Exporting quality image problems

Hello all!
Hello, and thanks in advance for helping me out!
I am fairly new to Aperture 2... When I exported versions through Border FX, with a copy write signature, I chose to export "JPEG - original size". When I looked at the photo through quick look everything was perfect, but when I opened the photo to take a look at the result (in preview) the picture had lost an incredible amount of sharpness. As a matter of fact, the exported version had lost any focus of the picture I see in the aperture window.
Surely this is not normal, and I am guessing there are better settings to export. My two questions are...
1. Considering I do want my signature with the photo, so what would be the best settings to get a sharp focused jpeg?
2. Is this just a product of looking at the photo through preview? I wouldnt think so, but I thought It might be an answer...
Thanks again!
Nathan

I am having a similar problem whenever I export an editied RAW image to JPEG. I've set the quality all the way up and toyed with the color modes, but nothing works!!
I'm so discouraged about using Aperture.
here is a screenshot. Look at the photo on the left and notice how the details are clearly more defined than on the right.
http://imgur.com/2MFRT
Please help!!

Similar Messages

Poor quality images exporting from InDesign to PDF

We are having an issue with poor quality images exporting to PDF from Indesign (CS6). It makes zero difference whether the images are Ai images or PDF. They look perfect in Ai, perfect in the InDesign document, but appalling in the exported PDF. If the PDF document is printed, they print fine, but as a web based pdf document it is not publishable. We must use compression on export to keep the file size small enough for web/email use, but even with compression turned off on export there is no improvement in the PDF quality with a document ten times the size.
Any help would be appreciated?

I appear to have answered my own question, but will place it here to hopefully help others.
On comparing another InDesign document that appeared to export to PDF ok, we noticed that the type of frame makes a huge difference to image output quality. In the suspect document the frames with the images in them were " [Basic Graphics Frame]+ ". When I changed the frame (or made a new frame) to " [None] "; not only were the images a lot clearer in the InDesign document but they exported to PDF perfectly. Something so simple!!!!

Wpf export graph to image problem

My problem is I have created a new custom custom using the NI wpf graph as the basis. The control consist mainly of the graph,its axes and legends on a grid. To allow the legend to be moved around, I put it in a child grid. My problem is while trying to export the control as an image I am using the code below (similar to wpf graph export to image):
Rect bounds = LayoutInformation.GetLayoutSlot(MainGrid);
var bitmap = new RenderTargetBitmap((int)bounds.Width + 1, (int)bounds.Height + 1, 96, 96, PixelFormats.Default);
bitmap.Render(MainGrid);
My problem is the axes and the edges of the image exported to clipboard is dark as shown below. Is saved to image, the edges are instead transparent but better (not visible in the photos app but visible in paint). My question is why is this behavior and how can it be avoided?
Thanks.
Solved!
Go to Solution.

I did a bit of research and it seems the dark color is due to the trasnparency of the axes and edges of the image: the clipboard in windows does not support transparent image. The question is how can this transparency be removed from the axes and edges of the image?
Thanks.

Which yields better quality images?

Which yields better quality images?
If I "send" my slideshow from iPhoto to iDVD? Or if I start in iDVD and import a slideshow from iPhoto?

That’s the same thing.
The problem is that iPhoto needs to make a movie of the slideshow to export. This inevitably involves compression. Then, when iDVD prepares the movie for burning, it also compresses. Many folks find the quality drop off too great when the material is doubly compressd.
One solution is to create the Slideshow in iDVD, though that has limitations too - no Ken Burns effect, fo instance. But there’s only one layer of compression.
Another way is to create the Movie in +as high a quality as possible+. Some ways to do this: Export the slideshow from iPhoto using the new high quality options. Alternatively, use another app that has more export options - PhotoToMovie, Final Cut Express, perhaps even iMovie HD - to get a high quality movie, and so minimise the impact of the compression.
Regards
TD

Poor export quality Aperture 3

I've been searching all over the internet and can't seem to find any answers in regards to export quality in Aperture 3. When I finish editing an image and I export it in either TIFF, JPEG or PNG all of them look the same regardless of if I change DPI, File size etc and none of them look even close to as detailed as the original. I'm exporting "version" and changing the options in presets with no luck.
Can someone help me? I can't accept the poor quality of the exported images as they make my portraits look fuzzy and not sharp (when they're very sharp and vivid in Aperture!). Is it possible to get the same quality in an exported image as I see in Aperture. It seems like it should be a no brainer!
Thank you!

I had the same problem. While in a One-to One the Creative told me to do this. What ever you are planning to export the file/files to have pluged in (flash drive, hard drive) or loaded (DVD/CD) before you start the process.
Chose the file or files by highlighting them then choose File - Export - Version. In the center of the window that will pop up there is a "Export Preset"" tab. He told me to choose TIFF- Original Size (8-bit). He did say that any higher than 8 bit is pointless. I did this and it worked great. I had a large beautiful file that I was blowing up to 30 by 20 and it looked so bad printed before I learned this trick. I printed it again after exporting the new way and it really looked great!
I hope this solves your problem, it was VERY frustrating for me also.

Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX

I read this article today and considering I do all my rendering through Premiere or AME it made me a little concerned. What does Adobe think of this? and has any else experienced this problem?
Cheers,
Moja.
I took this article from: Is Your Footage Suffering from the Massive Difference in Export Quality Between FCPX & Premiere?
A rational person might assume that the program from which you export your media wouldn't have a noticeable impact on the quality of the final image, especially if the export settings are identical in both programs. A recent test by filmmaker Noam Kroll might just teach us to think twice before making assumptions.
First, a little bit of background on Kroll's test. Having noticed that exporting from Adobe Media Encoder yielded quicker results than using the same settings and exporting from FCPX, he tended to use Media Encoder for the bulk of his exporting. When a recently exported project came out with some nasty compression artifacts, blocky rendering of certain areas, and a noticeable change in color quality, Kroll put on his detective's hat and tried exporting again from FCPX. To his, and soon to be your, surprise, the exported result from FCPX yielded significantly higher image quality with the EXACT same export and compression settings.
Don't believe it? Have a look for yourself. According to Kroll, "both FCP X and Premiere Pro were set to output a high quality H.264 file at 10,000 kbps." The image on top was exported from FCPX and the bottom was exported from Premiere Pro.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
In the shots above, you'll notice more blocky compression artifacts in the version exported from Premiere, especially on the lower part of the woman's face, and there's a fairly significant reddish hue that's been introduced into the midtones and shadows of the Premiere export. Here's a version of the same shot that is cropped in on the woman's face by 400%. This is where the difference between the two starts to become painfully obvious. Again, FCPX is on top, and Premiere on the bottom.
Exported from FCPX
Exported from Premiere Pro
Here's the conclusion that Kroll came to in his post.
After seeing this I can confidently say that I will not be compressing to H.264 using Premiere Pro or Adobe Media Encoder any more. [sic] The image from Premiere is so much blockier, less detailed, and muddy looking, not to mention that the colors aren’t at all accurate. In fact I even did another output test later on with Premiere Pro set to 20,000 kbps and FCP X only set to 10,000 kbps and still the FCP X image was noticeably higher quality, so clearly something is up.
It's really difficult to speculate as to what's going on behind the scenes that's causing such a drastic difference in results between the two programs. However, what is clear is that you should take caution when exporting to h.264 from Premiere and Media Encoder. Regardless of the program that you're using, perform your own tests and make sure that the export process is leaving your media with a visual quality appropriate for the delivery medium.
The good news here is that Adobe is extremely receptive to feedback from their user base, and their Creative Cloud subscription model allows them to roll out updates with a much higher frequency than they could with the boxed version of the Creative Suite. If more people are experiencing these problems and reporting it to Adobe, chances are that we'll see an update with fixes sometime in the near future. With that said, I have no idea how Adobe handles the technical process of exporting, so it could very well take a complete overhaul of how the program encodes h.264 to fix the problem.

Well, I did my own little comparison with a shot from my A7s (XAVCS 50mbps) and seeing as I don't have FCP X I used FCP 7. The AME H264 looks nicer than the FCP one in this instance.
Dropbox - WALKING 444.jpg
Pro Res 444 from Premiere
Dropbox - WALKING AME.jpg
H264 from AME at these settings:
Dropbox - WALKING FCP.jpg
H264 from FCP 7 at these settings:

Poor quality images

Have done many movies in FCE 3 and just loaded 4. I shoot photos with a canon 7D and in completing the movie the image quality is extremely poor. I have always just brought JPEGs in to FCE in the past and they were tack sharp. every image appears crushed vertically, major pixelation, and on images that move its just a blur. I have tried loading new images in smaller formats, PSD files, PDF all of the same images and all the same result. Its almost as if it is turning a 4:3 into a widescreen. Any thoughts are ideas to troubleshoot? I have tried almost everything from exporting in different formats etc. These are very high quality images and I have used many in the past with no problems at all.

Michel
No video in this movie. All photos. The photos are JPEGS (Very large, which have been used in the past and have slipped right in and worked) I'm uncertain of the settings, not sure where to find what you may be looking for...I set up the video as I do for all of my movies as a DV-NTSC file, then export in the same format using q-time conversion...used several this time hoping one would work.
I did close all open projects, loaded a brand new one, imported files and still the same thing when burned...blurry, pixelated really bad images. I'm kind of at a loss. I have done nothing different to my knowledge with the new FCE4. Even in the canvas its a bit blurry when played, and it has been rendered. In the "RT" on the time line its set to Unlimited and dynamic. At this point I don't think its the images as I tested a few from my laptop to view on the tv and they are perfect.
Appreciate any advise!

Opinions on exporting quality?

I'd be interested in what other photographers have to think about the quality of Aperture's export. I must say, I compared it to Adobe's Ligthroom (beta 3) and ACR...and it came in third.
I found it (Aperture's exported image) to be very heavy in the shadow areas and overly contrasty (and I find myself usually punching contrast in post). Even though the image looked beautiful in the application, it rendered out much darker in the shadows than did the Adobe apps. In both Abode products, the exported/opened image looked nearly identical to the image when viewed within the application.
No so with Aperture, which was kinda disheartening. I love what Aperture is becoming...but it is still version 1 and, I guess, it is still becoming.

If we provide you with a location to upload, can you send us an example of what you're seeing? What you're describing is not standard Aperture behavior.
Absolutely. I would love to send you a few screen captures that show the unprocessed image in Aperture, and the resulting exported image. I would also send you the same senario as seen through Adobe's Lightroom Beta 3.
But I do think the problem is on my end. Here is some additional (long) detail:
I have three Macs total: 2 G4 Quicksilvers: one has an Apple 20" display, the other has a Lacie 22" crt display (both run Photoshop). My other Mac is a new Mac Pro Dual 2.66 with a 23" cinema display. All are calibrated with the same device: an x-rite calibrator and ColorEyes display software.
Aperture runs on my Mac Pro. I do NOT have Photoshop installed on this machine, so I am viewing my Aperture exports in the Preview application. So, I guess it could be that the problem is with Preview and not Aperture.
I say this because here is what I discovered during today's work. This morning I was processing the RAW images from a shoot on Wednesday in Aperture. When I exported, I opened them in Preview and noticed this previously described discrepency. (I had processed other images from other shoots a few days earlier and noticed these same issues in the deep shadow).
I then processed the images from Wednesday's shoot in Lightroom, looked at them in Preview, no apparent difference. That's when I sent my email describing my concern this morning.
However when I got to my other office I opened the exported tiffs in Photoshop on my G4 with the 20" Apple display. Lo and behold the Aperture export looked great. No shadow issues at all. In fact, it looked better than the Lightroom export. So, I actually used that one for the publication I am working on.
BUT...that doesn't explain to me why I am seeing the difference on my monitor attached to my Mac Pro. Can it be a monitor calibration issue if it looks one way IN the application, and darker in another application when viewed side by side on the same monitor? Or can it be that there a color management issue with Preview?
I haven't installed Photoshop on my Mac Pro yet, but I think I will.
I love the interface with Aperture by the way. I do wish it had some lens correction features (vignetting, etc.). But all in all it is going to be a killer application.
Thanks for your interest in helping me with this. I'd still send you what I'm seeing if you'd like.
Ed Macko

Export quality of CS6 compared to CS3

Having had Premiere Pro CS3 for about 5 years I recently upgraded to CS6 but immediately found problems achieving the same kind of export quality I had before. Initially I was testing with a project created in CS3 but then simplified the matter by creating a new project in CS3 and entering a single piece of text and exporting as a single tiff frame and doing exactly the same in CS6 and attached is the comparison. I can't of the life of me figure out what the problem is, hopefully someone can help.
Thanks,
Keith.

Okay, thanks for the further input, I've made progress with it, I've discovered it's to do with the field order setting. Basically my knowledge of video editing and video standards is rather limited and the kind of work I've done in the past has mostly been to produce animations from 3ds Max which are simply shown as demonstrations to people on a PC or laptop, and so when setting up a new project in Premiere I always selected "Desktop" editing mode, changed some settings and left others as default such as Fields: Lower Field First, mainly because I didn't know what it meant.
When exporting the finished video the default would be Progressive Scan and everything fine, so never touched it. With CS6 if I do everything the same way I get the problem described above, but if for new projects I select Progressive Scan in the setup then everything is fine. (Similarly with lower field in setup and export).
However I still have a problem with imported CS3 projects. In CS6 if I simply open the project and select Lower Field on export, or start a new project with Progressive Scan in setup and import the project, the fuzziness I had before is gone but now I get the effect in the following attached image (a print screen from a paused video, left one exactly as I expect):
I have found a work around though, which is to start a new CS6 project with progressive scan in setup, import the project, then create a new sequence and copy the contents of the imported sequence into it and that exports fine, although I suppose it could get complicated when there are sequences inside sequences. I'm sure there is still something simple I'm missing to do this in a more seamless manner, if anyone has any ideas please let me know.

Best Export Quality HD-AVI to DVD

Hello,
I'm currently working on a project and have come up with some poor results in my final iDVD disk images, namely blockly looking video.
I am using FCx 4.0.1 on 10.7.1
My HD-AVI source video has the following properties:
When starting my FCx project I selected the DV-NTSC Easy Setup and proceeded to make subclips and a voiceover successfully. My sequence has the following properties:
In FCx I used the Export->Quicktime Movie to produce my file for iDVD. In iDVD I selected Professonal Quality encoding.
Are there any ideas in this circumstance as to how to maximize export quality to DVD?
Much appreciated!

You have 1440 clips going into and SD Sequence.
This is the key problem.
Also I'm not sure how the AVI DML Jpeg clips will go in FCE, you may have to transcode to Apple Intermediate Codec.
Al

Help with exporting and image size or boundaries?

I am trying to slide the cat into the scene a little at a time foir an animation project I am working on. However, when I export the image the back ground of the image expands with a checkered back ground( showing here in white) and shows the whole cat.
How do I just show a little of the cat on the image at a time when exporting. I am trying to give the impression that the cat is walking into the room. I do not want to have to cut the cat up.
I would be thankful for any suggestions.

Provide the name of the program you are using so a Moderator may move this message to the correct program forum
This Cloud forum is not about help with program problems... a program would be Photoshop or Lighroom or Muse or ???

I'm looking for a high quality image of the flower in the iPhone 5 the website.

There is a flower that is used in the apple website, for the iPhone 5. It is purple and yellow. I've been looking all over the web for it but cannot find an image of it that doesn't have a glare on it. I guess it is owned by apple, but I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find a high quality image of it. Unfortunately it is not included with the iPhone 5.

Hi(Bonjour)!
I see on photo to movie spec page that you can export in full 1920 X 1080 H.264 codec, a high quality format usable in FCE.
http://www.lqgraphics.com/software/phototomovieoverview.php
By the way, how do you deliver your HD sequence from your mac to your HD TV set ?
Michel Boissonneault

When exporting files to web pages Aperture keeping losing files, so for instance, if I choose to export 600 images to a new web page, it might do 524 images but not the full 600. I've tried resetting Aperture, it's the latest version etc etc. Help please!

If anyone can help me with this I would be seriously grateful.
When exporting mutliple files to web pages Aperture keeping losing files, so for instance, if I choose to export 600 images to a new web page, it might make 524 pages but not the full 600. I've tried resetting Aperture and its persmission and am using the latest version of 3.
I have 3600 images which I need to upload as sublfolders, each with their own URL and at the moment Aperture is dropping of anything from 1 to 90 images.
This is critical as people need to see each and every on of these images online. So if a file has 600 photos in it, Aperture should make a URL with 600 full image pages. And this is what it's not doing. On small files, say 30 or so it seems to work well, it's when it gets to more than that the problem starts.
I've used Aperture in the past under previous versions and not had this problem.
Any help would be great.
Thanks.
Bob.

Hi Jack,
Thanks for responding (as it seems as though no one else has been able to provide any insight as of yet)! Not sure if you saw my recent post, but the version of Aperture on the 2008 MacBook has been upgraded to 3.1.2 (not sure how; I bought it in 2009, but only have OS X 10.5.8... which apparently can't house 3.1.2 of Aperture, but hey, like many other anomalies i'm encountering, I'm no longer surprised!). I am unable to upgrade it any further, as it warns me that my OS X does not fit the requirements. I exported the projects as libraries; however, like I posted before, apparently these are from too old of a version for the new Aperture (3.3.1) to handle and import.
It's getting to the point where I'd almost pay to upgrade the OS X on my previous MacBook (10.5.8) to something newer in order to THEN update Aperture to a newer version; however, my previous MacBook simply cannot handle this (the specs are awful -- hence my decision to save up and upgrade to the newest MBP with Retina).
I've spent hours upon hours transferring files, libraries as projects, previews, versions, even masters (though, apparently some of them aren't accessible?) with no luck. I've rebuilt the library and reprocessed everything. And this is all after having to return one MBP already since Aperture 3.3.1 is glitch-y as it is, and froze everything for having a "managed library". So, now that I know that I have to deal with a referenced library in Aperture... I just need to actually transfer my previous library to my new one (hopefully WITH adjustments since these are years worth of photos and work).
Again, any help is appreciated. I've lost enough sleep, time, and vision health over this at this point.
Also, I know Migration Assistant is an option, I was told that it wouldn't work properly anyway because of the different operating systems, and the potential for problems.

Is the Export Quality for PDFs in Reporting Services 2005 only 96DPI?

I have been fighting with Reporting Services all day, and despite setting the PDF output quality to 300DPI, I have noticed that the image quality appears to be only 96DPI. I've noticed this because images with a size set for 300DPI are too large for the page, and images set for 96DPI fit just right.
Could someone please tell me if this is a limitation of Reporting Services 2005, or am I just doing something wrong?
I need to know this because I am up against a deadline with this project. I had ran several tests with Reporting Services but had never had assumed there would be problems with image quality.
Is there any other product that offers similar features to Microsoft Reporting Services that you could recommend?
My luck has not been very good with this project, and I'm assuming the response is going to be 96DPI is all that is supported...

OK, I have managed to get higher quality images from the PDF renderer. Here is what I have found:
1) The PDF renderer in Reporting Services 2005 will size all images that it is given at 96 DPI no matter what DPI the image is when you pass it to the renderer. That means that a 300 DPI image or even a 600 DPI image will be sized in the PDF as if it is only 96 DPI. That means your high DPI image will render much larger than you expect.
So you might expect a 300 DPI image that is 6.5 inches wide to render properly at 1950 pixels. Yet, the PDF renderer will size it as it were 96 DPI which would make the image 20.3 inches long!
2) There is good news though. Despite sizing the images as if they were 96 DPI, the PDF renderer appears to render higher DPI images at a higher quality than 96 DPI. So despite the sizing being wrong, the image actually is rendering at a higher quality.
This means that you should size the image to the proper number of inches based on 96 DPI calculations. Then you can use Bitmap.SetResolution to set your images to at least 300 DPI. That should give you a higher quality image that is the proper number of pixels to fit properly in your report.
I am able to do all of this sizing dynamically because I am using objects as my data sources, but I am sure there are VB functions you could use in the report itself to accomplish the same task.
It is late, and I've been at this project all day long, so forgive me if I have explained anything poorly or gotten any concepts long. Yet, at this late hour, I believe this is what the renderer is doing.
I hope this helps someone else in the future, or at least points them in the right direction.

How to export all images as 4x6?

Okay, one of the things I absolutely love about Aperture is the ability to export many different versions for different purposes. As a wedding photographer, there are many different purposes to export for.
Here's the glitch that I'm running into though. We've now started only giving DVD images to our clients sized as 4 x 6s at 300 dpi. Anything larger, we'd like them to purchase through us to maintain quality.
I've been trying to figure out a way to get Aperture to export the images we've edited out as these 4 x 6 at 300dpi, but for the life of me, I can't seem to get it right. We crop at 8 x 12 so the ratio is fine, but getting it to come out right it a bugger.
I can't tell it to export at 4 x 6 because that only works for portrait and not landscape orientation. I can have a different export for each orientation since I have to maintain numbering consistency with our web galleries and their DVD copy.
I finally ran it out at 50% of original size, but hardly any of the images come out at 300 dpi. Aperture is just not doing everything I assumed it would.
Any ideas?

Set up an export preset as follows (from memory, so I apologise for any slight wording errors):
Duplicate JPG Original size preset and rename something like 6x4@300
'Size to' 'Fit within Inches' Width 6.0 Height 6.0
'DPI' 300
sRGB colourspace
Because all your images area already cropped to the right aspect ratio (3:2), setting size to 'fit within' will make the longest side 6 inches at 300dpi. It doesn't matter whether they are landscape or portrait. I have done it and it works perfectly.
If you have different aspect ratios and want to crop to 3:2 then export automatically, that is more tricky, but I don't think that is what you want.

Exporting quality image problems

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for