C7 captured image quality

i got a c7 like a month back everything is perfect but one thing is out of my understanding when i open my camera there are no lines but as i take the pictures without flash i get lines on my captured images although there is sufficient light in the room resulting in a poor capture quality. i have changes many settings only this issue ends if i switch to night mode even in normally lighted room
when ever i take a picture in sunlight or open areas there are no lines at all but at times there are exceptions..
i realy look forward to ur fuidance ppl

Hmm, that is odd. Looks like the phone could be faulty. First I would tell you to try updating or reinstalling firmware. You also did not mention if you were already using Symbian Anna update which came with camera tweaks. If it does not solve, you'd have to take it to a Nokia Care Center.
Here's a sample c7 picture
http://st.gsmarena.com/vv/reviewsimg/nokia-c7/camera/gsmarena_004.jpg
If you find my post helpful please click the green star on the left under the avatar. Thanks.

Similar Messages

HDV image quality problems on capture

Hey gang! I just got my first tape shot on a Sony Z1U, and I'm trying to caputre with the M10U deck. My problem is that the footage looks fine in the camera, and looks the same when played from the deck (via component video) to two different monitors. When I capture, the image is remarkably different - darker, with muddy colors, lousy skin tones. I'm using the HDV 1080i easy setup, and I've recalibrated my cinema display to its default (calibrated was even worse!) I've also tried using HDVxDV to capture, and iMovie to see if there was something screwy with my capture settings. Any ideas?

The computer monitor is the LAST thing you want to use to judge your image quality. It will never give you a true representation of what your footage looks like:
Shane's Stock Answer #2:
ONLY JUDGE THE QUALITY OF YOUR MATERIAL ON AN EXTERNAL NTSC MONITOR, OR AT LEAST A TV.
1. Disable overlays on the canvas
2. Make sure you've rendered everything (no green bars at the top of the timeline
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=24787
DV (and especially HDV) footage requires large amounts of data and many computations. In order to maintain frame rate and be viewable at a normal size, only about one-fourth of the DV data is used in displaying the movie to the screen. However, the DV footage is still at full quality, and is best viewed thru a TV or NTSC monitor routed thru your camera or deck.
HOWEVER...that is the stock answer for DV, but helps explain why your quality looks bad. Unfortunately, HDV does not allow you to view your timeline in real time like DV does. HDV, being HD, requires an HD card and monitor solution:
Shane's Stock Answer #25 - HDV external Monitor Viewing
To view HDV on an external monitor you are going to need to purchase a capture card, like the ones Decklink or AJA offer. They will both play out HDV in real time. The catch is that you cannot view this on a regular TV or NTSC monitor. Since this is HD, an HD monitor will be needed.
HDV cannot be played out of FCP via Firewire because it's Long GOP structure is too taxing on your processors to spare the system resources needed to drive an external monitor.
(Wow, two Stock Answers in one post. I think this is a first.)

Quicktime image quality problems in FCP

I'm trying to do a basic video tutorial on how to use a tool on my website. I captured the movie from my screen with a product called SnapZpro which saved the movie as a QuickTime movie. However when I import it into FCP to do some mixing with other graphical elements, add some transitions, edit the audio and add some other screen shots, the image quality is awful. I have rendered the file & also exported with no compression and still no luck. The original QT movie capture is crystal clear. Any ideas on how to get the original quality or other ideas on good ways to create a tutorial where a fair amount of editing needs to be done?
Thanks,
Ed

You can spend several productive hours using the search function. We see this topic and variations often. Try searching for SnapzPro, tutorial, screen capture, stuff like that.
We don't know what your movie settings were for your captures using SnapZ nor do we know your sequence settings within FCP. The most likely explanation is that there are some dramatic changes between the two. Your SnapZ clip is being scaled to fit the timeline and this can have a severe resolution compromise.
bogiesan

InDesignCC. How to keep image quality with exporting Interactive PDF?

Hello everyone, I'm using InDesign CC, I'm exporting a PDF that has PNG images, the problem is that I'm loosing the sharpness and the pureness in the images after exporting the file into PDF Interactive... the Settings I'm using for Image Handling are Compression: Automatic , JPEG Quality: Maximum, Resolution PPI: 300..
The file size is "Letter" with web Intent (792px x 612px) the images I'm using are big and have great quality, can anyone tell me how I export into PDF interactive without loosig images quality? I want to keep this pureness and sharpness in the images
Thanks in advance

It depends on the image. Best way for us to advise you is to open your image, then go to Image > Image Size and upload a screen capture of the Image Size box with the readings.
What you might have working against you is not enough pixels. Upsampling may just make it blurred. But we will see.
300 ppi is also not carved in stone, you may get away with 200 ppi depending on where you are sending it for printing.
And lastly, if you are paying a commercial printer to do this, it's best to consult with them and see what they can do.

CP5 simulation image quality poor

I am a very new CP5 user. I have successfully run the software simulation process with one problem. The image quality of the output file when previewing the project "bands" the images and distorts gradients. I am capturing images from Firefox on the web, using a MacBookPro with 4GB memory over a wireless internet connection.
So far everything else is working great -- really need help figuring out this image quality because the result is not acceptable. Thanks!

Hi there,
Multi select all the slides
In the Slides Property PI, Change the Slide Quality to - Optimized or High.
Invoke the Publish dialog and Enable "Force Re-Publish" and hit publish
Let us know if this solves your issue.
-Ashwin Bharghav B

Trouble with the image quality when viewing under 100%. First time posting on the forum.

Hello everyone. I am sorry we have the get acquainted this way but I am having some issues and this is one of my last options of getting help.   Allow me to explain the problem.    When viewing a file under 100% zoom, everything looks jagged like the anti aliasing is missing. Once I zoom in to 100%, everything looks the way it should. The saved file ( jpeg format for instance) is okay. I can zoom out and it still looks true to the image. The problem is related to photoshop. I installed my latest GPU drivers twice just to be sure and it was not from that.   This problem started last night and I don`t quite know how to solve it. If I work on small resolution images, it isn`t such a bad problem because I will be working on 100% zoom, but I am working on high resolution images/ paintings. Somewhere around 8000x5000 pixels thus, working at 100% is not that doable. I attached an image that shows this issue. The one on the right is the zoomed out version and the one on the left is the zoomed in version. Yes, the noise is affected by this, badly, but this started last night. up until then everything looked good even with noise or an out of this world sharpness. I can`t imagine what I could have done to trigger this.
   This being said, I am at the mercy of the more knowledgeable folks from around here. I do hope I posted this question in the right section. This is my first post here so sorry if I messed something up.   Looking forward to your replies.

Here is a simplistic view that I feel may help you understand reality.
The only time you're looking at your image pixels in Photoshop is when you're zoomed in to 100%,   There your look at the actual image pixels Photoshop has for your image at your displays resolution.
At any other zoom level you are looking a scaled image that has more or less pixels than your actual image these too are displayed at your display resolution.
The scaling done by Photoshop is done for displaying your image is done for good performance not for the best image quality a quick interpolation.   Therefore at some zoom levels image quality looks poorer than at other zoom levels.
High resolution Display have now add a new wrinkle.   User interfaces were designed for displays with resolutions around 100 PPI elements like text, icon, and other things like checkboxes, buttons etc. were created so there size would be useable are this more or less fixed 100 PPI resolution.   While Photoshop was designed to scale your images so you can work well on it is was not designed with a scalable UI. Photoshop can not scale its user interface independently from its image display display window for you displays high resolution. Photoshop's Image display area has the same resolution as the rest of Photoshop User Interface. Just like there is only one resolution in all layers in a document. CC 2014 2xUI changes that. PS UI is scaled to 1/2 resolution the image Area is at the displays actual resolution.
Photoshop CC 2014 2x UI scales all of Photoshop User Interface including the image display to 200% which is 1/2 your display resolution effectively cutting you display pixel count to 1/4 its actual pixel count.   Your once again running on a low resolution display.     If your display has a native resolution 200 PPI you're running it at 100 ppi if your display has a 300 PPI resolution you're running it at 150ppi.    Which defeats the reason of having high resolution. Which is you would like to be able to edit your images at print resolution. Adobe cc2x UI scales the UI but not the image window soa inage is 216ppi on the Surface Pro 3 the UI is large and dpoes not fit. screen
To be able to edit your images at print resolution you need a display the has a print resolution and you need and application the can scale its image display and its UI independently.
Current there is no OS interface for having multiple resolutions areas on a display and applications like Photoshop can not scale UI and Image independently. OS and Photoshop can scale what is displayed. Adobe Photoshop executable is coded in a way that it tell Microsoft Windows OS that it will handle display scaling so it can using your displays native resolution. Currently Only Photoshop CC 2014 Provides you with the option of running you display at half resolution.
Windows can scale you display to many resolution and as several presets. like 100%, 125%, 150% and like Adobe 200% half resolution.    You can make a Windows Registry and add an External Photoshop Manifest file the tell's Microsoft Windows to handle display scaling. I have a Microsoft Surface Pro 3 m windows machine. Its LCD has a 216PPI resolution. Windows 8.1 had 4 preset for scaling its LCD.
Surface Pro 3 LCD Display 12" IPS display 3:2 aspect ratio 9.984603532054124" Wide, 6.656402354702749" High 216.3330765278394 PPI
Microsoft Preset Display scaling
100% 2160x1440   216 PPI
125% 1728x1152   173 PPI
150% 1440x960    144 PPI SP3 Default setting
200% 1080x720    108 PPI
Most user these days has 1024x768 or better displays and Web pages are often authored for 800x600 pixels pages. So the give you a better handle on Resolution and scaling I have edit a 800x600 document with 25x25 px grid one my Surface pro 3
using Windows 4 scaling presets and captured the 2160x1140 scaled screens Only at the 100% preset does the image window have a 216ppi Also note @ 2x UI Photoshop UI doe not fit on screen
Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 2xUI Scales the UI to a display 1/2 resolution but does not scale the Image area uses actual screen resolution. Photoshop Help system info show the screen i 1/2 resilution 1080x720 but scalet the imase to the real resolution 2160x1440. however the image window is the 216ppi the ui 108ppi via scaling

Slideshow image quality/color rendering

I´m quite frustrated after discovering that some of my images look quite poor displayed by the slideshow module. My situation ist as follows:
LR 5.2 running on Mac OS X 10.8.5, 1:1 previews are rendered, preview quality is set to high, and I´m using a sample image showing a dark cloudy sky with some fine gradients; my slideshow preset doesn´t use any borders as I read this often causes quality issues.
When I´m in the Develop module, there is no problem at all, even in fullscreen display mode on my 1920x1200 display the gradients are perfectly rendered.
In Library module, when displaying fullscreen, quality is okay, but I can see some slight difference compared to the Develop module - which I understand after reading that in Develop the output is based on the actual raw data, and in all the other modules on rendered previews.
Now, when in Slideshow module, the image quality is significantly lower than in Library and I see some quite obvious banding in the gradients. I don´t have problems with blocking artifacts but the banding/posterization is considerably worse compared to a JPEG export with a quality setting of, for example, 75.
I can´t imagine LR´s slideshow tool would be working with a lower color depth than the 8 bit as in standard JPEGs, right? Did I miss any of LR´s parameters that influence the image quality of Lightroom slideshows or of the previews used therefore? Otherwise do you have some other explanations or hints for me in order to get this fixed? We do everything to capture our images in the best possible quality so we should also be able to present them properly after all...
Thanks a lot for any advice!
Toby

In-Lr slideshow images look like crap on my system too (dull contrast and de-saturated shifted color).
My guess is some issue with icc-profile/monitor-profile or something, but I'm not qualified for assessing.. - could just be a bug in Lr that only bites some, dunno...
I use ShowBiz instead, which works well on my Windows box, and it should also work on your Mac box.
Rob

Cleaning up Image quality of old VHS tapes

Is there anything you can do in final cut pro to clean up the image quality of captured footage.. even slightly? I am capturing a bunch of old VHS and Hi8 tapes from the early 90's and the image quality is quite bad. Is there anything I can do to fix this at all?

There is also a little trick I use when I see particularly bad anlog dropouts on this type of footage.
Usually these dropouts appear as a horizontal stripe of yuckiness on only one field of a frame. I will often razor blade around just the one frame showing the dropout, and apply a de-interlace filter to that frame. I'll then change the settings of the filter until I find the field that does not have the dropout.

Image quality lost through editing with Photoshop?

I find a number of professionals using Lightroom as their primary photo editor.
I did a search on Lightroom vs Photoshop. I found the following listed as the first reason for choosing Lightroom: 1. Nondestructive Editing. Nothing is actually changed (by Lightroom) in an image until it is exported. This means you can make an adjustment, change it again and again, but no quality is lost as it would be with Photoshp. This is reported in Outdoor Photographer.
My impression is there is no lost of image quality in Photoshop if you are working on a layer copy of the Background. Photoshop tries to prevent degradation of the original image by requiring it be copied or otherwise freed before the background can be changed.
Image quality can be lost in downstream layers through processes such as changing image size.
Is my statement correct about loss of image quality and the 'analyst' from Outdoor Photographer misstating things?

Hi Vince.
I am just learning my way around Photoshp. I have spent 18 months learning how to start and to stop it.
Good point. But if we peg the learning curve of Ps at 10, Lr comes in around 2 or 3. Like learning to drive a car as opposed to learning to fly a jet.
Smart Objects would make PS more re-editable.
True, but still no match for Lr or Ps RAW.
I have never before seens a comment that extensive work on an image in PS would deteriorate the quality of the image.
Extensive work will do what the user asks it to do. In the first 18 months I had Ps, I asked it to do lots of things that I now realize deteriorated my images. Forever.
Regarding LR, I have created for me a workflow that requires PS.
So did everyone before Lr came out. And yet, Ps users by the thousands, if not millions, have adopted Lr. Many if not most with a greater time investment in Ps than 18 months. I dropped my Ps centric flo the moment I realized what Lr could do. I had been using Ps pretty heavily for about 5 years by that time.
I feel LR works best for experienced photographers who are shoooting a lot of pictures.
While it's true that experienced photographers might realize more benifit, maybe not. It works great for everyone.
That person has good images, images that need little editing, to start the output process.
This is not true in the sense that the majority of Lr users are mediocre photographers at best. For the simple fact that most photographers (even "pros") are mediocre at best. And Lr was conceived with these folks in mind. It has the true "pro" stuff, but in an amateur friendly environment. Judging by the images and questions posted on photo and Lr forums, there are many, many, low level photographers using it.
I am an inexperienced photographer shooting just a few pictures. So I put a lot of effort into getting a good print from my mediocre shots.
You obviously care about your images. Care more when you are shooting them. This is boiler plate advice. Time spent mastering your camera will pay off better dividends than learning to fix bad photos. This was true before the digital age, and it's just as true now. Ultimately, no matter how hard you massage it in Ps, Lr, or any other app, the quality of your final image will be a function of the quality of the original pixels you captured with you camera.
So far as masks and all the rest, Lr has an Local Area Adjustment Brush which does just that. You paint the mask, complete with any number or combination of adjustments, with a brush. The mask and the adjustments to it can be easily changed later. A good spot removal tool. A great red eye tool.
File size isn't a huge factor these days, but it still counts. Instead of layers and the pixel data for each of them as in Ps, Lr has the pixel data once, and a sidecar file with the adjustments settings in a much smaller file. Not a big deal for storage, but when rendering, maybe a bigger deal. Lr also pre-renders previews at various sizes (you can program this, plus how long it keeps them). I could go on and on (and I have).
Bottom line, it's a great tool for anyone who takes photos. For the price, it's a no brainer for $150. If you have the $150. Not true for many of us these days.
Anyway, Vince, I hope you don't think I'm picking on you. I answered you in detail because you made such good points. And the answers might be of general interest.
Peace,
Lee

Image Quality issue with script

So I recently wrote a simple script to output an image at a bunch of different resolutions. However, I am running into an image quality issue that I don't run into when I do the same thing manually.
Here is an example image showcasing the image: http://terminalvelocity.ca/temp/notworking.jpg
As you can see along the top of the model's forhead there is destinct color fragmentation. Which seems very strange.
Here is the script, it is pretty simple, it asks for a few simple config options. (the above image was created using default settings). It then figures out the correct ratios and loops through doing each resize, saving the image, then reverting the history so each iteration uses the original image data and not the resized version:
doc = app.activeDocument;
openFilePath = Folder.selectDialog ("Where do you want the images to be saved?");
maxSize = Number(prompt("What would you like to be the maximum length of the long edge? (Image is never upsized) (pixels)", 2800));
minSize = Number(prompt("What would you like to be the minimum length of the long edge? (pixels)", 100));
gap = Number(prompt("How much smaller should each image be? (pixels)", 100));
quality = Number(prompt("What quality would you like the JPG exported as (0-12)", 10));
var size;
var primary;
var secondary;
if(doc.width > doc.height){
          primary = doc.width;
          secondary = doc.height;
}else{
          primary = doc.height;
          secondary = doc.width;
var ratio = secondary/primary;
var size = [];
for(var i = maxSize;i>minSize;i-=gap){
          var p = i
          var s = i * ratio;
          size.push([p,s]);
var w;
var h;
var n;
for(var i in size){
          if(doc.width > doc.height){
                    w = n = size[i][0];
                    h = size[i][1];
          }else{
                    w = size[i][1];
                    n= h = size[i][0];
          if(doc.width >= w && doc.height >= h){
                    doc.resizeImage(w,h,null,ResampleMethod.BICUBICSHARPER);
                    jpgFile = new File(openFilePath+"/"+n+".jpeg" )
                    jpgSaveOptions = new JPEGSaveOptions()
                    jpgSaveOptions.embedColorProfile = false
                    jpgSaveOptions.formatOptions =
                    FormatOptions.STANDARDBASELINE
                    jpgSaveOptions.matte = MatteType.NONE
                    jpgSaveOptions.quality = quality
                    app.activeDocument.saveAs(jpgFile, jpgSaveOptions, true,Extension.LOWERCASE);
                    doc.activeHistoryState = doc.historyStates[doc.historyStates.length-2];
In comparison, here is an example of an image of the exact same resolution that does not exhibit this issue at all:
The steps taken to save this image were as follows: http://photography.terminalvelocity.ca/content/images/2012/avery_konrad_6/horizontal/1500. jpg
Image > Resize > Bicubic Sharper (1500px);
Save For Web
     Jpeg
     Quality 75
     Optimzed: true
     Progressive: false
     Blur: 0
     Convert to sRGB: true
Anyway, as you can see, The manually exported image does not have any of the quality issues that are present within the scripted image. I am pretty new to photoshop scriping so am assuming it has something to do with me missing some sort of option in the save settings. Any help would be swell.
Also note, this doesn't occur on all images, I usually don't see an issue when using the script, however, something about the tones of this particular photo make it really obvious.
I am using the latest version of Photoshop CS6 (creative cloud) on Max OSX
thanks so much!

I'm on windows find the bicubicsharper does not work well it the image being resized has been highly sharpened all ready. Because of my Photoshop preferences I had to make minor modification to your script. I'm also a bit colorblind so i don't see many color issues so I include a screen capture if what windows does with your image and script.
var orig_ruler_units = app.preferences.rulerUnits;
app.preferences.rulerUnits = Units.PIXELS;          // Set the ruler units to PIXELS
doc = app.activeDocument;
openFilePath = Folder.selectDialog ("Where do you want the images to be saved?");
maxSize = Number(prompt("What would you like to be the maximum length of the long edge? (Image is never upsized) (pixels)", 2800));
minSize = Number(prompt("What would you like to be the minimum length of the long edge? (pixels)", 100));
gap = Number(prompt("How much smaller should each image be? (pixels)", 100));
quality = Number(prompt("What quality would you like the JPG exported as (0-12)", 10));
var size;
var primary;
var secondary;
if(doc.width > doc.height){
          primary = doc.width;
          secondary = doc.height;
}else{
          primary = doc.height;
          secondary = doc.width;
var ratio = secondary/primary;
var size = [];
for(var i = maxSize;i>minSize;i-=gap){
          var p = i
          var s = i * ratio;
          size.push([p,s]);
var w;
var h;
var n;
for(var i in size){
          if(doc.width > doc.height){
                    w = n = size[i][0];
                    h = size[i][1];
          }else{
                    w = size[i][1];
                    n= h = size[i][0];
          if(doc.width.value >= w && doc.height.value >= h){
                    doc.resizeImage(w,h,null,ResampleMethod.BICUBICSHARPER);
                    jpgFile = new File(openFilePath+"/"+n+".jpeg" )
                    jpgSaveOptions = new JPEGSaveOptions()
                    jpgSaveOptions.embedColorProfile = false
                    jpgSaveOptions.formatOptions =
                    FormatOptions.STANDARDBASELINE
                    jpgSaveOptions.matte = MatteType.NONE
                    jpgSaveOptions.quality = quality
                    app.activeDocument.saveAs(jpgFile, jpgSaveOptions, true,Extension.LOWERCASE);
                    doc.activeHistoryState = doc.historyStates[doc.historyStates.length-2];
app.preferences.rulerUnits = orig_ruler_units;          // Reset units to original settings

Image quality on @nywhere master

1.How cand I improve the image quality on this tuner? It looks worse than my ex tuner (wayjet) on the same os(xp) and system(radeon7000,p41800,256ddr).
Where is the Invincible video quality supported by Silicon Tuner?
2.What can I do to see both cable and antenna programs in the same tv list?
I`ve tryed with free scan but it doesn`t work.
3.The software in soo buggy

The signal of the cable is strong, i don`t hve problems with catching any tv station..
The ideea is that the image quality is not as i expected(is not clear.I had two other tv tuners before and the quality of image of then was superior.I dont`t know what to do to improve de image.I`m not interested of capture, I want only to see my tv programs in a good conditions.So, pleasse help me someone to solve the problem...

Image quality using iMovie 08 vs Final Cut Pro

I read in November's Macworld that if I use a tapeless camcorder, "you won't get the best image quality if you use iMovie '08 because the software converts each movie clip to smaller, more manageable size. To get the highest quality you'll need to be running Final Cut Pro on a Mac Pro with at least 2GB of RAM." Do you all agree with this? And if so, please consider the following. I used a mini DV camcorder to transfer all my tapes to my computer and to an external hard drive. Have I already lost that image quality in doing so using iMovie? If so, can Final Cut Pro import from iMovie and improve that quality by decompressing or will I need to retransfer the tapes using Final Cut Pro or will the difference be too negligible to be noticed and not to bother. Thanks, SWestD

I read in November's Macworld that if I use a tapeless camcorder, "you won't get the best image quality if you use iMovie '08 because the software converts each movie clip to smaller, more manageable size. To get the highest quality you'll need to be running Final Cut Pro on a Mac Pro with at least 2GB of RAM." Do you all agree with this?
It depends on the format. In general, the consumer tapeless cameras shoot some highly compressed variant of the mpeg2 or mpeg4 format (delivery formats). These formats are not designed to be edited but rather to be displayed directly from the camera to the TV. In order to edit the material, you must first convert the files from their delivery format to something editiable. This conversion usually results in LARGER not smaller files. There is the potential for some minimal alteration of the image in the transcoding process. This is the trade-off for shooting with such a compressed format.
And if so, please consider the following. I used a mini DV camcorder to transfer all my tapes to my computer and to an external hard drive. Have I already lost that image quality in doing so using iMovie?
No, capturing DV material from tapes using iMovie is a direct digital transfer. DV/NTSC or DV/PAL video as captured from tape is the muxed (mixed audio and video) DV stream. It is an exact replica of what is on the tape.
If so, can Final Cut Pro import from iMovie and improve that quality by decompressing or will I need to retransfer the tapes using Final Cut Pro or will the difference be too negligible to be noticed and not to bother.
FCE and FCP capture material from tapes slightly differently than iMovie. While iMovie brings the material from the tape unaltered, FCE/FCP uses Quicktime during capture to pull the audio and video into separate streams with in the resulting file. By having the audio demuxed, the programs are able to edit multiple video streams simultaneously while iMovie is limited on one at a time. The video quality is not altered in this demuxing process.
If you choose to shoot with a tapeless camera and edit the material in FCE or FCP, FCP has a wider range of formats that can be handled by the program, but in no way will it deal with them all. Many still need to be converted into an edit friendly format before you bring them into the program.
x

The image quality suddenly downgraded in Photoshop

Hello guys,
today when I'm editing my file as usual, suddenly I found out that the image quality are downgraded inside photoshop
but it become smooth and normal again when I try to blow up the image. The saved image have no trouble as well.
When I'm using general preview size, it will be like this
When I blow up the detail, it become smooth again like this
I'm not sure if I accidentially clicked any button, could anyone help with this please? big thanks!!!

this is windows system and I've checked the image processor box
The text is not rendered into pixels either,
the below is the screen capture:

Capturing Images or Triggering GoPro

Hey Guys,
We are trying to capture images from a GoPro or similar device to make a timelapse of wear to a part throughout a test that is being run by a Labview program. We want the camera to capture and save an image with a certain name once every 4-5 minutes. We can use a GoPro, DSLR, or any camera, but resolution is key. Does anyone have experiance with this?

Photographer/Snowmobiler/Motorcycler/LabVIEW nerd here. Going to break this up into a few posts, first: action cameras.
I have a Contour Roam, similar to the GoPro. I'm not real familiar with the GoPro's features, but I do know they have an intervalometer mode for doing timelapses.
Have to consult the manual for the exact settings, but you'll set it to take a photo every n-seconds (usually a couple of preset intervals- 1sec, 3sec, 5sec, 10sec, 30sec, 60sec, etc) then stack all those still images together into a movie afterwards.
As far as I/O and manual-triggering goes ... Again, not real familiar with the GoPros, but the higher-end ones have bluetooth connectivity to smartphones/remotes that you can probably leverage to do manual triggering if you need that capability. Do you need the capability to trigger it remotely, or is one photo every minute acceptable? Battery capacity may be an issue if you're running the camera for extended periods of time. May have to rig up a USB cable to power it externally.
Action cameras are great for what they are. Tough and durable, easy to use, lightweight/portable, with loads of mounting options. They aren't *great* cameras though - although most of the time they're "good enough". It's a good cameraphone quality image.
There is no way I could have gotten this photo with any other camera. (Yes, that's me; yes, that hurt. ) Pulled that frame out of the 1080p video.
Camera's that little unit stuck to the side of my helmet:
My Roam takes a ~5mp image when it's in intervalometer mode, at shutter speeds up to 1/4-second f2.8. In low-light conditions, it leaves me with better images than video does since the shutter's open for longer.
Here's an image at full-resolution (click the pic, ~1.1MB JPG); some noise and CA on the image, but keep in mind i'm moving at highway speed on a bike with knobby tires, so it's not exactly ideal camera setup conditions.
And an example of the timelapse it'll do. ~45min job, 1 photo every 3 seconds. Mounted it on a Gorillapod in the corner of my garage. After I was done, I smashed all the photos on the card into a video, added an audio track, then pushed to youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv_d_ZLwWjk

IDVD and poor image quality on TV

I imported old VHS/VHS-C tapes into iMovie via Elgato Video Capture, using standard 4:3. I then edited my project iMovie and "shared" it to iDVD. However, on TV, image quality is horrid. What am I doing wrong?

As Old Toad writes BUT
• Share to Media Browser - AND as Large - not HD or the other resolutions as quality will degrade.
• burn on high quality media - I only use Verbatim DVD-R (as they play on more DVD-players)
• Set down burn speed to x4 = Less burn errors
• Encoding quality matters - I use Pro Quality most
else read my long long list on this.
DVD quality
1. iDVD 08, 09 & 11 has three levels of qualities. (version 7.0.1, 7,0.4 & 7.1.1) and iDVD 6 has the two last ones
• Professional Quality
(movies + menus up to 120 min.) - BEST (but not always for short movies e.g. up to 45 minutes in total)
• Best Performances
(movies + menus less than 60 min.) - High quality on final DVD (Can be best for short movies)
• High Quality (in iDVD08 or 09) / Best Quality (in iDVD6)
(movies + menus up to 120 min.) - slightly lower quality than above
Menu can take 15 minutes or even more - I use a very simple one with no audsio or animation like ”Brushed Metal” in old Themes.
About double on DL DVDs.
2. Video from
• FCE/P - Export out as full quality QuickTime.mov (not self-containing, no conversion)
• iMovie x-6 - Don't use ”Share/Export to iDVD” = destructive even to movie project and especially so
when the movie includes photos and the Ken Burns effect NOT is used. Instead just drop or import the iMovie movie project icon (with a Star on it) into iDVD theme window.
• iMovie’08 or 09 or 11 are not meant to go to iDVD. Go via Media Browser or rather use iMovie HD 6 from start.
3. I use Roxio Toast™ to make an as slow burn as possibly e.g. x4 or x1 (in iDVD’08 or 09 this can also be set)
This can also be done with Apple’s Disk Utilities application when burning from a DiskImage.
4. There has to be about or more than 25Gb free space on internal (start-up) hard disk. iDVD can't
use an external one as scratch disk (if it is not start-up disc). For SD-Video - if HD-material is used I guess that 4 to 5 times more would do.
5. I use Verbatim ( also recommended by many - Taiyo Yuden DVDs - I can’t get hold of it to test )
6. I use DVD-R (no +R or +/-RW) - DVD-R play’s on more and older DVD-Players
7. Keep NTSC to NTSC - or - PAL to PAL when going from iMovie to iDVD
(I use JES_Deinterlacer to keep frame per sec. same from editing to the Video-DVD result.)
8. Don’t burn more than three DVDs at a time - but let the laser cool off for a while before next batch.
iDVD quality also depends on.
• DVD is a standard in it self. It is Standard Definition Quality = Same as on old CRT-TV sets and can not
deliver anything better that this.
HD-DVD was a short-lived standard and it was only a few Toshiba DVD-players that could playback.
These DVDs could be made in DVD-Studio Pro. But they don’t playback on any other standard DVD-Player.
Blu-Ray / BD can be coded onto DVDs but limited in time to - about 20-30 minutes and then need
_ Roxio Toast™ 10 Pro incl. BD-component
_ BD disks and burner if full length movies are to be stored
_ BD-Player or PlayStation3 - to be able to playback
The BD-encoded DVDs can be play-backed IF Mac also have Roxio DVD-player tool. Not on any standard Mac or DVD-player
Full BD-disks needs a BD-player (in Mac) as they need blue-laser to be read. No red-laser can do this.
• HOW much free space is there on Your internal (start-up) hard disk. Go for approx. 25Gb.
less than 5Gb and Your result will most probably not play.
• How it was recorded - Tripod vs Handheld Camera. A stable picture will give a much higher quality
• Audio is most often more critical than picture. Bad audio and with dropouts usually results in a non-viewed movie.
• Use of Video-editor. iMovie’08 or 09 or 11 are not the tools for DVD-production. They discard every second line resulting in a close to VHS-tape quality.
iMovie 1 to HD6 and FinalCut any version delivers same quality as Camera record in = 100% to iDVD
• What kind of movie project You drop into it. MPEG4 seems to be a bad choice.
other strange formats are .avi, .wmv, .flash etc. Convert to streamingDV first
Also audio formats matters. I use only .aiff or from miniDV tape Camera 16-bit
strange formats often problematic are .avi, .wmv, audio from iTunes, .mp3 etc
Convert to .aiff first and use this in movie project
• What kind of standard - NTSC movie and NTSC DVD or PAL to PAL - no mix.
(If You need to change to do a NTSC DVD from PAL material let JES_Deinterlacer_3.2.2 do the conversion)
(Dropping a PAL movie into a NTSC iDVD project
(US) NTSC DVDs most often are playable in EU
(EU) PAL DVDs most often needs to be converted to play in US
UNLESS. They are play-backed by a Mac - then You need not to care
• What kind of DVDs You are using. I use Verbatim DVD-R (this brand AND no +R or +/-RW)
• How You encode and burn it. Two settings prior iDVD’08 or 09
Pro Quality (only in iDVD 08 & 09)
Best / High Quality (not always - most often not)
Best / High Performances (most often my choice before Pro Quality)
1. go to iDVD pref. menu and select tab far right and set burn speed to x1 (less errors = plays better) - only in iDVD 08 & 09
(x4 by some and may be even better)
2. Project info. Select Professional Encoding - only in iDVD 08 & 09.
Region codes.
iDVD - only burn Region = 0 - meaning - DVDs are playable everywhere
DVD Studio pro can set Region codes.
1 = US
2 = EU
unclemano wrote
What it turned out to be was the "quality" settings in iDVD. The total clip time was NOT over 2 hours or 4.7GB, yet iDVD created massive visual artifacts on the "professional quality" setting.
I switched the settings to "high quality" which solved the problem. According iDVD help, "high quality" determines the best bit rate for the clips you have.
I have NEVER seen iDVD do this before, especially when I was under the 2 hour and 4.7GB limits.
For anyone else, there seem to be 2 places in iDVD to set quality settings, the first is under "preferences" and the second under "project info." They do NOT seem to be linked (i.e. if you change one, the other is NOT changed). take care, Mario
TO GET IT TO WORK SLIGHTLY FASTER
• Minimum of 25Gb free space on Start-Up hard disk
• No other programs running in BackGround e.g. Energy-Saver
• Don’t let HD spin down or be turned off (in Energy-Save)
• Move hard disks that are not to be used to Trash - To be disconnected/turned off
• Goto Spotlight and set the rest of them under Integrity (not to be scanned)
• Set screen-saver to a folder without any photo - then make an active corner (up right for me) and set
pointer to this - turns on screen saver - to show that it has nothing to show
Yours Bengt W

C7 captured image quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for