Bad resolution images in internet browser(s)

My internet browser (chrome) displays images in a very bad resolution. I've tried other browsers (safari, firefox), same problem.
Image resolution in general use and other programs is OK.
Anyone a solution for this?
Thanks

I've just started to notice this problem as well. It's only in browser, and only with images. Text, etc. is not affected.
MBP 13" 2011 OSX10.7

Similar Messages

  • E72 Blurry images in internet browser

    Ive searched all over the place and cant get at least a relating topic, off google searches or here.
    I just got the phone and what Ive noticed whenever I view still images in internet browser on my E72 they all appear blurry, like very bad quality, yet other images like the letters on Google Website are in high quality.
    Why is that?
    Thank you for your help.

    Esproc wrote:
    when I save it to the phones memory its only 12 kb in size and even in the gallery appears blurry.
    Apparently you did not save the image itself but a thumbnail preview version.
    Try to enter the exact URL address to the image in the phone using "open > new".
    (e.g. http://www.top-things-to-do.com/europe/eiffel-tower-paris-france.jpg)
    E72-1, product code 0586718, firmware 022.007

  • Dvd Menu Adobe Premiere Elements 10 for Mac with bad resolution

    Hi, I use a MacBookPro with Mac OS X 10.6.8 - Intel Core i5 2,4 GH - RAM 4 GB.
    I just purchased PRE 10 version hoping to solve a problem I had with version 9 for Mac but not with a version 7 for Win.
    I
    My problem is that when I burn the dvd with the final work in PAL system, the menu of the DVD has the text very blurred at a very bad resolution.
    I searched this forum and I didn't found a similar problem for Mac user.
    I had the same problem with PRE 9.
    Same problem if I insert a logo in the corner of the video. Very bad resolution image in the final dvd.
    I tried to change the beginning resolution of the image from very low to very high and the result was the same.
    Someone has similar problems? Someone did find a way to solve it?

    Dear Bill, many thanks for your answer.
    This is the Project Preset chosen.
    As the source is a JVC Everio with hard disk, I chose PAL - Hard Disk - Widescreen 48 KHz
    The source is as I said a JVC Everio in SD size. I saved the files in a backup Hard Disk. They are .mod files.
    I don't know how to see if a Menu Sets is HD or SD. I tried almost all the available Menu Sets always with the same blurry results.
    These images explain better than words.
    Note that the firt image in the DVD Menu is perfect, not blurry. And this add a little bit of mystery :-)
    this is the scene selection that has text blurry
    And this is the logo I put in the right bottom side of the video. It is blurry. I put a high resolution image and it was blurry. Then I tried with an image .png with the same width of the video (720 pixels) and this is the same blurry effect:
    The solution I use in these days to have goog results is very time expensive.
    I make the editing work in my mac, without logo and menu. I make a dvd. Then I import the VIDEO_TS folder in my old pc, with my old version of Adobe Premiere 7.0. I insert the logo, I make the menu and then I make a dvd with my old PC and the resolution is the one I want.
    Obviolusly I'd like to do all the work in my Mac...
    The same problems and solution I used also with PRE 9.0
    By the way, I'm using Adobe Premiere Elements in my Mac instead  iMovie because I need to do videos longer than 2 hours. And iMovie has this limit.
    Many thanks in advance for help. There is someone that is using Mac and PRE 10 with GOOD results?

  • Web graphics / images display in low resolution on any web browser

    Hi everyone.
    This issue has had me stumped for a few months now. I never noticed this issue with Snow Leopard but now with Lion I have noticed that web graphics display at a significantly lower resolution. I switch between Google Chrome and Safari and the issue is present on both browsers.
    Basically any website with graphics, or images will be pixelated and lacking in fine detail. It is painfully obvious when browsing sites like Flickr and 500px. In these cases, my own personal images look terrible online, but look absolutely normal in my Lightroom library, so I know it's not a strange display issue on my Mac.
    I'm just curious if anyone has had a similar issue, and if you have figured out how to resolve it.
    Thank you very much!
    - Abram

    i have the same issue with safari on my mac. i'm not sure if i have snow leopard or not. all i know is i am on a G4 with mac os 10.5.8 and have safari 5.0.1. last week, i could not watch certain video clips online, because {as it stated in my browser where the video should be} i did not have the most recent flash player. but when i went to download the most recent version, it told me it would not work on a power pc mac. so i researched and found out i had to use the flash 10.1.102.64 player... it's the most recent version that will work on a power pc mac. so i uninstalled the flash player i had on my mac and installed this player. all well and good... now i can see the videos.
    but what's not well and good is that i no longer have hi-res images in my browser. all images are pixelated and unclear. i posted on the adobe forum to see if i could get an answer as to why.
    here was my post/inquiry...
    "I recently upgraded my Flash Player so that I could view internet content (such as videos) that were not available to me before I upgraded. Ever since, the images on most web sites that I visit are now pixelated (look very low-resolution). I had not made any other changes to any settings on my computer or software. The browser I use is Safari 5.0.1. I had to upgrade to the Flash Player 10.1.102.64 because I am on a PowerPC Mac G4, and that is the most recent version of Flash Player that will work with Power PCs.
    Anyway, now that I have upgraded (which included first uninstalling the old Flash Player), my images look pixelated... most do, anyway. For some reason images I post to flickr appear okay on screen. But normal 72dpi images on standard web sites (like Yahoo) appear very lo-res.
    Does this have to do with whether or not my Mac's operating system is 64-bit or 32-bit... or the Safari software... in relation to the Flash Player's... whether or not they are compatible? If not, I have no idea why this would have changed since upgrading my Flash Player. And if so, what can I do to get around it? I'm somewhat computer savvy... but not this much. Can someone please help me so that I don't have to pay $39 to call Support and ask them?"
    here was their reply...
    "Sounds like the installation went pear-shaped somewhere. Try it again using the method described here:https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2805854?start=0&tstart=0
    Or maybe they'll know what the cause of your pixelated images is."
    but the discussion link they gave me did not help. i had already done what it suggested. and i tried it again... still no luck.
    help.... anyone!!!! please?

  • Increasing physical dimensions of high resolution image?

    I have an image that I want to use in a video, though it is not physically large enough to fill the 1920 x 1080 dimensions of the video, though it has a 300ppi resolution and video only needs 72ppi. How do I take advantage of the fact that it is high resolution image, and increase the physical dimensions of the image? Is there a way to do this?
    Thanks.

    Hi Marian.
    Thanks for the excellent link. And I believe it is spot on.
    ***Warning: This is an off topic rant. And it's over 500 words.***
    I did not get my first computer until 2001. Although I am a scientist at heart (university trained in chemistry and physics), and quite comfortable with technology, there was something deep within me that was resistant to buying a computer. Almost an inner foreboding. Even though I had already been using corporate computer nets (not the internet) since 1979, the PC seemed ominous to me.
    And the internet seemed even more ominous. To the point that I didn't hook up to the web until 2006. I had a sense that the web was a double edged sword, and had the potential to diminish its users. Even though I had never been on line and had very little idea of what it was really all about. What I found was what I feared. A wasteland punctuated by oases of useful information. A wasteland in the literal sense. For every second saved on the task at hand, a minute is wasted by the distractions that bombard us on the way to saving that second.
    I'm not saying that the web is bad. Just that it's fraught with danger. And the worst danger is the notion that a concrete answer to every question is just a Google away. And with that, the odieous notion that every question can be answered comprehensively in one quarter of an internet page, leaving the rest for advertising.
    I do quite a bit of writing, and my first experience at writing for the internet was a disaster. Among other things, I am a fly fishing guide. A new internet fly fishing magazine had requested I submit a series of articles. Personal anecdotes about my experiences. The first article I submitted was about 2400 words. They loved it, but they said it said it was too long. So, I did a rewrite. It came in at 1800 words. And the rewrite took more time and effort than writing the original 2400 words. And the article was diminished. And still too long. They wanted it shorter.
    At this point, I dug in my heels. I admitted I understood such constraints on paper publishing, but how could they insist on such constraints on web publishing? How much does is cost to add a web page to an article? It's just another page they could slather with advertising. To which they replied, no one will read an article longer than 1200 words. I was flabbergasted. I like long articles and books. I'm bummed when I come to the end. In the end, these folks had an editor hack it down to 1200 words and publish it over my signature without my knowledge or permission. When I saw the article, I was appalled. I didn't recognize it. And demanded they take it down.
    Maybe the publisher was right about his readers having short attention spans. I hope not, but I'm afraid it's true. And this mindset is the 500 pound gorilla in the room that few want to address.
    I'm not by any stretch suggesting we should turn back the clock of progress. Only that we need to be aware of the negative potential of any new technology. And resist that negative potential with all our hearts. Or our minds will suffer.
    FWIW.
    Peace,
    Lee

  • Generating movies with bad resolution

    Hello all, Hello all,
    I hope everything is going well and I apologize for my poor English. I am creating movies using IMovie’08 and sharing with IDVD. The final result that I get generating DVD is a video with bad resolution.
    I have recorded all videos in 1080i using a SR12 Sony handycam and imported to IMovie with this resolution. I prepare an IMovie project and shared by Media Browser using large size, that I know is a smallest size than 1080i.
    I set the encoding mode on IDVD to Professional Quality and generated a DVD. The result image’s quality on DVD is similar to a VHS tape! I generated 4 different DVD and tested all these DVD using different DVD players and different televisions and the result were always the same.
    Please, can someone inform me what I am doing wrong or provide me some tips to get better results?
    Thank you all in advance.
    Regards,

    The result image’s quality on DVD is similar to a VHS tape! I generated 4 different DVD and tested all these DVD using different DVD players and different televisions and the result were always the same.
    No matter what you send to iDVD will be encoded as SD 640x480 "square" pixel content to a "720x40" rectangular pixel data matrix. In other words the best resolution you could expect would be half of what you started with and at the third generation of transcoding. (I.e., 1080i AVCHD => 1080i AIC/AIFF => 960x540 H.264/AAC => 720x480 (640x480) MPEG2/PCM.)
    can someone inform me what I am doing wrong or provide me some tips to get better results?
    If you are expecting HD quality on a standard DVD, then your expectations may be too high for this work flow. Using a more professional editor and/or burning as HD optical content may better suit your needs/expectations.

  • The iMac I just bought is slow for internet browsing

    Hi all,
    The iMac (21,5p, 2.5Ghz intel core i5 / 4Gb / Lion 10.7.2), I just bought on the Apple Store is very slow for web browsing (maybe less by using firefox instead of safari but slow even with firefox). It seems to be a latency issue and not a download or upload issue. My iPhone 3GS is working better for web browsing on the same network (home network with a Wifi access point)
    I have a powerful cable connection (15ms ping, 60Mb/s download, 5Mb/s upload) that I tested with speedtest web site.
    It's quite strange because firefox works fine within a Windows virtual machine hosted on the same iMac !!!
    I also tested my internet connection by using Unison (binnews) and it works very well with a very good download rate.
    I used before a macbook with Snow and it was very good for internet browsing. I really do not understand what append with this iMac.
    I'm very confused.
    FYI: my iMac is connected to a netgear switch. The switch is connected to a Cisco router and at the end there is the Cablebox in bridge mode.
    I'm using OpenDNS service for IP resolution. I tested DNS service of my internet provider a got the same result (poor latency when I'm browsing from a site to another).
    I'd appreciate any advice to help me having a good experience for internet browsing with my new beautiful iMac.
    Many Thanks,
    David

    https://support.apple.com/kb/TS3802
    and openDNS/googleDNS isn't always faster when it comes to Akami distributed content like what Apple uses
    http://apcmag.com/why-using-google-dns-opendns-is-a-bad-idea.htm
    test fastest DNS with this
    (doesn't work for Akami content as the closest server is better, meaning your ISP im most cases)
    https://code.google.com/p/namebench/
    http://hackiteasy.blogspot.com/2008/05/make-mozilla-firefox-10x-faster.html

  • All screendumps are the same color in PS, but from Internet browser

    Hi,
    I know this has come up a thousand times before, and I thought I finally got the basics covered. I've been reading up on several webpages explaining all this, but it's confusing me even more as I think it should work.
    Try to follow me on this:
    I recently upgraded my pc, added a nice HP LP2475w monitor to the mix, and bought a ColorSpider for calibration.
    This all works fine and the calibrated profile is loaded every time I start up my Vista pc. You can see the colors slightly shifting as the profile becomes active.
    I work with the basic sRGB ICE61966-2.1 profile in PS CS4, but what I noticed is that any screendump, from any app is fine when pasted into PS.
    But colors from any screendump from a internet browser, for instance a bright orange in the browser (IE8/FF3.5) becomes a dull brownish-orange in PS.
    So,
    The first confusing thing is that opening the saved .psd file in -say- XNView will show the 'original' colors from the browser.
    The second strange thing is that the saved .psd file will show exactly the same colors in Bridge as in PS.
    The annoying thing is that I cannot sample accurate colors from a screengrab dumped in PS, unless I change the color profile of the file to 'monitor color' (Spider profile).
    But changing color profiles away from the sRGB one is bad as all webpages state.
    Also, what is -again- confusing, if I save the file with "Save for Web & Devices" the colors 'pop right back' with the preview set to "Monitor Color". Even without the "convert to sRGB" checkbox checked.
    Somewhere in this copy/pasting/saving there's some oddball CM going on that I just don't understand for screendumps from the browser.
    I hope all this makes sense to someone, as it isn't for me and it's driving me nuts right now as I cannot use anything from screendumps out of an internet browser.
    cheers for any directions in this,
    rob

    Thanks for the additional information. I still have more questions than answers, however, except to say that the behaviors you see are almost certainly the  expected consequences of comparing managed and unmanaged color apps.  I am not clear what you are comapring to what, and what your final output wants to be compared to and where (web, other PS users, print,..).  Firefox 3.5 can be color managed, but it is not simply on or off. You have to specify if it is on for all rendered images or only tagged images and you also have to choose your rendering intent. Finally, you should make sure that FF is finding your monitor profile and if it is not to specify its path explicitly. This is especially important in your case since your new monitor is considered (by some) wide gamut, meaning larger departure from typical monitors (sRGB- like).
    Here is a statement from your original post that I do not understand:
    "but what I noticed is that any screendump, from any app is fine when pasted into PS. But colors from any screendump from a internet browser, for instance a bright orange in the browser (IE8/FF3.5) becomes a dull brownish-orange in PS."
    This seems to be  a separate  problem unless I am missing something - I could use another coffee today.
    If a screedump from any app is fine, then saying the screen dump from one app (your browser) is not fine, is inconsistent. A screendump should be simply a set of numbers, not a file and it will be considered and untagged image and  any such image should render in Photoshop  the same whether it came from a spreadsheet app or from some website you are viewing with your browser. That is, any differences between the original image on the screen and how it looks in Photoshop should be independent of the app from which the screenshot came.
    I know you have a real workflow issue, though I am not sure exactly what you want. Probably need two coffees !
    Paulo

  • Lightbox widget works properly on dreamweaver but not on internet browser

    Hi,  I am using Dreamweaver CS5 & I used lightbox gallery widget through insert widget on insert panel menu. I edited the image source so everything seems working fine when I preview it on live button (local view). but when i try to view it on internet browser, it only shows the picture and when I click on the photo, it will come out at the very end of the page instaed of just zooming in & make the background darker. Here's the link of my webpage that I am talking about. http://www.thefamily-connect.com/Pages/Tina%20&%20mike%20photos.html
    I have the same problem with Spry Image Slideshow, when I view on internet browser, it says error 404 is found.
    What am I missing to make these widget work in internet.  kindly  email me your reply at [email protected]
    Thanks!
    Joyce Forrest

    sorry, I did not have experience about this... I can only read your problem.

  • Why can't I drag and drop images from the browser into other programs?

    Ever since I upgraded to Firefox 4 (even after I upgraded again to Firefox 5) I have been unable to drag images from the browser into other programs, including MS Paint and IcoFx. I receive an error message stating that the file (the address given lists it as being located in the temporary files folder) cannot be found.
    Prior to this I had always been able to conveniently drag and drop images for easy editing without having to save first and then open them. This feature is important to me, as I work with graphics very often, and is still available in Chrome and Internet Explorer. I love Firefox though, and hope that there is something I can do to fix the problem.

    I had this problem on Windows 8.1.1 and iTunes 11.2.2.3
    To resolve it from within Itunes I did :  Edit, Preferences, Sharing.
    I took the tick out of "Share my library on my local network"
    Click OK.
    Closed iTunes/
    Reopened iTunes and I can drag and drop.
    I went back into Edit, Preferences, Sharing and put the tick back and clicked OK.
    Works fine now.

  • Hdmi adapter for Ipad has very bad resolution

    Hallo
    When i plug in my new Ipad digital-av adapter into my TV or projector the resolution is very bad and not shape.
    Do you also have this problem?

    You've identified that Acrobat's export of the image to PNG was spot on ("... on my Mac it is sharp.").
    Some possible sources of the web based image being of "bad resolution" present themselves.
    --| Some web based image hosting services provide uploaders that actually downsample an image.
    This is to reduce the image file's size and results in destructive remove of pixels. File size is smaller and resoultion can/does take a hit.
    --| There may be an issue related to the brower used. You could always install and try out other browsers to check this.
    --| You local machine may have a failing graphics card.
    There may be other issues. A web search might turn up some leads.
    Regardless, neither Acrobat nor Adobe Reader are web browsers and neither are "image viewers" for image file formats such as PNG.
    Be well...

  • What is the FASTEST Internet Browser for OSX? (2014 Edition)

    What is the FASTEST Internet Browser for OSX? (2014 Edition)
    I'm a tech junkie, I love everything about technology.. especially FAST and EFFICIENT technology..
    I am currently using Google Chrome, and have nothing bad so say about it.. I like that I can "sign in" to Google Chrome pretty much anywhere (including my iPhone 5s), and instantly have access to all of my Bookmarks and Bookmark folders..
    I have seen a bunch of benchmark tests testing a bunch of available internet browsers on OSX.. however, the results seem a bit inconclusive and varying, and some that even support the notion that Safari is now FASTER than Google Chrome.. I'm not sure whether or not to believe it, and I don't really have the time/energy to conduct a series of tests on my own..
    What do you guys think? Is Google Chrome still considered the "fastest" when it comes to browsing/downloading?

    Has anyone used or have any opinions about Lightning?  I found some positive reviews around, and granted they all mention it's unrefined, they all seem to think it is the fastest.  Great as that may be, before I fork out the $2 I would like to get some more info regarding privacy and security.
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lightning-web-browser/id412736557?mt=12
    A review
    http://mac360.com/2014/04/lightning-strikes-is-this-the-fastest-mac-web-browser- money-can-buy/

  • Png file displayed on web has very bad resolution

    But on my Mac it is sharp. It was a pdf in Acrobat "Saved as..." a png. Very frustrating problem begs for solution. Thanks in advance.

    You've identified that Acrobat's export of the image to PNG was spot on ("... on my Mac it is sharp.").
    Some possible sources of the web based image being of "bad resolution" present themselves.
    --| Some web based image hosting services provide uploaders that actually downsample an image.
    This is to reduce the image file's size and results in destructive remove of pixels. File size is smaller and resoultion can/does take a hit.
    --| There may be an issue related to the brower used. You could always install and try out other browsers to check this.
    --| You local machine may have a failing graphics card.
    There may be other issues. A web search might turn up some leads.
    Regardless, neither Acrobat nor Adobe Reader are web browsers and neither are "image viewers" for image file formats such as PNG.
    Be well...

  • Downloads Low resolution images and not the high resolution as it did in 08

    'm using iPhoto '09 , unfortunately iPhoto only downloads the low res images and not the high resolution images. This makes it pretty much worthless, since the low resolution images are really bad in iPhoto. There was not any problems with Iphoto in the past Thank You

    What do you mean by "downloading"? There are a couple of ways to get image file out of iPhoto:
    1 - select the thumbnails and drag them to the desktop. This will give you copies of the latest version of each photo.
    2 - select the thumbnails, use the File->Export->File Export menu option. Depending on how you configure the export you will get the original, the latest version and/or a reduced size copy that you determine.
    3 - select thumbnails and use the Share->Send to DVD. This produces a mini library of the photos you've selected which include the original files, thumbnail files and any modified/edited file. This method is intended for use on computers that are running iPhoto.
    Which method are you using?

  • Dragging a large still image from the browser into the viewer crashes FCP

    Okay, I've not seen this problem until just a couple days ago but was wondering if it was just me or if everyone has this problem? I've found a work-around, but let me explain the problem first.
    I'm creating a growing up photo montage. I scanned all of the pictures myself at 300 dpi (as I've always done in the past) and saved them as TIF files. Some pictures as relatively small, i.e. 3.5 mb is size and do just fine, but it appears anytime I drop a picture into the viewer in preparation for the the timeline, it will crash FCP if the image file is any larger than about 5 or 5.5 MB. Now I know there is a limit on the resolution of a still and it shouldn't be any larger than 4000 pixels in either direction, but that is not my problem, the problem appears to occur with large files. I've used large still files before in past projects without any problem, so this is why I'm stumped. I've went as far as trashing my preferences, but that didn't change anything. I've even tested a still image from a past project that was something around 9 MB (or was it 19 mb?) in any case, it also crashed FCP but... I've used that picture before in past projects without any problem. I even created a new test project just in case my project file itself had a problem.
    My work-around is to simply drop the still image from the browser directly into the timeline, thus bypassing the viewer. This works every time without a hitch. I can even double-click on the still now setting in the timeline to load it into the viewer so I can add effects or keyframes or whatever without any problems (thank goodness). So, has anyone else experienced this problem or is it just me?

    Is this image saved in a colorspace mode that is anything other than RGB?
    CMYK & Grayscale images will cause problems.
    Some light reading regarding your choice of 300 dpi: http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html
    Unless you plan on panning and zooming your images, the best procedure is to use one of the video preset templates in Photoshop and paste your content into it. Scale and position using the Transform controls. For best results save as a TIFF without compression. Don't forget, always in RGB colorspace.

Maybe you are looking for