Eye Tv 200 Quality

Does anybody out there own eye tv 200 for the mac? I am thinking of buying this, and the reason i haven't bought it already is i am concerned at what the quality of the picture will be like at full screen. I will hook up my cable box through the svideo or composite connections, and will probably never use the antenna port.

I had the same concern before I acquired the EyeTV 200 from Elgato but I am very satisfied with the result. This is not HDTV but it's at times better than it was on my former TV set. You'll love it!

Similar Messages

Creating small, text-editable PDFs?

I have many documents from school that I'd like to scan, convert to PDFs and then compile together into one PDF file. The problem is that whenever I scan a document, I can't compress it down enough without sacrificing quality, so I can't have a small PDF file. I have a few eBooks, and, looking at their properties, somehow the creators of those eBooks were able to compress their PDFs down enough without sacrificing any quality to the documents whatsoever. Here's an example:
one eBook that I have is 696 pages, the filesize is 4,159,863 bytes, and it looks like it was simply scanned and put together, because the quality of the eBook matches the book that it came from (which I happen to own). True, the images in the eBook are black and white (some of the images in the book are in colour), but there is no noticeable depreciation in their quality. Whoever created it was using the application PScript5.dll version 5.2, the PDF producer Acrobat Distiller 6.0.1 (Windows), the PDF version is 1.5 (Acrobat 6.x), and was NOT optimized for fast web view. How did the author get the page size so small (kb wise) yet retain quality? If one were to do the math: 4,159,863 bytes divided by 696 pages equals 5976.81, then divided by 1000 equals 5.97681. Almost 6 kb per page? How is that possible?
The smallest I could compress scanned images was about 20 kb, and the quality was terrible. In fact, the only way I could shrink them to that size was to scan them in Black and white (1 bit), and then distill them as much as I dared. The vast majority of documents that I'm scanning are black and white text with very little in the way of graphics.
Here are the programs that I have at my disposal:
Jasc Paint Shop Pro 8 and HP Director (for scanning with my HP PSC 1210 all-in-one printer, which has OCR technology)
Microsoft Word 2000 (9.0.2720)
Adobe Acrobat 5.0.5 (10/26/01) (yes, it has paper capture)
Acrobat Distiller 5.0.5.2001101100
It is driving me absolutely crazy that I cannot figure this out. Even creating my own job option in Distiller and adjusting the settings didn't help.
It should be possible, with the programs that I have, to get the results I want. For those of you who believe I should upgrade to something beyond Adobe Acrobat 5, here's another example for you:
There used to be a link on www.iartonline.ca (which no longer exists) to a PDF that is 13 pages long, created with the application Microsoft Word 8.0, the PDF producer is Acrobat Distiller 4.0 for Windows, the PDF version is 1.2 (Acrobat 3.x) and has a file size of 79,719 bytes. In contrast, I scanned two school documents (using OCR) into Microsoft Word, corrected any errors, and converted it to an Adobe PDF from there. The resulting size (for TWO PAGES) was 25 kb.
So, in conclusion, it HAS to be possible for me to scan my documents, retain their quality while compressing their size, and compiling them into single file PDFs.
I apologize for the lengthy explanation (this is why I couldn't ask the question on WikiAnswers), but hopefully this will save others interested in answering from asking irrelevant (to me) questions.
Thank you for your time.

Well, back to square one. IrfanView seems like a good program, but I'm running into the same issues I had before (sacrificing quality for a more compact file size). Using IrfanView to scan the sheet music opens up HP Director (since I have an HP printer it makes sense that this would be the default program). With HP Director, my output type options are as follows:
1. Millions of colors
2. 256 colors (8-bit)
3. 256 colors (web palette)
4. 256 colors (system palette)
5. 256 gray shades
6. Black & White (1-bit)
Choices 1 and 6 are out automatically. Since the output dimensions (area to be scanned) is 7.86 x 10.37 inches, at 200 DPI, the image size is as follows (using the remaining choices from above):
2. 3.19 MB
3. 3.19 MB
4. 3.19 MB
5. 3.19 MB
The scale is 100%. After selecting choice 2 (256 colors - 8-bit) and scanning to IrfanView, the Image Information is as follows:
1571x2075x8BPP, 3.11 MB
So I'll save this as a TIF file (using ZIP compression) and the resulting file size will be 532 KB. Opening this file with AA5 and saving it as a PDF will result in a file size of 512 KB. The quality is definitely there, but the file size is way too big.
If I go through all that again and use JPEG compression instead of ZIP, the resulting file size is 1,836 KB. After opening the file with AA5 and saving it as a PDF: 354 KB. Once again, the quality is there, but the file size is too big. It appears that JPEG compression is the better choice in this particular case.
So what can I change? Going back into HP Director, I adjust the scale (size) to 50%. Output dimensions: 3.93x5.19; DPI: 200; output type: 256 colors (8-bit).
In Irfanview: 788x1035x8BPP, 797.5 KB; quality is a little bit less. Saving to TIF with JPEG compression: 592 KB. Opening with AA5 and saving to PDF: 125 KB.
Interesting side note: I decided to perform a Paper capture on this 125 KB PDF file. In the Paper capture Preferences, I chose 'Searchable image (compact)' as the PDF output style, and chose 'None' for Downsample images. Result? 267 KB.
Trying that again, this time with the PDF output style of 'Searchable image (exact)' produces the same file size (267 KB).
Mind you, when Paper capture was performed on the PDF, it straightened the image, which may have contributed to the larger file size. I noticed that IrfanView did something similar: if I rotated the image slightly (in this case, 1.10), IrfanView changed the image's BPP from 8 to 24 (but I changed it back to 8 BPP by going to Image>Convert to Grayscale).
Tried scanning it at 150 DPI instead of 200; quality was still there. TIF file size: 911 KB, PDF file size: 201 KB.
100 DPI. TIF: 468 KB, PDF: 109 KB. Starting to get a little blurry, but that could have been due to making the rotation change and then converting back to grayscale.
Tried scanning at 75 DPI, 256 gray shades and half the scale (size). Quality was HORRIBLE.
IrfanView has no "Print to file" option, so using Acrobat Distiller is out.
I've noticed that, if you rotate an image in IrfanView, sharpen the image, then convert it back to grayscale and save it as a TIF file, it will be blurry when it's opened in AA5.
HP Director doesn't always straighten the scanned image, even though there's an option to do so (and I always check the box for that option). I've re-scanned the sheet many, many times, but it's only at random that HP Director automatically straightens the scanned image.
I did a scan with 75 DPI, 256 gray shades, 100% scale. It looks great in IrfanView (602x775x8 BPP, 458.17 KB), but when I save it as a TIF (JPEG compression) and open it with AA5, the quality had considerably diminished. Even redoing the scan and saving it as a TIF with ZIP compression, it's still the same.
I tried Packbits compression, same thing; LZW, ditto.
So I upped the DPI to 150 and tried again, this time using JPEG compression. TIF: 1,077 KB, converted to PDF it was 231 KB. The quality was there, but the file is TOO BIG.
All in all, I've tried a few different approaches and it seems to me that I can have one or the other: quality or compact file size, not both. But I refuse to believe that. It MUST be possible.
I have an eBook that is 736 pages long and is 6.75 MB (7,077,900 bytes). The PDF producer was Adobe PDF Library 5.0 and the application used was Adobe InDesign 2.0.2. The quality of the eBook almost exactly matches the actual, physical book (I know this because I've borrowed the book from the library).
Did Adobe PDF Library 5.0 and/or Adobe InDesign 2.0.2 create such small PDFs from scans that were responsible for such a small eBook, or was it some other program? And, if it was some other program, then what's the name of it? Is it freeware?
You can download the eBook in question for free here: http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/MomsPDFs/DDDoA.sml.pdf
Bill, in HP Director, after clicking on "Scan document", the user is presented with 4 choices:
- Text & Graphics as image
- Text as image
- Editable text
- Editable text with graphics
The settings for these 4 choices can be modified. For the first two choices, resolution can range anywhere from 75-19,200 PPI, and the output types can be Millions of colors (24-bit), 256 gray shades (8-bit grayscale) or Black and White (1-bit).
The settings for the latter two give less options: resolution can be either 300 or 400 PPI, and the output type does not include the Black and White (1-bit) option. (This bit about HP Director is mostly for your information to give you a better idea of the program's capabilities.)
It IS possible to scan a document with HP Director, do OCR on it and save it as a PDF. The file, however, is very large.
I now understand that a document can have OCR performed on it OR have AA5 do a paper capture, but not both.
I really appreciate the time you've taken to address my questions, Bill. As I've stated before, this will also serve as a guide to others in the future should they have similar problems/questions.

LR 1.3.1 Slideshow Playback problem - real world example of how software bugs affect your business

MacBook Pro 17" latest brand new laptop
Apple 10.4.11
LR latest 1.3.1
This post is about a playback bug in the slideshow module introduced in LR 1.3.1 and how it publicly affected my business reputation last night.
I shoot high end weddings here in Los Angeles. I charge my clients a lot of money and deliver a fabulous bespoke photography service with custom designed albums that come in at several grand each as well as the cost of the shoot itself.
Nearly all my work comes from referrals and part of my selling point is my personal style, which is all about a super professional approach, no excuses, get the job done, done right, and exceed all expectations for my clients. So no technical problems are allowed ever. I carry triplicate cameras, drives, laptops, lights etc. Everything is checked and double checked.
Lightroom has changed the way we do things in my business and has shaved many hours per week off our editor's work load. It has been awesome for us.
I am a big fan and think that LR will be seen in history as a critical moment when digital photography came of age. Just wanted to say this before I get into this next bit.
But Adobe - listen up...really listen up...we just updated LR to 1.3.1 from 1.3
Last night your application embarrassed and humiliated me in front of many hundreds of people.
I usually do a projected slide show during the wedding reception using camera jpgs from the earlier part of the day. These very popular with the guests and are good for our business. Last night my partner pulled a fabulous show together and with much fanfare we projected as usual onto a huge white wall with hundreds of people watching.
Just like we have been doing since LR 1.0 - we select 50 or so images, make a collection, tailor the settings so the images look fabulous when projected, go to the slide show module and hit play. It has always worked incredibly well, very clean, easy and painless. Wonderful.
But last night the show played only the first few slides before it went back to the beginning. We quickly rebooted, first turning off the projector, and redid the same step. This time it played a little further and randomly started playing back. So we took it all off line again and rebooted it all.
SAME SH*T again.
The bride's parents (my clients in this case) came over and were very condescending to me about our "broken and unreliable equipment". We had a huge hall of guests watching this. I could have crawled under a table.
We now exported the images as JPGS (off line with no projector of course) and then ran the slide show from these using the Apple Preview application. But this took us another 20 mins.
But by now we had lost the moment, the wedding planner had moved on to other things. We lost the opportunity to be slick, professional and impress the venue, the other vendors, the 3 other bridesmaids who are looking for wedding photographers etc etc. And I had publicly messed up for my client on the most important day of his daughter's life.
This slidehow problem is a stupid and repeatable bug and Adobe you have no excuse for releasing substandard product like this to professional users like me.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Will Henshall
323.333.9833

Many thanks to those above who spent the time to reply to my post/rant...
Ironically, these particular clients are actually typical model customers for us, and we have a fabulous relationship with them. They were understanding about the software problem and they then loved our work when they saw it. So all good there in the end. The comments made were somewhat jokey and not intended as malicious. But many a true word is spoken in jest...
However, my point is that the quality, level of service my company provides in this competitive market is at a level where there can be no room for amateur like error. Especially with something as simple as getting a slide show to work. Like a swan serenely gliding down a river, covering a big budget event has to look effortless from above even though underneath that swan is paddling like hell!!!!
Lightroom is all about workflow, that's what it is amazing at and the simplicity of pulling the camera jpgs out from the Canon 1dn bodies 2nd card and importing them into this single application, running our custom presets on them and then simply hitting the slideshow button has been a joy to behold. No need to export, no need for another application, just really simple and quick. Adobe really got the principle of this right.
As a photographer, I truly don't want me or my partners to be hunched over a laptop fiddling with imperfect software at a job when what will further my career and feed my family is me going back out to the event, shooting more killer images and networking networking networking for future gigs. Client relations, thats the name of the game here.
So here's the rest of my rant/point:
If you think about professional software like any other kind of professional product made by the leading public company in its market - compare it to say my Ford truck. I bought my truck new, it is reliable and every time I start it to go to work, it gets me there. It has never broken down in 100,000 miles. Even when I take it in for a service, the parking brake still works in exactly the same way that it did before I took it in - ie as advertised. I do not need to test whether my truck works ok when it comes back from a service, and this is a reasonable assumption I think. I can park it on a hill with no worries.
So what is different with software? Why are we, the end users expected to put up with below standard shoddy tools, especially when provided by huge multi-million dollar companies like Adobe?
When the software is "serviced" ie updated, my expectation is that it will be made BETTER, or at least the key user features should still work as advertised. The first thing I *don't* think is, uh-huh, this a new release, hope the parking brake still works. I am making a living as a photographer, not a software tester.
There is a culture of software users expecting that there will be bugs. And this is not acceptable to me. Not at all. Software is just a product that does specific things just like any other my truck, my cameras, my lights etc.
I am sick sick sick of using professional grade software that some production manager has signed off on, knowing or not caring that there are significant bugs that will hit a key number of users.
And yes perhaps I should mention I also have a previous career in software development and yes I truly understand what is involved in releasing innovative products like this.
Don said above It is an iron law of software development--especially with innovative new applications in their early development. Lightroom fits that pattern to a tee. Buyer beware!
This absolutely is not an iron law. If you have ever used most Avid or Digidesign products you will know that as long as the machine specific conditions have been adhered to, then the product will indeed work as advertised. Its about quality control and someone in the developing company driving the development production with integrity and care.
Rock solid software development is generally about cost to trim the budget you can either cut time to market or trim the feature set or allow a higher acceptable failure rate (ie how many bugs are in the code) and Lightroom is one of the most important apps to appear since Photoshop itself.
Someone somewhere at Adobe needs a kick in the pants to get the quality of this up to where it needs to be. Get more testers on it, fire the qa manger, do whatever you have to do, but remember your radical and awesome application is now right on the bottom line mission critical workflow for many of us. And that is how you are positioning it when you sold it to us in the first place.
As I hope you can tell when reading this, I am indeed a fan of LR. A big one. I have converted dozens of my colleagues to use LR. It rocks for most things, even with its weird flawed odd orange color cast for some skin tones under some lighting conditions. It does stuff that no other app does.
I was just very very disappointed with this slide show bug.
Please Adobe LR folk, focus on this and get it fixed asap, and then keep an eye on the quality of your future releases. The use case for the slide show messing up on my particular machine running a super low number of images from small size jpgs on a recent Mac OS must have been very much on the left of your Gant chart...
Will Henshall

Help with .mkv files to DVD

Can anyone please advise what's the best way to put/convert MKV files onto DVD disk while maintaining the highest playback quality possible?
As an absolute beginner to video recording, here's what I'm doing at the moment:
I'm opening the files with Quicktime Pro and the Perian extension. I then select 'Window>Show Movie Properties' and delete the unwanted Chinese voiceover and subtitle tracks. When I exit Quicktime it saves a copy of the file as a MOV, which at least seems a step in the right direction (and takes under 10 seconds). While it's pretty hard to judge by eye, the picture quality seems about the same to me, so I'm guessing there are no losses at this stage...
I then burn the new MOV files to DVD disk using Toast (which doesn't seem to recognise MKV files, and why I'm converting them to MOV in Quicktime in the first place).
However, the burn process takes an eternity... well... 12 hours for a two hour DVD anyway! Also, the image quality is disappointing to say the least. Kinda like what happens when we start enlarging a low-res JPEG image. I've partly put the image quality issue down to the fact that while it might look acceptable on a standard TV, it was never meant to be viewed on a large-screen TV when it was originally recorded 25 years ago.
So, am I incurring any unnecessary losses in my conversion method? Is there a better way to tackle this, or any special Toast burn settings to watch out for? Is there a faster way (though I'm prepared to wait as long as the burn process takes if I can maintain the best image quality)?
Thanks in advance
Ernie

Lennart Thelander wrote:
Your question doesn't involve iMovie at all. Nor does the solution (if there is any).
Karsten is one of the most knowledgeable and helpful guys around and he guided you away from here, simply because we are iMovie experts. We are not generally video exports nor codec conversion experts.
So in your own interest: Seek the answer where there is expertise to answer YOUR question.
I can only repeat what I said in reply to the other poster:"I'm totally new to video editing etc., so how was I expected to know if it had anything to do with iMovie until I ask?"
For all I knew, iMovie might have given me the option to say, import the file after having converted it to '.this' format in QT, and been able to re-export it within a few minutes as a '.that' file-type which might have accomplished exactly what I was trying to achieve. As you said yourself, you're the "experts" with iM and that's why I came here asking.
I'd have respected and thanked him for the remainder of his advice... had he simply left off the totally unwarranted first paragraph. A simple: "Sorry, but iMovie can't do what you want. I suggest you look in x for y" would have gone down a lot better.
Thanks, and sorry to bother you

IPhoto is deleting (some) EXIF-Tags when editing

Hi,
i have the following problem with iPhoto 6.0.4:
When a picture is edited with iPhoto some of the stored EXIF informations are deleted. Sadly this is already the case when iPhoto rotates an image while importing it from my D50.
A little example: The following picture was imported with iPhoto from my camera an at this time automaticly rotated.
EXIF info of the file in the "Originals" Directory:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ExifTool Version Number : 6.08
File Name : DSC_0318.JPG
File Size : 3 MB
File Modification Date/Time : 2006:09:09 23:18:44
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Make : NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model Name : NIKON D50
Orientation : Rotate 90 CW
X Resolution : 300
Y Resolution : 300
Resolution Unit : inches
Software : Ver.1.00
Modify Date : 2006:09:09 18:25:32
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Co-sited
Exposure Time : 1/320
F Number : 9.0
Exposure Program : Program AE
Exif Version : 0221
Date/Time Original : 2006:09:09 18:25:32
Create Date : 2006:09:09 18:25:32
Components Configuration : YCbCr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel : 4
Exposure Compensation : 0
Max Aperture Value : 5.7
Metering Mode : Multi-segment
Flash : No Flash
Focal Length : 50.0mm
Firmware Version : 2.10
ISO : 200
Quality : Fine
White Balance : Auto
Focus Mode : AF-A
Flash Setting : Normal
Flash Type :
White Balance Fine Tune : 0
Exposure Difference : 0.0
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
Preview Image Start : 2632
Preview Image Length : 26016
Flash Exposure Compensation : 0.0
ISO Setting : 200
Image Boundary : 0 0 3008 2000
Flash Exposure Bracket Value : 0.0
Exposure Bracket Value : 0
Tone Comp : Auto
Lens Type : G
Lens : 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Flash Mode : Did Not Fire
AF Point : Single Area, Center
Shooting Mode : Single-Frame, Unused LE-NR Slowdown
Color Hue : Mode3a
Light Source : Natural
Hue Adjustment : 0
Noise Reduction : Off
Sensor Pixel Size : 7.8 x 7.8 um
Serial Number :
Image Data Size : 3312598
Shutter Count : 745
Image Optimization : Normal
Vari Program :
WB RGGB Levels : 691 321 321 441
Lens Data Version : 0201
AF Aperture : 5.7
Focus Position : 50
Focus Distance : 0.84 m
Lens ID Number : 140
Lens F Stops : 5.33
Min Focal Length : 18.3mm
Max Focal Length : 55.0mm
Max Aperture At Min Focal : 3.6
Max Aperture At Max Focal : 5.7
MCU Version : 142
Effective Max Aperture : 5.7
User Comment :
Sub Sec Time : 40
Sub Sec Time Original : 40
Sub Sec Time Digitized : 40
Flashpix Version : 0100
Color Space : sRGB
Exif Image Width : 3008
Exif Image Length : 2000
Interoperability Index : R98
Interoperability Version : 0100
Sensing Method : One-chip color area
File Source : Digital Camera
Scene Type : Directly photographed
CFA Pattern : [Blue,Green][Green,Red]
Custom Rendered : Normal
Exposure Mode : Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio : 1
Focal Length In 35mm Format : 75
Scene Capture Type : Standard
Gain Control : None
Contrast : Normal
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal
Subject Distance Range : Unknown (0)
Thumbnail Offset : 28788
Thumbnail Length : 8899
Profile CMM Type : appl
Profile Version : 2.2.0
Profile Class : Input Device Profile
Color Space Data : RGB
Profile Connection Space : XYZ
Profile Date Time : 2003:07:01 00:00:00
Profile File Signature : acsp
Primary Platform : Apple Computer Inc.
CMM Flags : Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer : appl
Device Model :
Device Attributes : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent : Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant : 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator : appl
Profile ID : 0
Red Matrix Column : 0.45427 0.24263 0.01482
Green Matrix Column : 0.35332 0.67441 0.09042
Blue Matrix Column : 0.15662 0.08336 0.71953
Media White Point : 0.95047 1 1.0891
Chromatic Adaptation : 1.04788 0.02292 -0.0502 0.02957 0.99049 -0.01706 -0.00923 0.01508 0.75165
Red Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Profile Description : Camera RGB Profile
Profile Copyright : Copyright 2003 Apple Computer Inc., all rights reserved.
Profile Description ML : Camera RGB Profile
Image Width : 3008
Image Height : 2000
Aperture : 9.0
Blue Balance : 1.37383
Image Size : 3008x2000
Lens ID : AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED
Lens : 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G
Preview Image : (Binary data 26016 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Red Balance : 2.15265
Scale Factor To 35mm Equivalent : 1.5
Shutter Speed : 1/320
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 8899 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Circle Of Confusion : 0.020 mm
Depth of Field : 0.10 m (0.80 - 0.89)
Focal Length : 50.0mm (35mm equivalent: 75.0mm)
Hyperfocal Distance : 13.87 m
Date/Time Original : 2006:09:09 18:25:32.40
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
EXIF info of the file in the "Modified" Directory:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ExifTool Version Number : 6.08
File Name : DSC_0318.JPG
File Size : 3 MB
File Modification Date/Time : 2006:09:09 23:18:46
File Type : JPEG
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Make : NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model Name : NIKON D50
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Resolution Unit : inches
Software : QuickTime 7.1.2
Modify Date : 2006:09:09 23:18:46
Host Computer : Mac OS X 10.4.7
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Centered
Exposure Time : 1/320
F Number : 9.0
Exposure Program : Program AE
ISO : 200
Exif Version : 0220
Date/Time Original : 2006:09:09 18:25:32
Create Date : 2006:09:09 18:25:32
Exposure Compensation : 0
Max Aperture Value : 5.7
Metering Mode : Multi-segment
Light Source : Unknown (0)
Flash : No Flash
Focal Length : 50.0mm
Color Space : sRGB
Sensing Method : One-chip color area
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
Thumbnail Offset : 638
Thumbnail Length : 5438
Comment : AppleMark.
Image Width : 2000
Image Height : 3008
Profile CMM Type : appl
Profile Version : 2.2.0
Profile Class : Input Device Profile
Color Space Data : RGB
Profile Connection Space : XYZ
Profile Date Time : 2003:07:01 00:00:00
Profile File Signature : acsp
Primary Platform : Apple Computer Inc.
CMM Flags : Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer : appl
Device Model :
Device Attributes : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent : Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant : 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator : appl
Profile ID : 0
Red Matrix Column : 0.45427 0.24263 0.01482
Green Matrix Column : 0.35332 0.67441 0.09042
Blue Matrix Column : 0.15662 0.08336 0.71953
Media White Point : 0.95047 1 1.0891
Chromatic Adaptation : 1.04788 0.02292 -0.0502 0.02957 0.99049 -0.01706 -0.00923 0.01508 0.75165
Red Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 14 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Profile Description : Camera RGB Profile
Profile Copyright : Copyright 2003 Apple Computer Inc., all rights reserved.
Profile Description ML : Camera RGB Profile
Aperture : 9.0
Image Size : 2000x3008
Shutter Speed : 1/320
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 5438 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Focal Length : 50.0mm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(EXIF extracted with http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/)
Is there any setting to prevent iPhoto from doing this? Or is this a know problem and will this be changed in the future?
thx in advance
Bapf
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Bapf:
Welcome to the Apple Discussions. I've noticed that any edit by iPhoto does leave out a number of EXIF fields. iPhoto, being a consumer application, is apparently not as concerned with EXIF/metadata as the professional applications like Aperture or iView MediaPro.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.

Slideshow not showing

Hi,
Ihave a pb with my DW slideshow that shows in DW preview but not in browsers...any ideas as to where the pb could come from please:
Here is the piece of code used if it helps
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,28,0" width="200" height="200">
        <param name="flash_component" value="ImageViewer.swc" />
        <param name="movie" value="../hostels.swf" />
        <param name="quality" value="high" />
        <param name="FlashVars" value="flashlet={frameShow:false,slideAutoPlay:true,showControls:true,imageURLs:['../imag es/img1.jpg','../images/img1.jpg','../images/img1.jpg'],bgColor:#FFFFFF,slideLoop:true}" /><param name="SCALE" value="noborder" />
        <embed src="../hostels.swf" width="200" height="200" quality="high" flashvars="flashlet={frameShow:false,slideAutoPlay:true,showControls:true,imageURLs:['../ images/img1.jpg','../images/img1.jpg','../images/img1.jpg'],bgColor:#FFFFFF,slideLoop:true }" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" scale="noborder"> </embed>
      </object>

Hi,
ok, I just wanted to know that we talk about the same thing.
Now I will/can persuade you to work instead with your dw-slideshow-instruments, either work with a
http://www.lokeshdhakar.com/projects/lightbox2
or a
http://www.shadowbox-js.com.
I prefer this simple solution for a slideshow.
Salue
Hans-G.

10.3.9 has been rock solid so why update to 10.4.6

Recently have been trouble shoting a relatives mac mini with 10.4.6 and have not been very impressed with Tiger.(mini seemed to struggle with 10.4.6 on board) Wigets were fun to play around with but did not seem that essential. The improved spot light seemed to be one of the best upgrades. What features for you have made the installation of Tiger worth the effort.
ron

Hi, I had the same opinion after I bought this IMac. I had an Emac 1.25 with 10.3.9 and I agree the best OS X, the MOST rock solid one.
I never had troubble with it, since 10.4..... always something.I'm really sad to say this because I know tons of engineers was working on it hard.
So ..."IF Tiger then 10.4.0."... was running the best of all tigers,( lately I was installed 10.4.6 update because I was kind of like front row style unfor- tunately) and with a few things I had already troubble after, I have got no patience to surfing through the discussion forums to find out why my airport screwed up suddenly , why my ISight mixes up with my eye tv 200 etc.., so my men stay with 10.3.9. trust me the speed is almost the same.( 2.0Ghz/2Gb Vram on IMac) Some of these days I'm going back to 10.4.0.
I think your life should be complete enough without front row or dashboard.
(another good advice , never Intel mac unless you want running only windows
on it!!) For all the engineers 5 stars for 10.3.9

Trying to view 2 swf files from one html page

http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow/public-list.html
ON the above page at the top there is DW code to view two SWF
files. See following code...only the Flash object on the left shows
up. On my MACBOOK PRO it displays correctly. Just after I FTP it to
the public server is where it and I get lost. How can I be viewing
in from my computer and NOT from the server. I know that both SWF
files are on the server in the directory they are suppose to be in.
THANKS...some of the code follows:
<div
style="position:relative;width:675px;height:345px;">
<div
style="position:absolute;top:102px;left:16px;width:300px;height:100px;">
<object
classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0"
height="100" width="300" name="Welcome_to_NextNow">
<param name="movie" value="WhoNextNow.swf">
<param name="quality" value="best">
<param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff">
<param name="play" value="true">
<embed src="WhoNextNow.swf" quality="high"
bgcolor="#00007f"
width="300" height="100"
name="Welcome_to_NextNow" pluginspage="
http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" play="true">
</embed>
</object>
</div>
<div
style="position:absolute;top:16px;left:336px;width:200px;height:280px;">
<script type="text/javascript">
AC_FL_RunContent('codebase','
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0','heig ht','280','width','200','pluginspage','http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer','src', 'photos/NNgroup','quality','best','play','true','movie','photos/NNgroup'
); //end AC code
</script>
<noscript>
<object
classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0"
height="280" width="200">
<param name="movie" value="photos/NNgroup.swf">
<param name="quality" value="best">
<param name="play" value="true">
<embed height="280" pluginspage="
http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
src="photos/NNgroup.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"
width="200" quality="best" play="true">
</embed>
</object>
</noscript>
</div>
</div>

bdaul wrote:
>
http://www.human-landscaping.com/nextnow/public-list.html
>
> ON the above page at the top there is DW code to view
two SWF files. See
> following code...only the Flash object on the left shows
up. On my MACBOOK PRO
> it displays correctly. Just after I FTP it to the public
server is where it
> and I get lost. How can I be viewing in from my computer
and NOT from the
> server. I know that both SWF files are on the server in
the directory they are
> suppose to be in.
>
> THANKS...some of the code follows:
>
> <div
style="position:relative;width:675px;height:345px;">
>
>
> <div
style="position:absolute;top:102px;left:16px;width:300px;height:100px;">
> <object
classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
> codebase="
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#ve
> rsion=6,0,0,0" height="100" width="300"
name="Welcome_to_NextNow">
> <param name="movie" value="WhoNextNow.swf">
> <param name="quality" value="best">
> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff">
> <param name="play" value="true">
> <embed src="WhoNextNow.swf" quality="high"
bgcolor="#00007f"
> width="300" height="100"
> name="Welcome_to_NextNow"
> pluginspage="
http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
> type="application/x-shockwave-flash" play="true">
> </embed>
> </object>
> </div>
>
> <div
style="position:absolute;top:16px;left:336px;width:200px;height:280px;">
> <script type="text/javascript">
>
> AC_FL_RunContent('codebase','
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/f
>
lash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0','height','280','width','200','pluginspage','ht
>
tp://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer','src','photos/NNgroup','quality','bes
> t','play','true','movie','photos/NNgroup' ); //end AC
code
> </script>
>
> <noscript>
>
> <object
classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
> codebase="
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#ve
> rsion=6,0,0,0" height="280" width="200">
> <param name="movie" value="photos/NNgroup.swf">
> <param name="quality" value="best">
> <param name="play" value="true">
>
> <embed height="280" pluginspage="
http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer"
> src="photos/NNgroup.swf"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="200"
> quality="best" play="true">
> </embed>
>
> </object>
> </noscript>
> </div>
> </div>
>
>
http://www.dreamweaverresources.com/tutorials/scroller.html

Error in SD Invoice print out

Dear friends,
We have ECC 6.00 since 2007 and system dully upgraded as on 30.12.2010.
we have copied the client 300 production to 200 quality on 27.01.2011.
SD involice created before the client copy is showing the print out correctly as
value 10,000,00.00 in VF03 transaction and the same in print out.
SD involice created AFTER the client copy is showing the print out as
value 10,000,00.00 in VF03 transaction and the print out is hsoeing as 10.000.00,00.
Print out is customized program. we have checked all the aspects including printer driver, spool, program, etc.
Invoice before 27.01.2011 shows correctly in print out but Invoice created after that is wrong.
We have tested in 300 & 200. Smae problem.
BUT WE HAVE CHECKED IN 120, AND IT IS OK.
We look any advise to check further from you..
Thanks in advance.
Jayant Joshi - Bahrain

Hi Jayant Joshi
First of all check after how many numbers wheather decimals are being used. and is it is a customized program , it is advised to discuss with your technical consultant. and ask your technical consultant to look into the program correctly
As it has been copied from one client to another client , so it is advised to check wheather the customized program Transports are copied completely or not.So also reach your Basis team to get the information
Thanks and Regards
Srinath

ACR 4.4 and Nikon D300

Hi,
I'm wondering if someone here could comment officially, unofficially, or even anecdotally on whether anything re: the D300 .nef handling has been changed in 4.4. To my eyes, the image quality of the conversion, i.e. detail extraction, color accuracy, etc. seems noticeably improved. Am I imagining this?
Thanks a lot.
Neil

There are two contributing factors to your perception of stability of Photoshop.
1. Bridge. It isn't stable and probably won't be in this version. Hopefully, CS4. Some things just happen, and then don't, and then happen differently. And nobody can figure out why. I have discovered workarounds for some problems, and Bridge seems to be fairly stable on my computer. For instance, I only apply settings to multiple images when I have Bridge in the light table mode (no side panels displayed). If I have any side panels open and I try to apply settings to multiple images, Bridge crashes every time on my computer. I have other little tidbits, but I won't bore you with them.
2. Windows Vista. Some people get along just fine with it. Others seem to be plagued with problems. I haven't followed the discussions closely, but it seems from the little bit of reading I have done that it is the people who are using the 64 bit version who are having the most problems.
As far as Russell Brown's stuff is concerned, it is really doubtful that any of that is causing problems on your computer. I use his plug-ins all the time. He is a real gem.

Master data transfer between systems

hey guys,
we have a 3 system landscape with the following clients:
DEV 100: golden configuration client
DEV 200: unit test
CIQ 100: qa configuration client
ciq 200: quality/test client
cip 100: production client
I have all the clients locked down to "not modifiable for both customizing and repository objects" except the DEV 100 client. One of my analysts wants to make changes to the master data in the unit test client because the master data is not there in the configuration client. Should I open this unit test client for modifications? If I do so, will I need to import the changes to CIQ and CIP through transport method or would those changes be made manually ? any kind of best practices surround the changes to master data ? My main concern is that if I open the unit test client, everybody would start doing development and customizing in that client and the configuration client would go out of sync. Please advise.
thanks
VM

Hi,
Any master data changes to a "non modifiable" client can be sent using one of the two options :
1. Transport Request
2. ALE (IDoc)
Most probably the master data change he wants to transport requires an ALE setup between the two systems.
Regards,
Jovito

Analog to DVD

Newbie here,
This may sound so lame but I am trying to convert my old VHS tapes to DVD. I have Eye TV 200 and an iMac G5. First of all, what is the best FPS to transfer at? Also, is it better to export to Quicktime or in another format?
I've wasted several DVD's trying to get this right. The picture was heavily pixelated in my first try. The picture is better in my lastest try but there is some ghosting. There are also a few glitches. I've turned off other applications and the screensaver but that doesn't appear to have helped. I don't have a VCR with an S-Input but am shopping around but since everything is going digital even that is hard to find.
Thanks for your help.
iMac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.2) 1.9 Ghz, 512 MB, external firewire drive

You transfer at the frame rate of your original
video.
Export to Quicktime from what application?
I am using Eye TV and I export to iMovie from there where I do my edits and then I go into iDVD. Exporting is confusing, however, since it includes exporting as iMovie, iMovie HD, iDVD, MPEG 4, and Quicktime.
Also, the options for encoding are confusing. Is MPEG-4 best or is High (DVD 90-min) better?
This last time I did it, I encoded at High (DVD 90-min) and I exported as iMovie. There was less pixelation but there was still ghosting. There was also less picture jerkiness but that could have been because this was a 1-hour recording and my previous try was a 2-hour recording.

Merge Clip using "Audio" function

The merge clip using the audio parameter works occassionally. I shot dual system with a slate, camera mic on a RED for scratch audio and multiple inputs on a Sound Device 744t. Some of the clips merged great, but some of the other ones didn't work at all. Even when there were shots within the same setup but just a different take, some worked and some didn't. Are there best practices in terms of how to use or configure Premiere Pro to match those clips better? Any parameters I can use to adjust how it analyzes the clips?

I'll add a third motion to this thread. There are several features of the new Premiere CC that I was looking forward to, but the "audio syncing" was by far the most exciting to me as it would save me several steps in Plural Eyes (and $200 bucks). So when I downloaded CC, this was, of course, the FIRST new feature I tried out. First, I selected multiple takes from various cameras (3 cameras, Canon HF G20 [AVCHD / MTS] and Canon EOS 7D [MP4 / MOV]) and audio recorders (320k mp3 voice files [I have my reasons for this project ]). I right click and select "Create Multi-Camera Source Sequence". I select "Audio" as the sync method. Premiere goes to work attempting to sync all sources. I am excited because it seems to be racing along much faster than PluralEyes. When Premiere finishes, it leaves me with a new Multi-Camera Source Sequence that has a separate track for every take. I'm not shooting one continuous concert for 2 hours, I'm shooting reality footage. This means that during a 3 hour event, my camera operators might start and stop recording every 20 minutes, or run for 40 mintues, etc. We try to get sync points (clap sync from the same source) either at the beginning or end of each run. The audio recorders, however, run for the full 3, 5, or 10 hour run. PluralEyes is amazing at handling all of this, with *almost* perfect results; I'd say 95% success rate. But in my experience, running the same footage through Premiere's new "sync on audio" feature (whether creating Multi-Camera Source, or simply Merging clips [as in this thread]), I get aproximately a 99% failure rate. I'll end up with a completely messed up timeline with each camera spread out across 5 video tracks (3 cameras x 5 takes = 15 tracks of video). Each camera also has it's own set of audio tracks (2 for stereo) and each mono audio recorder gets another audio track. So I've got something like 20 or more tracks of audio. This would all be fine, I suppose, if they were at all sync'ed to eachother in some recognizable way. But they are not. Not even close. Not even in a way that resembles the most feable *attempt* to synchronize these sources.
I'll try to post a video later today, to show the above workflow. While there are many new features that made upgrading a "can't wait" proposition for me, THIS feature was hands-down the most promising for my reality-style workflow.

Front Row and EyeTV

Does iMac G5's Front Row system work with TV system such as the Eye TV 200?

Sorry Charles, but at this time, the answer is NO. This new iMac will be able to connect to the Eye TV 200 but not through Front Row. You'll end up with two remotes, which does not mean Apple may not in the future upgrade this new software to integrate TV tuners such as Elgato's Eye TV 200. By the way, Apple announced today the new person in charge of Apple Germany. He happens to be the former CEO of Elgato. I'd say the future looks good in this regard.

Client Specific TMS configuration

Hi,
How can configure client specific STMS
For eg;
Development Request from client 100 goes to Client 100 in quality, client 200 from Development200 goes to Qulaity Client 300.
Dev(100) --- Quality(100) -- Production
Dev(200) --- Quality(300) -- Production
Thanku

Hai,
You can use Extended Transport control to achieve this.
http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw04/helpdata/en/1b/9dc2d6e59911d184810000e8a57770/content.htm
http://searchsap.techtarget.com/tip/1,289483,sid21_gci916309,00.html
Regards,
Yoganand.V

Eye Tv 200 Quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for