Aperture image quality

I am trying to export some pictures from Aperture.  When I export the picture I notice the image file size is smaller when I export it.  The image goes from 2.9 mb to 2.5 mb.  The image quality is set to 10.  When I change the image quality setting to 12 it goes to 5mb.
What image quality size should I pick?  I want the best possible to print a 8x10 picture.

What you are getting now most likely is equivalent to your original source, say a camera, minus some info imported originally, since you are seeing a file size that also is clearly a JPEG?
This is probably adequate for giving to a printer.  If you were printing from Aperture yourself, that is what you would be using since the original source is roughly that size.
In the Export dialogue, click on the arrows beside the selection of Original Size, and choose Edit.  What options are selected, particularly with regard to metadata?
Ernie

Similar Messages

  • IPhoto vs Aperture uploaded image quality to Mobile Me

    I realize this may have been discussed, but by my tests the exact same album loaded up to Mobile Me gallery via iPhoto looks better than Aperture...how can this be? I searched for topics about image quality and Mobile Me and found many complaints but little in the way of solutions. While, for me, this seems to be a solution, it is sad that my "pro" app is doing a worse job than a "consumer" app, not to mention the additional importing needed to use iPhoto. And this is v7.1.5 of iPhoto. Anyone have any other solutions for image quality involving Aperture and Mobile Me galleries? Thanks.

    So the album finished uploading and the difference is amazing! I was very hesitant to send a link to my client after Aperture had uploaded the album...the images were that soft. But the iPhoto, while still a touch soft look 10X's better. Same album...just different programs used to upload to Mobile Me gallery. I'm not sure what is going on with Aperture, but Apple really needs to figure it out.

  • Aperture Light Table - Poor image quality

    I am using the Light Table function in Aperture (3.4.5.) and I had an issue with the quality of the images on it, when zoomed in or scaled to fit.
    The quality of the (larger spread) images looks poor. As if I zoomed in on a thumbnail.
    I was looking for a discussion on this and saw some (archived) threads. None of them solved.
    However, I think I have found a workaround.
    If you get this situation, you can select the image(s) on the light table and regenerate the preview.
    Option-click Menu => Photos => Generate Previews
    (note: if you don't use the Option key, you will get Menu => Photos => Update Previews and Aperture may say (unjust) that the preview is already up-to-date).
    That solves the poor image quality look.

    I just remade the same book - as a test - in the extra large hardback format (ie. the one I used for the previous publication, last year).
    This time, the pictures are fine.  The images appear to be the same quality in the PDF as the originals - much, much better.  The size of the file has increased massively too > up from just 2.6MB to 52.8MB.
    So does the books production function work well only with the biggest, most expensive option? 
    I'd really appreciate some feedback from anyone who's tried the different sizes, and preferably some brilliant ideas to make them all work equally well.

  • NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

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

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

  • 5D Mark II raw files image quality

    Anyone out there using Aperture to convert their 5D2 raw files? I am trying to but I am having image quality problems. This is a surprise coming from Aperture, which for Sony raw files has produced stunning quality for me in the past. It leads me to believe that perhaps Aperture's 5D2 conversion setup needs work. Here is what I am seeing that I don't see from RAW Developer or Canon's Digital Photo Pro:
    • Rainbow banding in specular highlights
    • Webbing of tree branches, particularly against the sky.
    • Not much "pixel level" contrast.
    • Rather soft over all (I have good L lenses, tripod, and technique)
    • Lackluster color requiring considerable post conversion work.
    • The files tend to be rather fragile with tearing occurring easily if several rounds of sharpening need to be applied.
    • More noise than one would expect, even at ISO 200.
    • Highlights into quarter tones have a slick, almost smeared look (no NR applied in camera or Aperture).
    Also, I really need to convert to 2x the native file size but I am limited by Aperture's current maximum size. So converting to 1.5x might be causing some of what I am seeing due to rounding errors, etc.
    Can anyone (with direct experience) comment?
    Thanks in advance.

    Hi & thanks for your comments. I interpolated 8 images up (for store posters) to 1600mm x 200dpi and still got better results from CPP V Aperture - in SRGB. "Better" is subjective in this case. I will experiment further.
    Yes I understand the principal behind having a flat - hence max detail raw. My first DSLR was a Kodak D200 13 Years ago - it's raws were flat & magenta - as were many cameras Raws in between time (such as the Fuji Fine Pix s2Pro) - the same principal applied to B & W film long slow dev time produced lower contrast neg = more range to work with.
    To me the flat raws are a bit of step backward? The issue is - fast - workflow.
    I found the Nikon D200 & 5D Mk 1 raws through aperture required very little work (if any) to get them ready for next stage of production. I just want to get images as "ready" as the 5D Mk I from my MkII - which is not the case at the moment.
    Any idea how to carry the 5DII preset over & onto the raws in Aperture? That might help speed things up?
    Cheers ADR

  • 5D Mark II raw image quality

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

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

  • Poor Image Quality Transfered To iPhone

    Hey guys,
    I'm pretty new to aperture after switching from iPhoto and have run into the following problem.
    I have iTunes set up to sync certain projects in my library over to my iPhone. The problem is the image quality being transferred is rather low and alot of pictures on my iPhone look grainy/pixelated. If I go into Aperture I can see the file just fine in full quality.
    Any tips on how to get the quality transferred to the iPhone better? Thanks

    Aperture mainly uses previews for sharing with other applications (so you can use them in iLife/iWork, see them in Finder, easily upload albums to Apple TV via iTunes, etc.). None of these functions work if you don't have previews generated for them.
    Given there's a fair bit of space overhead to Previews, and given I found after a year+ of use that I had to manually create previews for what I wanted to see, I found it was easier for me to just do this fully manually and export JPEGs.
    But have a read of the Previews section of the Aperture documentation. See how they're described, and see if it's functionality you want. If not, there's no reason you have to use previews at all. I don't.

  • Poor image quality on exported version

    I am trying to export versions of my photos to a folder on my external drive. Every time I do this the resulting jpg is washed out and has poor resolution + a ton of noise. The resulting image is substantially lighter than the images in my aperture window, yet the histogram does not indicate that the images should be that light or washed out.
    The images are all starting as RAW images. The export settings are for image quality 12, 300 dpi, sRGB, original jpg. I have onscreen proofing turned on and set to sRGB. My print lab said that the image quality could be 10, but when they looked so horrible I bumped them up.
    I had Aperture for a long time before upgrading to Aperture 2 in March. From March to August I did not have any problems, so this is a more recent problem. I have not yet upgraded to Snow Leopard. Please help!!! Thanks!!!

    Hi
    a. make a DiskImage first and test this with Apple DVD-player.
    (File menu and down "Make a DiskImage")
    b. I only use streamingDV - no .m4v or like (may be it works - I don't know)
    else
    *Not knowing the origin to Your problem - General approach when in trouble is as follows.*
    • Free space on internal (start-up) hard disk if it is less than 10Gb should rather have 25Gb
    • Hard disk is untidy. Repair Permissions, Repair Hard disk (Apple Disc Util tool)
    • Delete iDVD pref file - *or rather start a new user/account* - log into this and re-try
    iDVD pref file resides. Mac Hard Disk (start-up HD)/Users/"Your account"/Library/Preferences and is named.
    com.apple.iDVD.plist
    While iDVD is NOT RUNNING - move this file out to desk-top.
    Now restart iDVD.
    • Program miss-match. iDVD 5.0.2, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK - DON’T work under Leopard
    • Program miss-match. iDVD 6.0.4, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK (might work under Leopard)
    • Program miss-match. iDVD’08 v. 7.0.1, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK (might work under Leopard)
    • iDVD (08) v7 Locate theme folder. Move out iDVD1, iDVD 2 and eventually iDVD4 folders to desktop - re-try
    • Try a Cleaning CD/DVD that cleans the laser lens on the DVD burner/player
    iDVD 6.0.4 and iDVD 7.0.1 are compatible with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
    Last resort. from Craig. Solved the problem!! Finally!!
    I deleted every iDVD application and folder from my boot drive,
    emptied the trash and then installed iDVD 08 using the customize option
    and I am up and running.
    If You do a re-install be sure to get rid of all iDVD old parts AND then EMPTY the Trash-basket !
    Yours Bengt W

  • Image quality in Viewer vs Full Screen

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

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

  • Very Poor Image Quality In Viewer, JPEG Artifacts

    I upgraded to Aperture 3 some time ago, and purchased a new Mac Pro specifically for this application.  I am an amature/ sometime professional photographer and I have been using Aperture since Version 1.  This weekend I finally had some time to sit down with Aperture 3 for some serious work with my scanned film images.  These are large TIF masters scanned in with my Nikon CoolScan 9000.  Some are medium format black & white Tri-X Pan images, others are 35mm, also black & white Tri-X Pan.  Everything scanned in on the Nikon is at the maximum resolution for the master, on the theory that I can always bump it down later if that's necessary.
    I am noticing vastly lower image quality in the viewer then with Aperture 2.  Specifically, I am seeing massive JPEG artifacts in the viewer image then I have ever seen before.  The images also render darker in the viewer then before. These artifacts do not appear when I export my images (say as JPEGS for posting to a web page), or when I print them.  The quality of the exported and print images seem just fine and the exported JPEGS are completely free of the artifacts I am seeing in the viewer.
    I have tried rebuilding the previews several times, experimenting with different quality settings.  I have experimented with different proof profile settings.  My printer is an Epson Stylus Photo R1800 and I have tried various paper settings for it as well as other proof profile settings such as the Adobe and Apple RGB settings and the generic grey profiles.  Every time I change a setting I have forced a rebuild of the previews to no detectable effect.  Nothing I do seems to have any effect whatsoever on the image quality in the viewer which remains relentlessly the same as it always was.
    This poor viewer image quality is making it very difficult to work in Aperture 3.  I suspect there is a setting somewhere like an easter egg in this new Aperture I haven't found yet but it is becoming very frustraiting and I could use a pointer because, again, nothing I have tried has changed the image quality in the viewer in any way I can detect and the photos look perfectly awful there...darker and loaded with JPEG artifacts. Things export and print just fine, but I need to see what I am going to get in the viewer or I can't do my work.

    I interpret this as ... Eventually you should be looking at the Master with the Version changes applied. I'm assuming at this point, you aren't looking at the Preview. Since you don't need Previews to view and edit your images.
    Yeah...that's sort of what I gleaned from that text. I was experimenting with the preview settings because I couldn't see any other way to fix the problem.  What I'm hearing now is that the problem has no fix.  If you scan in black & white film negatives (or anything else that's monochrome I suppose) with the color space set as gray scale you are asking for trouble.  The sense I get from the text Gomez Addams referred me to is the behavior in that case is unpredictable, and furthermore film photographers aren't the customer base Apple is trying to cultivate with this product.
    Aperture is designed to work with images from digital cameras which use an RGB color space...
    Okay...fine.  I have several digital cameras I occasionally use for professional work and I am here to tell you Aperture is an absolute blessing for that work. I do shoots every now and then for a local community newspaper and I would not want to live without this product. I remember back when I was a teenager in the 70s being up all night in the darkroom to get an assignment I'd had to cover right before deadline, and then go to my day job the next morning without any sleep. This is much better. And even with the personal art photography it is good to be able to just scan things in and make adjustments in the computer.  You can do so much more. I would not want to go back. 
    But I reckon I need to find something I can rely on for my film work, or at least my black & white film work because as I read this Apple is not supporting film photography with this product and black & white film photography in particular and some of us still use film. No...scanning in my Tri-X negatives in the CoolScan as color produces weird results and anyway Photoshop and GIMP for goodness sakes seem to handle grayscale files just fine. Plus, I've already got thousands of those negatives scanned, I am not rescanning all that in RGB just to satisfy Aperture. The color slide film scans don't seem to be a problem, but that's now. I think I'm being told not to count on That always being the case either.
    Aperture is designed to work with images from digital cameras...
    Okay...fine...film is old technology after all, Nikon isn't even making their film scanners anymore...check the prices on the few still new-in-the-box ones left out there. My CoolScan 9000 is selling for twice on the second-hand market what I paid for it new and new it wasn't cheap. And yet it's not economically viable for Nikon to continue making them. Film is dying. But I still like working with film and film cameras and I reckon I'll keep doing that until I can't get any more of it and my stash of Tri-X Pan bulk rolls runs out.
    Thank you all very much for your help. I think I see what I need to do now.

  • IMovie 11 loosing image quality in still pictures

    I shoot RAW photos with a Nikon D300 and import everything to Aperture 3 where I organize, correct and adjust.
    I use iMovie to make slide show sequences - i.e. my daughter's third year - and have found that though the image quality is perfect in Aperture and in any file that I export, there is a loss of quality when the images are brought into iMovie. It is especially apparent in areas that have shadows or are dark - like the skin on an arm that is in a shadow while the rest of the person is in the sun. The shadowed skin looks like it's been pixilated -rather than a uniform transition of colors, it's blotchy.
    I have tried importing the photos from the media browser in iMovie, I have tried dragging them from Aperture, and I have tried exporting them from Aperture to a folder and then importing them from that folder into iMovie. The results are the same - loss of image quality especially in dark areas of the photos. It doesn't matter if I leave it as Fit, Crop or Ken Burns - it's as if the base image information has been degraded for some reason.
    The image quality degradation is clearly evident in the viewer - so it's not a matter of what the intended output / export / share option is or will be.
    I have also found that this happens if I take a video file like a *.m4v file and import it into iMovie - wicked loss of image quality.
    I also find that if I shoot video with my iPhone 4, and then download that into Aperture, I get a nice and crisp movie in Aperture. But when I try and pull up that same video in iMovie 11, again there is a loss of quality. This is especially apparent if I let it do image stabilization as it enlarges the frame a bit. Given that I have a really big monitor I can pull up the same video in Aperture that was not stabilized and moved to the same scene and resize side by side for a direct comparison - clear image degradation in iMovie 11.
    As with the photos for slide shows, the bright areas don't seem to be affected, or if they are it's not as apparent - it's as if some setting is trying to automatically adjust the black point. But I don't know what would do this or how to stop it. Can't find such a setting anywhere.
    Given that the system is a Mac Pro 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xenon with 14GB and two 1TB drives it's not, or should not be an issue of the system being overtaxed.
    Hope someone knows how to fix this.

    Hi!
    I'm loosing a lot of video quality when I transfer movie clips from my Iphone 4S to Imovie11.
    Did you find an answer to your problem?
    If so, maybe you could help me out?
    Thanks!!

  • Gallery Image Quality

    Hi, I must be doing something wrong as the images in the gallery of my web site seem to be really low quality ( http://samcorban.co.uk/Site/Gallery/Pages/NewcastleAtNight.html#0 ).
    They have all come from the Aperture project file in the media browser, so are not small converts to start with. I can't find any settings for image quality within iweb.
    Can anyone help? (I'm new to Mac - so may be doing something obvious wrong here)
    Cheers,
    Sam

    If you're using the Aperture previews they will not be as large as the original file that was imported. IT depends on what size was set for the previews when the photos are imported. That may be part of the problem. Export those files from Aperture as full sized image files and use those in the gallery. See if that will improve their quality.
    OT

  • Does Export Version reduces image quality?

    Hi,
    I got smaller file size when I "export version" at "original size". My master was jpeg of 5.1MB and I exported in jpeg format, I got 3.6MB. If I "export master", I do get 5.1MB. What does Aperture do to the jpeg image that reduces the file size?
    Then I played around with "image quality", which is 10 by default. If I set it to 11, I got a file of 4.1 MB, still smaller than the original 5.1MB. Set it to 12 I got a file of 10.4MB. I am kind of confused. I guess the "image quality" relates to degree of jpeg compression, and a 12 setting means that Aperture compresses the jpeg image at a lower compression ratio than my camera? Does Aperture uncompress jpeg image and re-compress it when "export version"?
    The bottom line is, how do I preserve image quality after adjustments? In other words, I would like to export at the same image quality as my original photo, or as close as possible (I assume Aperture reduces jpeg image quality a bit every time I apply adjustments to the image via export). Thanks much for your time.

    Wanderzhuanyou wrote:
    2) When I make adjustments in Aperture I actually work on the image Aperture produces out of the master file - which should be about 73MB in my computer memory as the size of the image is 2848 x 4272 and Aperture works in 16 bit.
    Internally, Core Image (which Aperture uses) actually works in 32-bit, but your basic idea is right.
    3) When I export, Apertures compresses this 73MB image (assume adjustments don't make much difference to the image size) to a jpeg file.
    First the image will be reduced to the bit depth of your export preset. Image adjustments will make quite a difference to the final file size because areas of high definition detail and a large tonal range will both increase the file size for a given compression setting. So any sharpening, for example, will increase the file size.
    As a test, export an image with no sharpening applied, then add some edge sharpening and export it again. You should see a noticeable difference in file sizes.
    Correct?
    Pretty much.
    Ian

  • Sony NEX-5n Image Quality: Jaggies

    Hi,
    it occured to me that I see a pretty hefty amount of jagged edges in slanted lines with Sony NEX-5n .arw raw files. Not in all, but in several. Now, when I open or convert such raw files with the Sony Image Data Converter or with Apple Aperture, there are no jaggies.
    In LR, even when setting sharpness from default 25% all the way down to 0%, a sort of jaggie pattern still can be observed, allthoug very very minor.
    This leads me to the "hope" that the just introduced capability for Sony NEX-5n files in LR 3.5 was kind of rushed and in the next version a better demosaicing algorithm will be provided.
    At least the way it is now the image quality for NEX-5n files not 100% there where it should be expected from LR.

    Thank you for your response. Oh, I'm glad that for once it's "you have to view the images at 100%" and not "don't pixelpeep, it's the print that counts" ;-)
    Why yes, of course, it's the 100% view where it's most visible and what I would only refer to when commenting on image quality issues regarding possible problems.
    And while I certainly can't pinpoint it the fact that until now I only encountered this problem on some images in LR only and not when looking at or converting the very same raw file with another software as the above mentioned I'm pretty sure it's not the camera which delivered the artifacts in the first time.
    I have 2 examples which I converted to Jpg and saved at 100%.
    First a red deer. Look closely in the neck fur: can you see the jaggies? You can access the 100% view via the loupe or icon: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ihj4B27L6M5inWXt9yk5-w?feat=directlink
    I have a comparison of a conversion between LR at default, LR at zero sharpening and the Sony Converter (which btw doesn't look that good to me, I prefer Aperture which I tested also and which also don't show Jaggies, regardless how high I set the sharpening into it). Also this image can and should be looked at 100% in Picasa: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/N58Xc0Ag7zBA_ymIvRDc2w?feat=directlink
    The second example shows a cross bike. Look for the jaggies at the rear rim and seat stay area. Interestingly, those jaggies are clearly there but in the same time a little less pronounced then in LR itself.: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/5vpwZ1cZ8hpTVodn3siGxA?feat=directlink

  • Controlled test shows imovie 08 import is problem with image quality

    Friends,
    Like many others I thought that I had noticed a quality difference between imovie 08 and imovie 06. So I did a controlled test:
    I imported the same video into imovie 08 and imovie 06. I made two separate movies out of the video in 08 and two separate movies out of the video in 06. I then exported one of the 06 movies into 08 and one of the 08 movies into 06. I then burned all four movies to dvd.
    The resulting burns were the following:
    1. imported into 06, burned through 06
    2. imported into 06, exported to 08 and burned through 08
    3. imported into 08 and burned through 08
    4. imported into 08, exported to 06 and burned through 06.
    The result:
    The movies imported into 06 were clearly superior in image quality to those imported into 08. I couldn't tell a difference between the 06 imports burned through 08 and 06. I also couldn't detect a difference between movies imported into 08 and burned in 06 and 08.
    What is it about 08 import that causes quality degradation? I couldn't find any quality preferences to change.
    I suppose this post isn't much different from the others along this line but I couldn't find any that did this type of controlled test.
    Applecare had no idea why there was this difference.
    Steve

    I think I've solved my problem with a Google Search. I came across a free slide show generator
    (contributions requested) that shows much higher quality slide shows than either iPhoto or Aperture 3.
    You click on a folder of jpegs and it almost immediately generates thumbnails and within a few seconds
    I can be viewing a full screen, tack sharp, slideshow of all of the files in the folder. Much sharper than
    I'm used to seeing.
    I think I'll keep the Aperture 3 and use if for the purpose it's intended for in the future. I'll also redo the
    image preview files to the small size it started with and then I'll copy all of the files I'm interested in from
    iPhoto into a separate folder on another disk. I'll use Aperture to catalog and to perform image manipulations
    on but I won't try to use it as an iPhoto replacement. I don't think I'll be using iPhoto much as an image
    viewer in the future either after I finish moving my favorite pictures to the Phoenix Slides folder.
    The name of the free program is Phoenix Slides. It's free to download and try, free to keep (though I
    think you'd want to pay the small amount requested) and fast. My pictures have never looked so good
    before.
    http://blyt.net/phxslides/
    Message was edited by: Jimbo2001

Maybe you are looking for