Artifacts with premultiplied matte

I'm working on a project that is 2560 x 1440. the Desk Animation (link) is a series of TGA files that I brought in (that include an Alpha channel). For the Alpha, I used "Guess" for premultipled alpha. If I use the blue-grey as my alpha, I get a white fringe around the desk. So "Guess" seems to work the best. The issue seems to be two things: When there is fast movement with one of the parts, there are light grey artifacts that appear on the background, mainly around the part that is in movement. The second issue is when one part overlaps another part, there are also artifacts, or distortion of the part.
I'm working in a 24fps project, the image series has been interpreted as such too. I have frame-blending on as well as motion blur for each comp, as well as the master comp. I've tried everything from exporting to H264 (preffered), to export as individual .tif images. Nothing that I try seems to work.
The final playback is to be done on a 27" iMAC at a trade show, hence the large resolution.
Thanks!

The original tga export was done with 3ds Max. I don't know the parameters that were used for creating and I know that the person is no longer with the company. I could see if they could re-render for me as the source files still exist. With the tga or tif format, 3ds Max can export 16, 24, or 32 bit, with both "Alpha Split" and "Pre-Multiplied Alpha" as options. I don't know what they used ( or should have used). The person who did the files that I'm using, rendered them on a white background (hence the white fringe when I try to use something other than white as a pre-multiplied Alpha in AE). Sounds like they should have been rendered on a medium blue-grey?
Mylenium, good advice, but you lost me at the Shift Channels part... I will look into that.
I'm wondering if it would work if I set up an action in PS6 to eliminate the background in the series of files and then bring those in as PSD files?
Dave

Similar Messages

[SOLVED] Artifacts with EXAPixmap ON and KMS with ATI OSS drivers

I had some problems for many months on my Arch Linux installation and I couldnt figure out what was causing it, so, because I found the sollution, I wanted to post it here and share it with you.
I, like others, was experiencing huge artifacts with KMS and EXAPixmaps on, on various cases, visuals and textures. After fiddling with all radeon options in xorg.conf and KMS on/off I found out thats its best for me to have KMS on (I couldnt play wine games otherwise) and EXAPixmaps off. But then again, when EXAPixmaps was off, I had poor 2D performance with KMS on, Xrender acceleration wasnt working and was falling back to software engine. Solution came from something that was brought to my attention in this topic. I ve set ARGB visuals off, raster engine for rendering and tried EXAPixmaps on.
It worked! Everything are as they supposed to be. Xrender engine and composite manager are finally working, no more artifacts. Framebuffer memory on my radeon card was somehow cleared. I then later found out an awkward solution on how to clear it by demand... Start X with vesa driver... then fix again xorg.conf back to radeon driver and reboot.
Now I have both 2D and 3D acceleration, I am logged in with KDE and have good performance. My glxgears output is 1000 to 1150 fps (vsync off) and I am using Xrender for the KDE desktop effects.
EDIT: I must clarify that I have an ATI Radeon 9200 Mobility M9+ (R200 serries)
Last edited by twilight0 (2011-05-13 20:30:27)

I 've made some more edits and this is my current xorg.conf
http://pastebin.com/x6ubG80K
I have ColorTiling set on for performance, be careful as it may be resource hungry in 3D apps but it increases dramatically fps.
You can try setting off EXAPixmaps as well and see how it goes, but then you ll have poor 2D performance and yet videos will play just fine either way.

Replace the Glossy Screen with the Matte Screen on a 2008 Macbook Pro?

Can you replace the Glossy Screen with the Matte Screen on a 2008 Macbook Pro?
Where would I get a Matte Screen for a reasonable price if I could change it?

There are a number of issues you should consider before embarking on this project.
1. If you have a late-2008 unibody MBP, you are undoubtedly aware that there was never any anti-glare option offered for that machine. So there is no anti-glare display that was made to work with it.
2. If you choose to replace only the LCD panel and not the entire display assembly — which is probably feasible but involves a great deal of painstaking work — you will also need to buy (separately) the aluminum bezel that takes the place of the glossy cover glass panel in models that came equipped with the nonglare screen. The bezel covers and protects the edges of the LCD and the delicate electronic connections there, and hides all that from view.
3. If you go that route, you will have to make sure that the cabling related to the display you are installing is identical to the cabling related to your original display. This means checking to make sure the cable lengths, connectors and routing both within the display assembly and hinge cover and within the lower case of the computer are all the same.
4. If you choose to replace the entire display assembly with one that contains a nonglare LCD, you will have the entire, intact glossy display assembly available to sell afterward. If you replace only the LCD panel, the LCD and glass cover panel that you remove will have much less resale value and are likely to be much harder to sell at all, because you won't practically be able to offer any warranty with them and because there are probably far fewer people willing to tackle the fussy, risky display disassembly process than are willing to replace the whole assembly as a unit.
5. Even if you choose to replace the entire assembly, you will need to verify that the cables dangling from the replacement display assembly are the right lengths and have the right connectors to tie into your lower case properly. Because the assembly will have come from a later MBP model than yours, cable routing and connectors may have changed from one to the other.
If this all sounds more daunting than you were expecting, you may want to consider just applying a nonglare film to the glass covering your present screen. If you aren't happy with the results, you can fall back on the replacement option.

How do I composite with a matte and fill ?

Hi all, If I have for example, a image of the desert for the background. And then I have a logo I want to add over it. And that logo comes with a matte and fill. How do I composite that over the desert image ? I've tried working with the (add image mask). But I cant fiqure it out.
Again there are 2 seperate files for the matte and fill.
Thanks for any replies

Apply the image mask to the fill (select the fill layer, and choose Object > Add Image Mask). Then drag the matte layer into the well in the HUD (heads up display) and set it to Luma rather than the default of Alpha in the HUD's pop-up menu.

LR 2.3 artifacts with NEF files

I get some strange artifacts with a small number of my NEF files (Nikon D700) and LR 2.3, Here is an example compared to Nikon's Capture NX2. Sharpening is different but it is not the root of the problem, artifacts are still visible with 0 sharpening and no other adjustment.

Too high of the "Recovery" slider value on an image like this will will cause an ugly discontinuity along the juncture between the brightest areas that the Recovery slider affects and the midtone areas that it doesn't, because the dimmer parts of the bright areas have been darkened more than the brighter parts of the dimmer areas, if that makes sense.
Use more of the Toning curve and less of the Recovery slider. Overuse of the Fill slider can have the same affect along the edge between the mid-tone ahd shadow-area boundary. For an extreme image, I'd probably export to Photoshop and use the more sophisticated and controllable Shadow/Highlights operation.

Which is a good laptop with a matte screen

I want to buy an Apple laptop with a bright matte screen. The only option is to buy a pre owned macbook or ibook. Which do you recommend? Is the ibook good or is there a macbook that comes with a matte screen? Thanks.

You will have to investigate the refurbished section of the Apple online store:
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac
There are no more matte display options with the new MBPs.
Ciao.

Where are imac apple computers available with the matt display?...

Where are imac apple computers available with the matt display?...

You would need to find a 3rd party authorized vender who may be installing some sort of matte display. Or there are kits on the market to apply a matte finish to your display. AFAIK, all Macs have glossy finished displays.
Dah•veed

Whenever i connect my ipod touch 3rd gen to itunes itunes responds really slowly and when i try and sync it it says sync in progress on my ipod screen but then is stuck with "verifying "matts ipod" at the top of itunes and stays like that for ages.. help

whenever i connect my ipod touch 3rd gen to itunes itunes responds really slowly and when i try and sync it it says sync in progress on my ipod screen but then is stuck with "verifying "matts ipod" at the top of itunes and stays like that for ages.. help

You buy one and only one download.
As it should have been transferred to your computer when you synced, you can contact itunes support and ask for an exception.
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes

Image Artifacts with Aperture, not ACR or Capture One?

I generally use Capture One, but for the first time I’m using Aperture to process a series of photos from a just-completed trip to northern Arizona/southern Utah. I’ve been very impressed with Aperture’s workflow, and would very much like to make Aperture my primary tool for managing my photos.
However, tonight I discovered some very unsettling artifacts in the prints that I made in Photoshop using files that Aperture converted from RAW. Upon closer inspection, the artifacts also appear in Aperture, when I zoom in. But interestingly, neither Capture One nor Adobe Camera Raw shows these artifacts to nearly the same degree. Scroll down for examples of the artifact as seen in Aperture, Adobe Camera Raw, Capture One, and Photoshop.
For completeness, here are the specifics of my configuration:
Canon 1Ds RAW images
PowerMac G5 dual 2.5 GHz
OSX 10.4.7
Aperture 1.1.2
Photoshop CS
Capture One Pro 3.7.4
Here is the photo in which I first discovered the artifacts, which are visible in the full-sized image and on the print, but not in this small jpeg:
The artifacts I’m referring to are regularly-spaced train track-looking things in certain sections of the sandstone. The issue can be seen on 100% crops taken from the left side, about 1/3 of the way down from the top. Here is the area as it appears in Aperture using View > Zoom to actual size:
And here are the Aperture adjustments that I made:
Okay, I used Open With External Editor, to load the image into Photoshop – at its original size. Here is the same area, viewed at 100%, and the artifacts are plainly visible:
Notice that the artifacts appear in much the same way they did in Aperture. Just as a test, I used Aperture to “Export” the image as a 16-bit TIFF format, and then opened in Photoshop. Same artifacts as before:
For comparison I opened the same RAW file in Capture One. The artifacts are barely discernable! :
And here are the Capture One settings I used:
And here is the Capture One conversion as it appears in Photoshop, viewed at 100%. Again, the artifacts are essentially absent:
The image dimensions are almost exactly (but not quite) the same as the image that Aperture converted.
And, although it’s not part of my usual workflow, I converted the image using Adobe Camera Raw. The results show that, like Capture One, ACR doesn’t exhibit these artifacts (although it does show a bit more chromatic aberration):
Just to be clear, these artifacts ARE visible in my 16 x 24” print.
It’s a bit discouraging that, on my first serious attempt at using Aperture, I discovered these artifacts. It may be that this is a rare event with Aperture – or maybe not.
Has anyone else seen this sort of thing? Are there other discussions of the issue? And last but not least, can anyone suggest a way that I might avoid this in the future?
Thanks!
-- Jim
G5 Dual 2.5 GHz Mac OS X (10.4.6)

Here is another example of this effect, but with a different type of subject matter: a ball. The original is a raw file from a Canon 350D/Digital Rebel.
In Aperture's Zoom mode there is a pattern on the ball that looks like Maze Craze:
The pattern is maintained to a lesser degree as the image is sized down:
Exported as Original Size png:
Exported as Half Size png:
Now, as pointed out in the earlier post, the real problem is that other apps do not have this problem. The following is from ACR:
Aside from the pattern, Aperture does look better, but the pattern is nasty and almost makes the image unusable.
Will
Dual Core 2.3GHz PowerMac G5, 2GB RAM, GeForce 6600 Mac OS X (10.4.6) Canon Digital Rebel XT, Edirol UA-5
Dual Core 2.3GHz PowerMac G5, 2GB RAM, GeForce 6600 Mac OS X (10.4.6) Canon Digital Rebel XT, Edirol UA-5
Dual Core 2.3GHz PowerMac G5, 2GB RAM, GeForce 6600 Mac OS X (10.4.6) Canon Digital Rebel XT, Edirol UA-5

H.264 export video artifacts with regular background pattern

I'm generally very pleased with the flexibility and quality of the H.264 video encoder provided by Premiere Pro.
However, I have one scene, with a graph-paper-like background that generates video artifacts when zooming in and out, no matter how high I set the bitrate.
I'm including two images created by grabbing frames from the exported movie from Quick Time Player. The first shows the scene without artifacts (at the end when the
zooming is over) while the second shows the effect when I'm zooming in on the scene. As you can see, the artifacts consist of graying out of the black lines and appearance of some "tick" lines along the lines, which I assume is due to the compression algorithm used by the codec. Does anyone have experience with such problems and can suggest a way to avoid this? It's a relatively short segment of the video that is effected.
Thanks in advance!
--Charles Gunn

Hmmm... the second file ppVideoArtifactOn.jpg appears by name in the original posting after the first, visible image. I'm not sure why it's not showing up, but I'll include it here again:

Movie recording playback artifacts with scalable output?

I've recorded a movie in Captivate 7.01 in demo mode. But I need to have the output scalable. When I publish with scalable html I get all these screen artifacts as the movie plays back. I have video compression turned off and the screen color set to 32 bit? Is there any way to fix this???
Thanks!

You need to work out what is the lowest practical resolution of your main target audience group. If most of your audience is only on 800x600 then by all means build for 800x600. However, I tend to believe that only a small minority of your users would be on such a resolution. Given that most people would be on 1024x768, I would tend to build for something around that size. The ones on 800x600 would of course be disadvantaged. You need to decide if they are a big enough user group to matter.
Whatever you decide, turning on HTML scaling is going to make everybody's output look worse.

Intel i915 Video Artifacts with Xorg 1.9

Hey everyone. I set up Arch with my girlfriend on her Asus U81A earlier tonight, but we're getting some terrible video artifacting and I can't seem to find us a solution. Basically the screen often fails to refresh after things even as simple as typing - lots of black boxes. Is anyone getting the same behavior? Has anyone come across a solution? Here are her versions of the pertinent packages. I'm not sure if this is just a conflict with the new xorg 1.9 or what... I tried specifying the intel driver manually via both mkinitcpio.conf and GRUB (where you modeset=1). Neither helps at all.
gnome-desktop 2.32.0-1
xorg-server 1.9.0-1
xf86-video-intel 2.12.0-3
Thanks to anyone who has info on this subject.

commonmanthemes wrote: I think she's going to be rather annoyed until somebody updates one of those packages. ;-)
ouch...noone wants an angry gf
the 60ish fps is perfectly right since the intel drivers are now syncing to vblank

Graphical artifacts with DX11 (and OGL4) on imac 27" late 2012 GTX 675 MX

Hello, dear community! I have the imac 27" late 2012 with graphical card GTX 675 MX.
In Mac OS X 10.8.5 all works perfect. Software, games (Bioshock Infinity), benchmarks (heaven 4.0). But in windows...
I was installed Windows 8, then 7, then 8 again, and every time after installing nvidia drivers (with BootCamp, or manually downloaded from nvidia site) i have some graphical artifacts ("||" randomly on the screen). On win 7 it was only in games (like Bioshock Infinity or Tomb Raider), on win 8.1 everywhere(on desktop and in games). In DX9 games (like World Of Tanks) all perfect, in DX10/11 games (BI or TR) - artifacts. After thousend of tests i run Heaven Unigine 4.0 with OpenGL(other settings the same) in macos and in windows(on 7 and on 8), for checking some hardware issue if it exists. But on mac os x, as i already said, all is perfect, but on windows - randomly appers artifacts.
I record a video to illustrate my problem. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwEog66vfFk&feature=youtu.be
Help me please! People in service told me that this is not a guarantee issue

I assume you have GPU-Z and other tools to look at gpu. the imac falls between notebooks and desktops when it comes to graphics. and it may be some programs just are not written for that graphic device? possibly?
I've been on Windows 8.1 mostly along with 8.0 and graphic drivers have been "bumpy road" at times and I was able to swap out and use different graphic cards on my PC - had me thinking I had an SSD related issue, then replaced memory (those were bad it turned out, and could have caused drivers and system errors).
Windows has memtest on the DVD and I have seen one or three people with real problems that did not show up until they did more tests, even though Mac OS was blindly oblivious to anything being wrong (it was, they upgraded RAM and SO-DIMM was not fully seated in one case, in another the RAM module had to be replaced).
Extended Tests using Apple Hardware Test is not conclusve and almost never ever when comes to finding gpu or memory 'errors.' There you are better with Windows test utility.

BUG: Indesign CC 2014 - significant image artifacts with 'export as JPG'

Issue
Spreads exported from InDesign as maximum quality JPGs have heavy artifacts not present in PDF's with equivalent image compression settings.
Steps
Export spread to JPG (max, baseline, 300ppi)
Export spread to PDF (image compression set to JPG, maximum)
Compare both files in Photoshop at 100%
Results
Maximum quality JPGs are significantly artifacted.
Expected Results
Maximum quality JPGs should be identical to PDF images with equivalent image compression settings (and should be virtually indistinguishable from original files sized equivalently in Photoshop (and saved via Photoshop's 'Save for Web').
Please Note
I'm very familiar with the limitations of JPG's in pre-press work. Please trust that I have legitimate reasons for needing InDesign to export spreads as JPGs with the same image quality as is possible when exporting as a PDF (or using Photoshop's 'Save For Web' function with the source file sized identically as the spread in question.)
Samples
exhibit A: spread exported as PDF (compression set to JPG, maximum quality)
exhibit B: spread exported as JPG (maximum quality)

Rob,
Thank you for running your test!
Since posting (and just before reading your reply), I discovered an additional constraint on replicating the issue:
–it only appears when the linked image has been upscaled* (in my example, 107.1%)
*keep in mind, the PDF was upscaled to the same degree, ruling out it being solely an upscaling issue
–testing at 'even-magnification' scales (i.e. 150%) simply resulted in increased pixelation compared to the same PDF export (see samples below)
–testing at 'odd-magnification' scales (i.e. 101%) generated random artifacts (like those visible in the samples of my initial post)
–as such, this is likely more of a resampling/aliasing issue than jpg-artifacting.
That is, it would seem that upscaled images seem to enjoy a higher-quality resampling method when exported as PDFs.
I'd be curious to see how your test fared with upscaled images.
samples
image scaled at 150%, exported as PDF (compression set to JPG, maximum quality)
image scaled at 150%, exported as JPG (maximum quality, anti-alias**)
**tested with & without anti-aliasing, results were identical

Problems with Image Matte not staying connected to project.

System: Dell
Model: XPS 8300
Processor: Intel Core i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40 GHz
RAM: 16 GB
System Type: Windows 7 Home Premium; Service Pack 1; 64 Bit Operating System
I've been having problems with my image matte(s) staying connected in my projects. It happens when I reload any project that has it. It's a real simple vignette used on black video. The image file is on the root of the project folder, so I don't see why it won't stay connected. Scratching my head on this one. Let me know if you need any more information.
- NHerman

It's going offline and wants me to relink it again.
Hard drive is a standard drive. It hold 2 TBs of storage.
If it helps, I am also using a templated folder system that I copy for each project I do. This folder has this same file in it.

Artifacts with premultiplied matte

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for