in any editor and you will see that it has "COLOR HORIZONTAL LINES" across the image
    Export Version is working fine. All masters inside Aperture 2 itself are fine. It happens only when you do "Export Master".
    Also noticed that in addition to that it also:
    1. Removes Lens Model metadata from EXIF
    2. Changes the original image date to "Today" (mostly for psd) or "Date image was taken -10 hours" (usually for tiff). Can not figure out yet what is the logic behind it.

    It is getting more interesting:
    I was trying to export the same tiff several times (i tried with psd and it exhibit the same behavior) and every export creates different type of corruption. Please take a look:
    http://gallery.mac.com/odetinin#100116
    On a very rare occasion the exported file looks fine. It took me more than 20 attempts to achieve this.

  • Aperture keeps multiple duplicate images in the library file which do not show up in the app

    So, I recently had to merge two libraries which have some common images.  Although upon import Aperture asked me if I wanted to "Add or Merge" the libraries (I selected "merge", which wouldn't import duplicates), I wanted to confirm there were no duplicates in fact brought in.  I ran Duplicate Annihilator, which made a strange claim (about most photos, in fact): it showed a file as a duplicate which had no copies that I could find - searching for it by name revealed exactly one image.
    Curious, I searched inside the actual photo library.  Imagine my surprise when I found the following files
    ...Library/Masters/2007/Aug 10, 2007/IMG_0002/IMG_0002.JPG
    ...Library/Masters/2007/Aug 10, 2007/IMG_0002 (1)/IMG_0002.JPG
    ...Library/Masters/2007/Aug 10, 2007/IMG_0002/IMG_0002.JPG
    which are in fact *exactly* the same image.  Meanwhile, to reiterate, Aperture shows only ONE photo:
    IMG_0002.JPG
    Shocked, I investigated further.  In fact almost every single file which was in common between both libraries was "imported but not displayed", which explains why my two libraries of sizes 50GB + 50GB after merger = 100GB when, the two libraries in terms of images had 10k + 12k after merger = 14k images.
    Aperture imported all the photos into the new library.  But it just opted not to use half of them.
    So, now I have a bloated-by-2x library, and of course the frustration with Aperture having made such an insane, bone-headed move.  Those files are essentially dead weight which will follow the library around for all eternity.
    1) Why?
    2) How to fix?
    thanks!

    I would take  a step back here before going further.  William's suggestion might very well clean up the library but something obviously did not go right and to start mucking about in the library might make things worst.
    For starters I'm surprised to see the folder structure you showed in your first post. Aperture stores managed masters (originals) by import date and time. The structure (in all libraries I've ever seen) looks like:
    So something seems wrong with your master folder.
    Also the three folders you showed the first and third are identical ( the middle one has the (1) added to which is how the OS handles duplicates in a folder) so this shouldn't even be possible, those folders should not be there.
    I'm wondering if this is something left over from your using Duplicate Annihlator. Do you have a copy of the library before you ran the merge and used DA on it? Would be interested to see what the master folder looks like.
    Finally when you ran the merge which library did you tell Aperture to use as the master, the one that was used to resolve conflicts?
    Again William's suggestion might be all you need to do but it would be good to figure out want went wrong before proceeding.
    regards
    Message was edited by: Frank Caggiano - A better first step might be to run the Aperture first aid tools, repairing and possibly rebuilding the library.

  • Watermark not showing correctly on image export

    I've come from Aperture 2, and when I exported jpegs I had a small watermark - a 15 x 18 png file - that I added to my exports. When I upgraded to Aperture 3 I did it by creating a new library and importing the Aperture 2 library. My existing image export presets appeared, but with the watermarks missing. I added the watermark using the preset dialog. When I tried to change the position of the watermark in the dialog, the watermark did not move in the preset dialog. When I printed the picture the *watermark was scaled up* to fill the whole picture. This makes the watermark unusable.
    Anyone else come across this? Any work-arounds?

    Same problem here. They really mucked this up.
    It needs to work EXACTLY the way it did in 2.x, because the way they do it now we can't get a pixel for pixel watermark exactly where we had it in 2.x.
    I'm guessing most of us had a fixed size watermark with transparent padding to push it away from the "edges" that it was set to, set to not scale so we had direct control over the WM's size.
    Regardless of how you set it up now, it scales, and you have no control over how much. If I'd have wanted a buggy windows product that knew more about what I wanted to do than I did, I'd have bought Office 2008.

  • Aperture & iPhoto metadata when images NOT stored in iPhoto

    Thinking of "upgrading" to Aperture from iPhoto '11 - still want to use iPhoto for organization but Aperture for hopefully better editing capabilities, etc.
    Have 30,000+ images with keywords, etc. in iPhoto; the image files are NOT stored IN iPhoto, i.e., they are organized in folders external to iPhoto's library. The iPhoto library file best I can tell stores thumbnails and keyword metadata, etc.
    I'd like to use Aperture and have access to all of iPhoto's keywords, etc. but to use the original photo files.
    Can Aperture be setup to work this way? i.e., to pull in the 30,000+ photos' keywords yet reference the same originals that iPhoto is referencing?
    I don't want to duplicate the 30,000+ originals... In all likelihood I'd only ever want to manipulate a small percentage of the total image library in Aperture.
    Any suggestions appreciated!
    Alex

    Alexander Mcleod wrote:
    Thank you for taking the time to reply...
    re: "Basically to edit an image, stored in iPhoto, in Aperture you would have to export the image from iPhoto import into Aperture modify it export it out of Aperture and import it back into iPhoto."
    My point is that in my case the images are NOT *stored* IN iPhoto...
    Yes I understand, your iPhoto library is setup using referenced masters, the termed used when the master file is stored outside of the programs database. And you could setup Aperture in the same way and they would both be pointing to the same master file, external to both programs databases.
    But here's here's the kicker: The master file *is never modified* by either program. I believe iPhoto makes a copy of the master when you apply adjustments (someone with a greater understanding of iPhoto can correct me here) how it does it isn't important what is important is that he master isn't modified; Aperture also leaves the master alone. It records the adjustments you make as a stream on instructions and applies those to the master when you want to create an adjusted image. What you see (normally) in Aperture's views are previews of the adjusted image. So changes you make in Aperture won't be seen in iPhoto because iPhoto is looking at the original master file, not Aperture's adjusted version.
    Now you can share the preview from Aperture with iPhoto, but at this point you basically have the adjusted image in two places.
    And in reference to the other response that suggests that iPhoto and Aperture use different databases, I'd completely expect that to be the case. What I'm wondering about is can Aperture initialize its database from iPhoto's database; i.e., create its equivalent to iPhoto's "library" file (where all the iPhoto metadata is stored) from iPhoto's AND like iPhoto reference the original files in their original location.
    Yes Aperture can initialize a database of its own based on the iPhoto library and that library can be setup to use referenced masters, see above.
    I don't see why I'd need to 'export' any image from iPhoto (unless of course I'd "edited" it in iPhoto - in which case the *modified* file IS I think stored IN iPhoto's library) but that's my point... I don't WANT to edit the files with iPhoto... I want to edit the files with Aperture.
    You're right you won't need to export from iPhoto if you setup both with referenced masters. But like I said above to get back to iPhoto you will have to export from Aperture unless you can live with using the previews in iPhoto. But again you will basically have two identical library structures, at least at start, as time goes on they will diverge.
    I hope this better clarifies what I'm trying to explain.
    It does, I hope my reply also helps explain the difficulties with this setup and why it's not as cut and dry as it first appears.
    I have read *many* other posts that point out what you're pointing out but they all seem to make assumptions about wanting to modify files in Aperture which were previously *modified* in iPhoto. The unmodified "original" photos (assuming both iPhoto and Aperture have the ability that iPhoto has to reference the original files from a location *external* to iPhoto) are then by definition are already shared between iPhoto and Aperture so there's no need to 'export' from one to the other, no?
    As I've said whats shared is the original unmodified master image. Once either program modifies it it is no longer shared.

  • Have been trying to export versions to a friend in the UK as JPEG. He receives them as bmp and no Metadata. Tried all the JPEG settings in  Image Export with no success.

    Have been trying to export "versions to a friend in the UK as JPEG. He reseives them as bmp with no Metedata. Have tried all the JPEG settings in Image export with no success.
    Nelson

    Ernie-
    Thanks for responding...but still have a oroblem. Here's what I'm doing:
    In Aperture I choose a "version" that has been Adjusted (croped, etc.).
    - Go to "File"...'Export"..."Version"
    - In next window for "Export preset" I choose "JPEG-Fit within 1024x1024"
    - Click on "Export version"
    The exported version then showes up in "Finder" under "Pictures"
    - Next I open "Mail" (version 5.2)
    - Adderss email to friends in England.
    - Click on attachment (paper clip)
    - Choose my "version" from "pictures"
    - Back in Mail, click on "Format"..."Make Plain Text"
    - Send
    My friends receive it as "bmp", not JPEG, with no Metadata.
    If I do the same procedure but under "File" choose "Export Master", they receive it as JPEG and also the Metadata.....BUT, of course, no Adjustments, such as croping, that were made to the "Version".
    What am I doing wrong? Is there any way to save the "Version" as a "Master" and then send it as a "Master"?
    Thanks,
    Nelson

  • HT4028 Aperture IPTC Core Subject Code Exports Incorrectly to PhotoMechanic

    Hello. When using IPTC core Subject Code in Aperture, what I type in exports incorrectly when read by PhotoMechanic Software.  It seems to default back to previous Subject Code entries that are invisible on my end using Aperture, and can't be "erased".  Anyone else having this problem, and please advise on how to fix this.  I have contacted Apple tech support multiple times and they have been unable to resolve this problem.

    Preview should be able to do this
    In Preview you can see the field in the Inspector:
    From Peview's main menu bar: Tools > Show Inspector.
    Select the IPTC tab
    I tested several images - when I set the IPTC Subject Code and exported the edited version as jpeg, the modification showed in Preview correctly in the IPTC Subject code field.
    Tested in Aperture 3.5.1, MacOS X 10.9.1

  • Questions on Still Image Export

    I shot a wedding where the photog's Hasselblad failed. Only the first two frames of each roll where successful. I need to export around 100 images as stills. Each time I use QT Conversion I have to select "still images" from the format drop down box. Is there a way to set "still" as a default?
    Secondly, the exported image looks a bit "wide" compared to the images in FCP's canvas. How do I adjust for this. In FCP? In Photoshop? I'm sure this is remedial but I'm a bit of a novice. Thanks in advance for any help.
    Frank, Cranford, NJ

    Studio X wrote:
    2. When you start with DV material, the highest res
    you can get is 720x480 (non-square) or the equivalent
    of a really bad quality cheepo still camera.
    (~640x480 square pixels)
    To avoid the need to deinterlace, (the horrors of
    which are described below) find sections in your
    video that have VERY LITTLE motion, i.e.
    everyone/thing standing/existing absolutely still
    with the camera locked down on a tripod. These
    sections will yield the very best possible still
    images.
    If you have motion, the still images will exhibit
    'tearing' which comes from the two fields of video
    being recorded ~1/60 second apart. The second field
    shows elements displaced from the first field - hence
    a kind of internal image shifting going on. The only
    real way to deal with these kind of images is to
    deinterlace them - that is - decide which field you
    are going to keep and throw away the other.
    When you have deinterlaced the image, you have in
    effect reduced it from a 720x480 image to a 720x240
    image. The image pixel count REMAINS 720x480 but with
    half the vertical information as the remaining lines
    are doubled or interpolated to build back to 480
    lines.
    I take your explanation to mean that when you export a frame from FCE you get both fields. I am confused by the use of the term "de-interlace", since in television displays that term is defined as obtaining a full frame picture either by a) combining the two fields (called "weave"); b) duplicating lines of a single field (called "bob") or c) using some form of interpolation to derive the alternate lines.
    From this point of view, the term "de-interlace" as applied to the filter in FCE does not have the same meaning. Exporting without filtering produces what the TV interpretation would be a picture "de-interlaced" according to process a); applying the de-interlace filter produces an image containing one field only, and de-nterlacing that in Photoshop amounts to the application of either b) or c) above.
    Am I correct on this?
    867 MHz PowerPC G4   Mac OS X (10.3.9)  

Maybe you are looking for