DVDSP Menus poorly rendered

I am building menues in Photoshop cs2 on a g5. Then using these menus in DVDsp 4 on a Mac Pro. I have tried all types of file formats. Jpeg, tiff, png, psd, etc. Every single time when i simulate the dvd the menus look great. However, after I build the dvd the menus look washed out, slightly blurry, and the colors bleed. Whats wrong?

hi
try with tga format with the bitdepth of 32 bit.
i may look fine.
but after building up the compile dont try to view it in
fullscreen mode and this may give you problems whatever you
have mentioned.
In the dvdplayersoftware setting set it to 100%mode. because of the differnce in the monitor resolution and the video resolution can give you the problem of blurring, colur bleeding , burnit to disc and try to watch in a normal TV
this may look fine.
regards
senthil
G5   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  
G5   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  
G5   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  

Similar Messages

  • Video Quality on dvdsp Menus

    Hi Ive just moved from iDVD to DVDSP
    and noticed the Quality of the Video on DVDSP Menus looks very poor compared to Video on menus
    IDVD?

    What are you doing with the menus? What sort of video are you bringing in?
    To get the best quality, you should send your standard definition video through Compressor and create a MPEG-2 file. Create your overlay file in Photoshop. Bring both files into DVD SP and define your button areas. Do not add any text or graphics with DVD SP.

  • Adobe reader x has poor rendering. Some few bugs in there.

    Adobe Reader X has some few adds and a beautiful interface. The product however has poor rendering especially when i try to copy text that exeeds to the next page not in view. The find box also creates some patches on the screen while scrolling, blocking text. It also takes a long time to respond when document is minimised for a long time: the tool bar disappears or becomes blank; menu bar has blotches; and reading screen sometimes appear black.

    Hello Nicola,
    The link you gave above (http://www.aermec.com/files/crivellaro/C01_30.013.565.PDF) seems to be dead, could you please repost another valid link or send the file to: [email protected]
    Thanks!
    Mark Tezak

  • 4x3 DVDSP Menus from 16x9 anamorphic video

    Title: 4x3 DVDSP Menus from 16x9 anamorphic video
    Goal: Create 4x3 scaled videos from 16x9 anamorphic asset
    Asset: NTSC - CCIR 601 / DV ( 720 x 480 ) from Sony DCR SR-300
    Solution:
    Create a sequence; cmd-0 to see settings;
    Turn on Pixel Aspect Ratio anamorphic 16:9 ( this makes the Canvas look like wide screen )
    Select custom frame size; Set WidthxHeight 480x480 ( Canvas now looks 4:3)
    Because:
    Pixels are 16:9 so while 640x480 is in 4:3 ratio, the pixels are wide so the frame is wide
    Meaningfully mnemonically: 480 is three-quarters of 16 so reducing the frame width to 480 gives you fewer pixels wide but the wider pixels push the outside dimensions of the canvas to the 4:3 you need for the DVDSP menu display.
    Caveat:
    When loading a clip into the sequence, say No to setting the Seq Settings to the Clip settings.
    You've customized the sequence and you don't want the clip to change you sequence customization.
    Verification:
    I saved this as a QT Ref Movie; loaded it to a DVDSP 4:3 Menu and it looked the way I expected.

    4:3 Menus from 16:9 clips

  • CS review not useful for presenting UI comps due to poor rendering

    I really want to love CS review. It could become such an important part of my workflow that I'm willing to overlook many of the small shortcomings (lack of printing, no versioning, clunky illustrator UI, etc) until they can be improved.
    Unfortunately the show-stopper for me is the poor rendering of small elements at full scale. Illustrator CS5 goes a long way toward making it easier to create sharp and precise UI elements but that precision is lost as soon as the file is uploaded to acrobat.com. I believe it is the conversion to pdf (or flash?) format that is causing the issue.
    I have tried sharing vector artwork from within Illustrator CS5; rasterizing elements before sharing; and exporting PNGs (which look perfect when viewed in photoshop) first and then uploading. but all result in the same chunky, fuzzy, imprecise typography and graphics.
    This could be fixed by native support for PNG format but I'm concerned that adobe will hold fast to the idea that PDF is the universal document format and that there's no need to support anything else.
    If i'm missing something here please share your tips. Otherwise, it looks like i'll be switching back to conceptshare.
    -B

    Hello,
    For those still looking, you should ask on the
    SharePoint forums.
    Karl
    When you see answers and helpful posts, please click Vote As Helpful, Propose As Answer, and/or Mark As Answer.
    My Blog: Unlock PowerShell
    My Book: Windows PowerShell 2.0 Bible
    My E-mail: -join ('6F6C646B61726C40686F746D61696C2E636F6D'-split'(?<=\G.{2})'|%{if($_){[char][int]"0x$_"}})

  • Poor rendering quality of Motion import

    I have some simple Motion moves - pans scans and zooms across hi-res (3600x2400px) still images. When these are taken into FCP (v5.0.4), either as an import or as an export from Motion (v2.0.1), I encounter a problem with image quality. This is most apparent when I have zoomed into the original image, even when taking the precaution of not zooming in as far as tv resolution. All diagonal lines become stepped, as if the FCP image is displaying at around 240 lines rather than 480 (NTSC) This has a particularly nasty appearance with horizontal, vertical or diagonal lines in the image during movement. The original Motion file plays back beautifully, with no artifacts. I imagine this to be a problem within FCP to do with rendering. Can anyone tell me what am I doing wrong?
    John

    I'm viewing this on both the computer and an external TV monitor. The tv monitor exhibits the problem - that's why I am concerned - and so does the computer, where I'm viewing the clip at 100% resolution. This project is shot and cut in NTSC DV. I have imported the motion files into FCP and rendered them there, then rendered out the sequence to a self-contained file. (I have also tried rendering the clip from Motion and placing that clip into FCP. There is no apparent difference in quality.) Since my original posting I have tried this routine on someone else's computer and the end result was good, without any of the line flicker that is distressing on the problem version. I went back to my computer and re-did it and still got the poor end result. It would seem to me that there are some render settings somewhere that I need to change, but I don't know where else to look. Both computers used in this process are G4 Powerbooks.

  • Poor rendering quality for still images

    I have opened a new project with PAL DSLR settings (1080p, 25fps).
    I have added a full res (about 4000px x 3000px) still image to the timeline and added a pan effect to it. When I view the preview in PE it looks fine. However, when I render the clip the quality is very poor in the preview.
    I have tried exporting the clip to a file and this plays fine, but the preview does not look good.
    Any ideas why the rendering should have this effect?

    pickera2
    I have a few things for you to consider and tryout if interested.
    First, you are taking a 4000 x 3000 4:3 still into a 1920 x 1080 16:9 project (you say project preset = PAL/DSLR/1080p/DSLR 1080p25).
    Your problem is confined to the preview of the pan and zoom result using the Pan and Zoom Tool (I am assuming the you are using Premiere Elements 10 or 11 or 12...I do not recall that you said which one).
    Edit Menu/Preferences/General includes the preference "Default Scale to Frame Size" and it does just that. It is typically found ON. So, when your 4000 x 3000 pixels still is imported, the program tries to fit it as best possible into the 1920 x 1080 16:9 space set up in the Edit Mode monitor (Magnification = Fit) by the project preset. In your case, you would expect to see the following with black borders:
    Is that what you are taking into the Pan and Zoom workspace? Or are you scaling what is seen there so that the image just fills the 1920 x 1080 space? Does it look like the following after scaling, if you do scale to fit?
    And important point to remember is that whatever the case, the Pan and Zoom workspace is not referencing what is seen on the Timeline, but is instead referencing back to the original at the hard drive save location.
    An alternative to all of this includes
    Bringing you image into the project with the Default Scale to Frame Size disabled in preference. Then the 4000 x 3000 will overflow the space in the 1920 x 1080 monitor. You would then ignore what you see in the Premiere Elements workspace, select the Pan and Zoom Tool to open the Pan and Zoom workspace, and do your pans and zooms on the image that you see there. Click Done when finished. Back in the Premiere Elements workspace render the Timeline and  scale what you see in the Edit Mode monitor as needed.
    You also might want to look at beforehand cropping your 4000 x 3000 4:3 to 2200 x 1238 pixels 16:9 and using that as your source media with or without the Default Scale to Frame Size enabled.
    Please view to see if the previews look any better and/or there are improvements in the export.
    Thanks.
    ATR

  • Help! Poorly rendered paint brush scribbles at 1 point width

    I have a graphics tablet (Wacom DTU-1631) hooked up to my Mac and I'm using it in Illustrator to capture handwriting and drawings during presentations (the Mac's screen is being projected onto a wall and the idea is to not use a whiteboard). I am using the paintbrush tool set for a 100% round brush size of 1 point within an 8.5x11 document. I put the pen on the tablet's screen and as I write cursively I clearly see my handwriting being faithfully reproduced. However once I lift the pen, Illustrator seems to increase the thickness of my writing to the extent that lower case e's and o's often completely fill in their enclosed loops. I zoomed in on those mal-formed characters and it surely looks like Illustrator is doing a very poor job rendering the resultant paths. I wish I could post a picture of it! I try the same thing in e.g. InkScape and it works just fine. If I select a bigger brush size it forces me to obviously write bigger and then the bad path rendering effect rapidly diminishes, but I want/need to use a size of about 1-point and 2-point is too big. Anybody know if this is a bug or if it's pilot error at my end?

    Just got into work and checking email. I'm very impressed by the amount of assistance being offered in these forums!
    Anyway, I'll try to answer all questions posed so far:
    The tablet I'm using is a Wacom DTU-1631 (it's GREAT)
    http://www.wacom.com/pendisplays/DTU1631-technical-specifications.php
    I agree that at first glance it seems I'm doing tiny writing on an 8.5x11 page, but 1 point is still about the right size after printing. Not much different to the line thicknesses of regular readable text. While drawing on the tablet I'm zoomed in to about 1/3 of a page and navigate up and down via scroll bars.
    The stroke width I have selected is 1 point. I have the fill set to invisible so that a drawn squiggle doesn't visually turn into a closed shape filled with some color. I made my own brush definition of 1 point round. Even zoomed in at 1600x I can see these annoying effects happening.
    Now here's a good observation. I can select any of the mangled loops and in the Brush Definitions pull down menu I can choose 'Basic' and it cleans it up perfectly! However, I'm darned if I can figure out how to make "Basic" be the default. When I pre-select "Basic" and then draw a shape it changes back to my 1 Point Round definition when I lift the pen and I get a mangled shape again. I have attached a picture of a mangled shape which I copied and then selected and then set the copy's brush definition to "Basic". That fixed it nicely. Now if I can only figure out how to make "Basic" stick, or integrate "Basic" into the default style, I reckon I'll be all set...

  • Poor rendering of 3d pdf on Mac Pro

    I'm in a limbo between Apple and Adobe. Although I find it hard to believe that I am the only one who uses 3d pdf diligently and try to do it on a fullgrown Mac. It started when I took my previous MacPro (Mid 2010) in use almost 4 years ago. All 3d-pdfs I tried to render on the machine lacked transparency and materials. The same file on an iMac or a PC looked like I wanted. I complained but the great As blamed each other. And I gave up the fight.
    I resently bought a new MacPro (late 2013), partly in the hope that I would get a video card that was supported by Adobe/Apple. But no. The same dreary rendering without material properties. On this machine, I have installed Windows 8.1 throuhg bootcamp. And when I run Reader on Windows my 3d-pdfs looks as I expect. The same machine, the same graphics card, the same file ...
    Am I the onely one experiencing this problem? Can I do anything about it?

    Ok my images are removed...
    But I cant give it up yet. Am I the only one experiencing this problem??? Here are 2 shrunk images. First from Acrobat Reader running on Mac OS 10.92:
    Then Acrobat Reader on the same Mac Pro (late 2013) running on Windows 8.1:
    Notice the semi transparent ceiling and more vivid colors.
    I have an old post regarding the same problem on my previous Mac Pro here: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3311368
    Please give me a response if you have seen this...

  • Poor Rendered Video Quality PE7

    Hi All,
    I've been running the trial of PE7 for a few weeks comparing against my existing copy of Pinnacle 10 and trial of Power Director. I love the interface and edit abilities, however when I generate DVD files and view them the result from PE7 is of a much lower quality than from Pinnacle or Power Director.
    I'm using the default quality settings in each of the programs and viewing all with the same DVD viewing software (AVS Player). The originating AVI that was edited was captured using Pinnacle, but I imported it into PE7 and rendered a PE7 DV AVI for editing to make sure I was working with PE defaults. The picture seems to be more grainy and less vibrant in color with PE7. Of course having the big black "PE7 Trial" directly across the middle of the screen doesn't help with comparison (what possessed them to put the watermark directly across the focal point of the viewfinder?), but I'm pretty certain the PE7 files are not as good.
    Is there some setting that I'm missing that would make the video from PE7 that much worse than the other two products? I can't believe that the Adobe product would be that much worse without someting I'm doing wrong or missing.
    Thanks in advance for any suggestions!
    Dale

    Dale,
    The test of each program would be to author a DVD (use RW, so you don't spend a bunch of $ on test DVD's) and then watch that through a DVD software player on the computer, or on a set-top player to TV.
    As for the display in the programs, there are a couple of things to look at. In PE, if your DV AVI Clip shows a green line, above the Timeline, it does not require Rendering. If it's red, just hit Enter, to Render it. If you Rt-click on the Display Monitor, you can choose Fit, or one of several resolutions - choose 100% and see if your display improves. Fit is basically a "draft preview," sized to fill the Display Monitor, where 100% should show the actual detail.
    It's been a long time, and several versions ago, since I last used Pinnacle, but I was less than impressed by its "monitor" back then. However, I am going both from memory and also this was on a previous laptop. Though it also had a 17" monitor, the rez was way down (totally different GPU), than what I am now using.
    I have Power Director on my workstation (dual 21" CRT Hitachi 915's), and I see no difference between it's display, and that in P-Pro2, when I switch it to 100%. They both look the same to me. Do not have PE on the workstation, and do not have Power Director on the laptop, so I cannot compare those in an A-B situation.
    Going back a couple of versions of P-Pro, Adobe went from DirectShow display to a common display engine for all of their programs. It has been my experience, when setup to 100%, that their displays are equal to, or better than, any program using DirectShow. This is for footage that does not need to be Rendered, or that has been Rendered, and is for 100%, and not Fit. I do not know if Pinnacel and Cyberlink still use DirectShow.
    One last item to consider is the display settings on your monitor. Because Adobe does not use DirectShow any more, you could have differences there. I'd spend just a bit of time with the settings on your monitor, both in the Windows' Display, and in your GPU's utilities, to see if you can "calibrate" your monitor for best viewing of the Adobe display engine. In my nVidia Quadro 4500FX control panel, I have one setting for "Print Work," and one for "Video," and my needs fluctuate between the two. I also use Adobe Photoshop's Adobe Gamma utility to set things up for my print work. It is no longer included in the latest CS3-CS4 Photoshop.
    Hunt

  • Poor Rendering of video in 10.4.7

    After upgrading to 10.4.7 the rendering of videos purchased from iTMS has deteriorated significantly. There is much more pixelation and the experience when the window is maximized is unacceptable. What used to be fuzzy is now blotchy. This is especially bad in cartoons content as the lines are all jagged. It affects iTunes playback and Quicktime equally.
    Am I alone in noticing this degradation?

    Hello Don.
    So which version of Mac OS X are you running now. What do you do to go back and forth to Mac OS 10.4.6 and Mac OS X 10.4.7?
    What type of account is this (POP, IMAP, .Mac)?
    In Mail, open Window > Activity Viewer. What do you see there when Mail refuses to quit? Actually, you may be able to avoid having to force quit Mail by canceling whatever it's doing (by clicking on the red stop icon of the activity).
    Go to Apple Menu > System Preferences > Accounts > Login Items. What do you see there?
    Do you have any third-party Mail plugins? Do you have either a /Library/Mail/Bundles or a ~/Library/Mail/Bundles folder in the Finder?
    Note: For those not familiarized with the ~/ notation, it refers to the user's home folder. You can easily locate any of the folders referred to in this post by copying the file path here, doing Go > Go to Folder in the Finder, and pasting the file path there.

  • Poor Rendering quality with CC, but not CS6

    I've been through well over 10 hours with Adobe Chat Support trying to figure out why the quality of my renders have been awful lately. I use the 720p Vimeo Preset for uploading files for work, and with CC I've been getting consistently low render quality with any H264 presets. The H264 BluRay preset produces corrupted videos without fail.
    Every time I've gone through a support call, I've been told that there actually isn't anything wrong with Premiere, but that I just need to raise the settings for my rendered video. No. No. No. And again, no.
    I have a high quality pre-rendered video. If I re-render it through Premiere Pro CC or Encoder CC, even with 1080p presets, I get nothing but artifacts and corrupted files. I rendered out the same video on my other computer, it looked great. I thought I was having a graphics card issue, but it's CC.
    I have Encoder CS6 installed on this computer. Don't know how. Never had CS6 anything installed, but it's there. Anyways, I tried rendering my high quality video through CS6 and it looks beautiful. Installed a trial version of Premiere  CS6, again, no issues whatsoever.
    Observing the files after the fact, rendered videos from CC are about a third of the size of videos rendered in CS6. They render in half the time as well.
    I wasn't quite sure how to approach this, whether or not to report it as a bug, or if there's something natively different about the settings in both versions of Premiere or how they work?
    Could this possibly still be a graphics card issue? I have to deactivate one of my graphics cards to avoid playback issues in Premiere, and I recieve error messages regarding not having enough vRAM if I try to open Photoshop with that same graphics card deactivated.
    Qosmio X870
    Windows 8
    16 GB of Memory
    Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000 - Must be deactivated to use premiere, but I get error messages if deactivated when trying to open photoshop.
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX670

    I don't know why it is, just that it was a bug that was revealed about a year ago. I had similar problems with my 9800 and could not for the life of me figure out the cause. I had Epson telling me it was the humidity. I had Chromix telling me to put the UV filter on my Spectrolino, and it all came down to the default printer. Not sure exactly where I read about it first, but I'm glad that one more person now knows.

  • Poor rendering quality

    Why can't I change the rendering mbps to higher than 8.0 in Pre 12? The output video (originally shot in 1920 x 1080) looks HORRIBLE! I'm attempting to create a 1 hour DVD (dual-layer; 8.5 gb) of the best quality I can. Pre 12 only uses 3.4 gb--so I have plenty of space left.

    kwixster
    There is no changing expectations when the discussion gets to frame size 1920 x 1080 versus DVD-VIDEO on DVD, 720 x 480 (NTSC) or 720 x 576 (PAL) with standard or standard widescreen. It is what it is. But, perhaps, I can help you determine if you are getting the best possible DVD-VIDEO on DVD product that you can from your Premiere Elements 12 workflow.
    1. The maximum set for the burn dialog's burn to disc DVD bitrate is 8.00 Mbps. The burn to works off a variable bitrate so the bitrate is going to be much less than that at times during the duration of the video. Work with "Fit Content to Available Space" with a check mark next to it. And, only leave it unchecked if you get Data Rate error message which forces you to lower the bitrate manually to overcome that error. If, with "Fit Content to Available Space" checked, you see the listed bitrate less than 8.00 Mbps before the burn, that means that the project needs to lower the bitrate automatically to make the fit. The latter should not be the case for you since you have 7.95 GB (in reality) on that labelled 8.5 GB/240 minute disc and you are saying that the Space Required is 3.4 GB in the Quality area of the burn dialog.
    The standard DVD disc labelled 4.7 GB/120 minutes in reality is 4.38 GB, so if your Space Required in the burn dialog is showing 3.4 GB, not reason not to use the 4.7 GB/120 minutes disc. The Bitrate should be showing as 8.00 Mbps.
    2. A key considerations are the properties of your source media and what is being set for the project preset by you or the project. Premiere Elements 12 assumes the role of setting the project preset based on the properties of the first video drag to the Timeline. Sometimes it does that OK, sometimes not. When not, it does not give you the closest choice, but rather defaults to its default of NTSC AVCHD Full HD 1080i30 or its PAL counterpart.
    a. The question becomes "What is the project preset for these burn to DVD projects?" If you do not know, then check Edit Menu/Project Settings/General and the readings for Editing Mode, Timebase, Frames Size, and Pixel Aspect Ratio.
    b. Two considerations...do you have interlaced or progressive frame rate...if interlaced, what scan order, Top Field First or Bottom Field First? The answer with high certainty is scan order = Top Field First.
    c. If progressive, then you want to use the NTSC/DSLR/1080p/DSLR 1080p30 @ 29.97 or the PAL Counterpart.
    d. If interlaced, you probably want to use the NTSC/Hard Disk Flash Memory Camcorders/Full HD 1080i30 so that you have a match up the field dominance of the video with the requirement of DVD-VIDEO Bottom Field First. Alternatively, you could use NTSC/AVCHD/Full HD1080p30 project preset and then apply Reverve Field Dominance at the Field Options/Timeline level.
    If the project is not setting the correct project preset, then you set it manually before you import media into the project.
    File Menu/New/Project and change the project preset accordingly.
    Before you exit the final dialog there, make sure that you have a check mark next to "Force Selected Project Setting on This Project". Then back to the Premiere Elements workspace to import your source media.
    The above is a rough idea of where you might look to seek "better".
    Please review, if any questions or need clarification, please do not hesitate to ask.
    Thanks.
    ATR

  • Poorly rendered titles in PE 11

    I'm trying to put together a short video, but the titles are coming out with fuzzy edges. They look great on the computer monitor during the edting process, but are significantly degraded after rendering. I've been using solid color backgrounds. of black and Royal Blue. I've been using PE since version 1.0 and have never had this problem before.
    I have this program (2 purchases) installed on a Windows 8 64-Bit OS with 16 g of memory, and a good graphics card, as well as a Win7 32-bit laptop with 4 gigs of RAM. This video is less than 5 minutes long, but it's important.

    MattK74
    I am just starting to look at your issue. Could you clarify certain aspects of your details.
    1. Is the problem only with Premiere Elements 11 on Windows 8? And, are you saying the you have two copies of Premiere Elements 11 (different S/N) on Windows 8 64 bit and both are giving you the same problem when the programs are being used separately? How does Window 7 32 bit factor into this? Do you have at least one version of Premiere Elements 11 installed on Windows 7 32 bit, and is it giving you the same problem as Premiere Elements 11 on Windows 8 64 bit?
    2. To what rendering are you referring?
    They look great on the computer monitor during the edting process, but are significantly degraded after rendering
    Are you referring to create the titles, red line over titles but titles looking good in monitor...and then rendering the Timeline and the titles looking badly "degraded" after render, line over Timeline now green?
    or
    Are you saying that the rendered Timeline looks good, and that it is only after export that the titles degrade in the playback of the export using your player? If this is the case, what is the export and what are your export settings details?
    Either way, I will give the issue a first hand look in Premiere Elements 10 Windows as I await details. Again, the answers are in the details.
    Thanks.
    ATR

  • !! Sound Studio / AIFF / FCP : Poorly rendered files in timelilne

    I will try to describe my problem the best I can...
    -Imported AIFF audio files into FCP (these files were generated in Sound Studio).
    When I drag these files into the viewer, they sound fine.
    -Pulled these audio files into my time line.
    -Rendered them.
    -The rendered audio files are barely audible. When I open the rendered audio clips from my time line in the viewer, they still sound awful whereas the unrendered files, which are still in my browser, sound OK.
    Any idea why this would be happening?
    Thanks for your help and please let me know if you need more details.
    Maryam
    IMAC 5,1
    Intel Core 2 Duo 2 GHz processor
    2GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
    150 GB Drive (79.5 GB remaining)
    OS 10.4.10
    FCP 5.0
    Sound Studio 2.1
    Panasonic PVGS200 Camera
    Quick Time 7.2.0 (player version 7.2)

    Here's the info on the particular audio clip that's troubling me:
    -Audio rate: 44.1 KHz
    -Audio format: 16 bit integer
    -Data rate: 172.3 k/s
    What's strange is that I have music files with the same audio rate (44.1) that render and play normally. Only the audio format is different:
    -Audio rate: 44.1 KHz
    -Audio format: 32 bit floating point
    -Data rate: 45.8 k/sec
    Any idea how I can "convert" the troublesome audio clip? When you say " they will need to be rendered" I assume you are referring to a different type of rendering and not FCP's typical rendering (Sequence/Render/Render all)?
    Thanks for your help so far. I really do appreciate it.

Maybe you are looking for