FCp for the web

What is the best way to output my FCP movies for web streaming? I want the best possibly quality for my images but am not sure the best way to go about this.

Hi Rachael,
This should help you:
http://www.kenstone.net/fcphomepage/qt_movies_fromfcp.html
Cheers,
Uwe

Similar Messages

Exporting FCP 16:9 to QT for the web in 16:9?

Hello everyone,
I recently began doing my projects in 16:9 mode. I shoot them with my GL2's in 16:9, then capture to FCP as usual. FCP then automatically recognizes the 16:9 footage and adjusts everything perfectly for me. I figured out how to get the footage to DVDSP by 'forcing letterbox'. This plays the true 16:9 footage on a widescreen TV perfectly.
Now, I've come to another bridge that I can't seem to cross... that is... exporting the video to QT for the web in 16:9. I did a lot of searching here and all of the topics related to this did not help me at all. So, what I'm going to do is explain what I used to do when I shot in 4:3 mode:
1. In FCP... File>Export>QT Conversion
2. Format: QT Movie> Options
3. Settings> Sorenson Video 3
4. Frame Rate>15
5. Key Frames: Every 150 frames
6. Compressor> Medium
7. Data Rate: Automatic
8. OK
9. Sound>Settings>Mpeg-4 Audio, 16bit, Stereo
10. OK
11. Prepare for Internet Streaming> Fast Start
12. OK
13. SAVE
This usually turns a full sized 5 minute clip into a nice little presentation for the web no larger than 35 or so MB's. You can see a boat load of files like that on my website at (www.buerhausdesign.com).
Now, what I want to do is get a similar sized video for the web, only in 16:9 as I'm now shooting and editing in 16:9.
Does anyone have step-by-step instructions on how to do this? I know it's possible as I see movie trailors in 16:9 all the time in QT.
Any help would be appreciated:)
Matt

Nope, tried all of that. It stretches the image way beyond 16:9. Currently, if I export as a 4:3 file, the widescreen displays correctly, but I get two black bars at the top and bottom of the frame. Manually sizing to a 16:9 size, to say 720x404, stretches everything... including the unwanted black bars.
When I export to DVDSP, the black bars go away when I 'force letterbox'. There's gotta be a way to get it to work in QT.

Should I deinterlase my movie before compressing to a h264 file for the web

Hi I have a movie in fcp that I want to compress for the web. I am going to compress it to a h264 file using quicktime. I was wondering if I should deinterlace the movie before compressing it
thanks sam

I have done it both ways and on computer monitors at least its always been my experience that DEINTERLACING the video looks better. Quite a bit better.
Now there are 2 main ways to do it. And I've gotten similar results both ways. You can deinterlace from within Final Cut Pro which works fine or you can set Compressor to Deinterlace. Now I've read articles on why one is better than the next, but at least with Final Cut Pro 5.1.4 in the videos I've worked on I can't tell the difference. It looks good both ways.
Hope that helps-

Getting best possible look for the web!

I am using Compressor for compressing my footage for the web. When I export out of FCP my footage looks nice and crystal clear however when I compress the footage then upload to the net its not as nice looking as it was. Now I recently bought a Compressor DVD Tutorial by Ripple Training Series. I pretty much knew just about everything on that DVD. I did try some suggestive settings that have made somewhat of a difference but its not crystal clear like many videos I see uploaded to DVXuser. The settings below might be okay it might just be the hosting site I have my videos on. Currently I am using www.sharkle.com
Here are some settings I use:
Compression Type - Sorenson Video 3
Frame Rate 15
Key Frame Every 75 frames
Quality - Medium
Restrict Data to 400kbps (this is for DSL modems) around 1500 for cable modems
Audio
Q Design Music 2
Channels = Stereo
Sample Rate = 48k
Streaming = Fast Start
Geometry
320x240
If anyone sees anything that I should change or try out differently please let me know. Again I am using Compressor and can also compress using Quicktime as well.
Here is a link to the latest video I completed for the web:
http://www.sharkle.com/video/78755/
I am not sure if SHARKLE is recompressing the footage. If it is then thats why its not as good of quality.

Their making a FLV file from your sent in video.
Push your video back up to a high quality movie and send that in to them.
What you have sent in has all been squeezed highly with compression. Then they take and further compress it in the FLV format. Double compressing...not good.

Recomended configurations for creating video for the web

I'm working on a project creating video segments for the web (no plans for broadcast of DVD) and I'm looking for opinions on the most efficient way to use FCP to do this. We are shooting with an HD camera with a green screen and composting a couple of additional layers of Motion graphics and we found that the render times were really long. I'm looking for ways to mitigate this, on thing we did was switch from shooting in 1080p to 720p. We also tried shooting at 24fps instead of the broadcast 60fps and that cut our render time by a good percentage. Since the final product is going to be 640 by 360 at 15fps it seems like a good trade off but are there any down sides I'm not thinking of.
I was also wondering if there might be an advantage to working at the size of the final product, if the FCP sequence were 640 by 360 would there be any advantages in terms of render times and what might the disadvantages would be.
This is my first semi-professional project, just been a hobbyist up until now so any advice is appreciated.

MoSaT wrote:
We are shooting with an HD camera with a green screen and composting a couple of additional layers of Motion graphics and we found that the render times were really long. I'm looking for ways to mitigate this, on thing we did was switch from shooting in 1080p to 720p. We also tried shooting at 24fps instead of the broadcast 60fps and that cut our render time by a good percentage.
those simple steps reduced the number of pixels in each frame from about a million to 750,00, about 25%; and you reduced the number of frames from 30 or 60 to 24 or 48. So, yeah, your rendering times are going down. If your Motion project has ten HD layers you're saving tons of processing.
MoSaT wrote:
This is my first semi-professional project, just been a hobbyist up until now so any advice is appreciated.
Since the final product is going to be 640 by 360 at 15fps it seems like a good trade off but are there any down sides I'm not thinking of.
Absolutely. But you engaged the project without knowing how you were going to accomplish anything; implies your plans for improving workflow will be similarly incomplete. We all got by with NTSC and plan ol' DV for decades. The web is a low end distribution system, not a theatrical viewing experience. You can force your viewers to download a huge file and watch it on their TVs or you can open it up in weensy teeny window on their iPhones.
MoSaT wrote:
I was also wondering if there might be an advantage to working at the size of the final product, if the FCP sequence were 640 by 360 would there be any advantages in terms of render times and what might the disadvantages would be.
Purists will be correct in telling you better source footage results in better uploads. I will tell you that's true but it's academic. Your realworld needs are based on your web upload, not your plans to archive high def footage for future exploitation.
Here's what I'd do: Work backwards. Figure out what your upload needs are--exactly. Research Compressor and other compression systems to determine how you are going to process your project to get the target output. Now decide what format that software wants to process to create the best results. then figure out how you want to provide that input for the compression application. then figure out what the tradeoffs are for your original footage in terms of your camera resources, your skills with the camera, and your mistaken impression that effects and chromakey should be fast.
bogiesan

HD720p for the web

I tried and tried to compresse from my HD720p out from FCP to 720p for the web. I get awfull results. pixalised images and bigger files. are their presets for the web, or any place where I can find the good settings to get files that look as good as the apple HD galerie. It's suppose to be easy with apple but this time it's not.

here are one of the settings I used,
I did try with more quality but got
not so good results with verry big files
If you go to http://www.jiyano.com and click on the star on
the top left you will see what I mean. I put a before and after picture.
Name: hd test 160206
Description: H.264 for high-bandwidth streaming
File Extension: mov
Estimated file size: unknown
Audio Encoder
AAC, Stereo (L R), 48.000 kHz
Video Encoder
Format: QT
Width: 1280
Height: 720
Pixel aspect ratio: default
Crop: None
Frame rate: 29.97
Frame Controls: Off
Codec Type: H.264
Multi-pass: On, frame reorder: On
Pixel depth: 24
Spatial quality: 73
Min. Spatial quality: 25
Key frame interval: 24
Temporal quality: 50
Min. temporal quality: 25
Hinted for QuickTime
streaming server

Clip for the web

Hi. A client has asked us to create a clip suitable for the web for a project we recently edited for them. What the best programme to use to this? I heard Mpeg Steamclip is good but there is sooo many settings. The clip was edited in FCP 7 its 5 minutes longs. Client simply wants the file so they can upload to their site. could someone please advise settings which result in the clip loading pretty fast while keeping the quality good.
Thanks.

Any serious converter will have many settings for your indulgence. Before you do any conversions ask your client of the size he requires. You can use compressor to convert to H264, or a load of other programmes such as MPEG Streamclip. The problem with other converters is that they cost money whereas compressor is part of FCS and MPEG Streamclip is free.

HDV Aspect Ratio and Exporting For the Web

INTRODUCTION
I am trying to export an HDV video for the first time and have managed to confuse myself. I want to upload it to blip.tv and they transcoded videos into Flash with 4:3 aspect ratio. But more than that, I want to understand how this all works so I don't have to guess about the settings that will give me what I want.
BACKGROUND DATA
4/3 is 1.333...
16/9 is 1.777...
1440/1080 is 1.333... (if the pixels are square)
1920/1080 is 1.777... (if the pixels are square)
In FCP my clip format says:
Frame Size: 1440 x 1080
Pixel Aspect: HD (1440 x 1080) (Does this mean the pixels are 1.333... times wider than it is high?)
EXPORT USING QUICKTIME CONVERSION
When I go to export this clip using Quicktime Conversion under the Options... Size... dialog and look at the Dimensions dropdown, (I assume this is the dimensions of the exported video. Is that correct?)
Some of the settings are (the settings are in quotes, my notes are in parentheses.):
"HD 1440 x 1080 16:9" (if pixels are square this is 4/3)
"HD 1920 X 1080 16:9" (if pixels are square this is 16/9)
So both of these settings claim to be 16:9 but they both can't be true unless they have different pixel aspect ratios (which I find hard to believe). This makes me think I don't really know what they mean when they notate something as 16:9. Can anyone give a definition that will help me here?
EXPORTING FOR THE WEB
Using FCS2, what settings should I use to export this clip undistorted for the web (with letterbox if needed)?
Thanks for the help,
Rob:-]

What I find with HDV 16x9 1440x1080 footage, is that when you output for the web you have to hard code the size you want the result to be. 320x180 or 640x360 for example scale things nicely. If you want bigger, just do the math.
I don't know why but whenever I select a predefined output size, it always screws it up (I don't work with 4:3 ever, so I'm speaking only of 16x9). So I always enter the size I want.
And as far as Compressor 3, I really can't get that to set the size I want correctly either. Mostly its due to me being lazy and not wanting to spend a year reading the Compressor manual. A package that should basically have the easiest interface known to man is now so complicated that unless I have to hand-holding tutorial, or get to drag/drop one of their presets, I end up screwing things up with it. Not to mention that you get to wait for hours just to see how you screwed up the settings of your output.

24p for the Web... de-interlacing?

Hi all,
I am stumped. I am editing a project in FCP 5.1.2 shot on a DVX-100A in 24p (not advanced). I captured the footage using the Easy Set up option of DV-NTSC.
My problem is a usual one that has been posted often, but rarely clearly solved. I see horizontal line artifacts on any shot with movement in my timeline and when I export to Quicktime. Look at the kid climbing rope in the following captured still (click on the still to enlarge):
http://homepage.mac.com/obidow/deinterlace/PhotoAlbum3.html
The artifacts disappear in two ways: a) when I watch the footage on an NTSC monitor, the artifacts disappear b) I can put an FCP de-interlace filter on the clips and the problem disappears when viewed on the computer.
However, this project is for the Web, not to be viewed on TV or DVD, and I seem to lose a lot of quality with the de-interlace filter (oddly, the de-interlace filter makes it look exactly like a DVD on an NTSC monitor).
My question is this: is there a way to eliminate the artifacts for computer viewing without using a de-interlacing filter?
Secondly, (and less importantly to me right now) why EXACTLY does this happen? I have read a ton about 24p and pulldown and interlacing and Cinema Tools, etc. but I still can't get a handle on it. Some sites say 24p does not need to be de-interlaced, some say it does, some say you need Cinema Tools, some say FCP can do it--- ARRGGGH--I just can't figure it out.
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
I have read a ton about Cinema TOols and pulldowns and
Mac Pro Tower/Powerbook G4 Mac OS X (10.4.8)
Mac Pro Tower/Powerbook G4 Mac OS X (10.4.8)

What is Pulldown?
google reveals these Pulldown explanation pages:
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/#24pRecording
http://home.aol.com/ajaynejr/pulldown.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p
http://www.zerocut.com/tech/pulldown.html
http://www.denecke.com/24pinfo.htm
here's a visual representation of 24P with pulldown added to be recorded on a 29.97 tape (this is how all feature films are broadcast on NTSC)
As you can see, you get a BC frame and a CD frame that are made up of fields of differing frames. Thus the artifacts you present in your still.
Patrick

What are BEST settings for the WEB?

Hello, I have a short in RED Hd 1920/1080 finished on FCP 6. I made a QT and then used compressor to make a 800mbps Quicktime for the web, deinterlaced and checked BETTER tab, others stayed with regular.
I also made one through FCP into a QT in 640/480 which is size I need.
On the web it looks clear and plays fine. Problem is when there is motion or
lots of movement, it stops and goes, jitters like ****, not smooth all.
What settings are best to make it SMOOOTH, just like when watching it on computer or as best. I know you got much bigger things to talk about but if you know please let me know.
H.264, Mpeg4 or Sorenson ect...just looking for smooth as can get it for playing on web.
THANKS.

800mbps Quicktime for the web,< </div>
The compression is reducing the number of pixels being shown in order to maintain the bitrate. So rapid motion, which requires nearly all of the pixels to be redrawn, causes things to stutter.
Compression is really, really hard to do. Really.
bogiesan

The save for the web function has stopped working in my copy of photoshop elements 12. I get this message, " The operation could not be completed. The system cannot find the path specified" Resetting preferences did not fix.

The save for the web function has stopped working in my copy of photoshop elements 12. I get this message, “ The operation could not be completed. The system cannot find the path specified” Resetting preferences did not fix.

my os is windows 7. elements 12 worked fine for many months then save for the web stopped working

HD video compressed for the web

I was doing some testing trying to figure out the best way to compress the HD video I get from the Sony XDCAM HD for the web (streaming). I shoot in HD (1080/30P) because it's needed for our videos. The web streaming is secondary.
I would prefer to make the web videos .flv because it works best and most easily cross-platform. In the real world, the majority of users have Windows PCs, which made me hesitant to use h.264 (.m4v) because it probably would require the average user to download things they may not wan to. Nonetheless, it has to be viewable on all computers in all browers.
So, I took three 10 second clips of steady camera video with audio from the camera that I used in all tests. I will refer to them by clip number...
Clip 1: 30P 16:9 High quality, 10sec=45mb
Clip 2: 30P 16:9 Low Quality, 10sec=24mb
Clip 3: 60i 16:9 High Quality, 10sec=45mb
First I tested making FLV is Adobe CS3 Encoder using the High Quality (700) setting.
Test 1 used size 848x480 (16:9)
Clip 1: 1.3mb
Clip 2: 1.1mb
Clip 3: 1.2mb
Comments: Looked very crisp, audio was clean, slightly darker image than original on default settings
Test 2 used size 480x270 (16:9)
Clip 1: 1.2mb
Clip 2: 1.1mb
Clip 3: 1.1mb
Comments: Looked very crisp, audio was clean, slightly darker image than original on default settings
Next, I tested making .m4v using the h.264 iPod settings in Compressor.
Test 1 used size 640x370.
Clip 1: 240kb
Clip 2: 1440kb
Clip 3: 204kb
Comments: Image wasn't quite as clean as the Flash files, but still good. Much lighter/brighter than the Flash files also. Low Quality HD video had high file size... why? I don't know, but I don't shoot on LQ for things anyway.
Test 2 used size 320x180.
Clip 1: 160kb
Clip 2: 865kb
Clip 3: 865kb
Comments: Image wasn't quite as clean as the Flash files, but still good. Much lighter/brighter than the Flash files also. Low Quality HD video had high file size... also the 60i file...why? I don't know.
In conclusion, I'm lucky that I shoot 30P since it worked well in all areas. The h264 codec provides a much smaller file size than Flash, with a good image. Amazing considering we started with a 45MB clip. What are the standards for aspect ratios for putting 16:9 video on the web? I haven't heard much set in stone like you have for 4:3 video. Nonetheless, the 640x360 or 480x270 seem to be a nice size for most uses.
I have heard that in Flash 9 you can chance the m4v extension to flv and it will work. IF that is true, that would be great because now my concern is that a base Windows PC cannot play these .m4v images without plugins/codecs. I suppose right now its a tradeoff between smaller file size/less compatibility with h264 or larger file size, great compatibility with Flash.
Any comments or suggestions to help out would be great. I typed this fast so forgive me if I left out any important info.

Hi APPLE27:
One comment from your post that immediately caught my attention was this, "Nonetheless, it has to be viewable on all computers in all browsers."
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to expect one digital video file to be viewable on "all computers in all browsers" as there are simply too may variations in both hardware and software.
A common approach when offering digital video is to provide two formats to choose from and then within each of those two formats a few versions of the video for different bandwidths.
For example, a web site might offer Video for Windows and QuickTime. For each of these, there would be a low bandwidth Video for Windows file and QuickTime file and a high bandwidth Video for Windows file and QuickTime file (four files total). Of course, there's also Flash Video, Real Video, MPEG1, and so on.
For better or worse, YouTube.com has allowed video content creators the realistic expectation of creating a digital video file that is viewable on "most computers". But, the video is unavoidably tied to that web site.
When it comes to online distribution of video, it's still very open ended.
Also, computers are not all that's out there. Mobile devices are a huge market and you'd be hard pressed to create a single digital video file that will play on all mobile devices (iPhone, iPod Touch, Palm Treo, Sony PSP, etc.) either from local storage or from a mobile browser.
QuickTime offers a solution for creating a referencing movie - one file that links to other digital video files, but it too is imperfect at best when it comes to reaching the broadest audience possible.
With my few comments here, I'm just scratching the surface. But, it all starts where you are right now: caring about the image quality when exporting from your edited master.
-Warren

I've just bought a Macbook Pro 15" and I'm trying to use Photoshop, but the resolution its displaying the images at for 100% are too small. I have to design for the web, so need to be intricate with detail, but I'm finding it adjusts the resolution of the

I've just bought a Macbook Pro 15" and I'm trying to use Photoshop, but the resolution its displaying the images at for 100% are too small. I have to design for the web, so need to be intricate with detail, but I'm finding it adjusts the resolution of the image right down. (I mean you can see the image clearly, but it's too small to edit). When I look at Safari and see a web page at 100% it's clear, but the same page displayed in Photoshop CC appears 50% of the size (even though it says it's 100%) If I move the application window to another screen it adjusts it correctly – leaving all the pallettes, menus and tools correctly sized as they are on the retina display Is there some way to adjust the way Photoshop CC displays images so it is more consistent with what you actually see? There doesn't seem to be any answer on the Adobe forum, so hopefully someone here can shed some light. MacBook Pro with Retina display, 15", OS X Yosemite (10.10.2), Photoshop CC 2014

I tested both ways. With "open in low resolution" ckecked the size of the images is cool, but it is low-resolution including Photoshop appearance.
If "open in low resolution" is unckecked the appearance is good but the very small size.
See the image below. It has 650 x 732 px, 72 dpi. The font of the text "Neste aniversário ..." is with 18pt.

Saving JPG to PNG using Save for the Web

Morning
I came across Paul Riggott's script for saving PSD to PNG which I changed to JPG to PSD.
The only problem with this is that the file size in most cases is larger than the original.
Is there a way to do a save as for the web as well?
Here is the original code:
#target photoshop
var imageFolder = Folder.selectDialog("Select top folder to process");
var folderList=[];
if (imageFolder != null) {
processFolder(imageFolder);
folderList.unshift(imageFolder);
createPNGfromJPG(folderList);
function createPNGfromJPG(folderList){
for(var a in folderList){
var fileList = folderList[a].getFiles ("*.jpg");
   for (var z in fileList){
    var file = fileList[z];
    open(file);
    var Name = fileList[z].name.replace(/\.[^\.]+$/, '');
    var saveFile = File(decodeURI(fileList[z].path+"/"+Name+".png"));
    SavePNG(saveFile);
    app.activeDocument.close(SaveOptions.DONOTSAVECHANGES);
function processFolder(folder) {
    var fileList = folder.getFiles()
     for (var i = 0; i < fileList.length; i++) {
        var file = fileList[i];
if (file instanceof Folder) {
folderList.push(file);
       processFolder(file);
function SavePNG(saveFile){
    pngSaveOptions = new PNGSaveOptions();
    pngSaveOptions.embedColorProfile = true;
    pngSaveOptions.formatOptions = FormatOptions.STANDARDBASELINE;
    pngSaveOptions.matte = MatteType.NONE;
    pngSaveOptions.quality = 1;
pngSaveOptions.PNG8 = false;
    pngSaveOptions.transparency = true;
activeDocument.saveAs(saveFile, pngSaveOptions, true, Extension.LOWERCASE);
Any help or support to head me in the right direction would be appreciated.
Iain

This uses "Fitimage"....
#target photoshop
var imageFolder = Folder.selectDialog("Select top folder to process");
var folderList=[];
if (imageFolder != null) {
processFolder(imageFolder);
folderList.unshift(imageFolder);
createPNGfromJPG(folderList);
function createPNGfromJPG(folderList){
for(var a in folderList){
var fileList = folderList[a].getFiles ("*.jpg");
   for (var z in fileList){
    var file = fileList[z];
    open(file);
    var Name = fileList[z].name.replace(/\.[^\.]+$/, '');
    var saveFile = File(decodeURI(fileList[z].path+"/"+Name+".png"));
    FitImage(640,640); //Resizes to the longest size
    //FitImage(128,128);
    savePNG8SFW(saveFile);
    app.activeDocument.close(SaveOptions.DONOTSAVECHANGES);
function processFolder(folder) {
    var fileList = folder.getFiles()
     for (var i = 0; i < fileList.length; i++) {
        var file = fileList[i];
if (file instanceof Folder) {
folderList.push(file);
       processFolder(file);
function savePNG8SFW(saveFile) {
    var desc8 = new ActionDescriptor();
        var desc9 = new ActionDescriptor();
        desc9.putEnumerated( charIDToTypeID('Op '), charIDToTypeID('SWOp'), charIDToTypeID('OpSa') );
        desc9.putEnumerated( charIDToTypeID('Fmt '), charIDToTypeID('IRFm'), charIDToTypeID('PNG8') );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('Intr'), false );
        desc9.putEnumerated( charIDToTypeID('RedA'), charIDToTypeID('IRRd'), charIDToTypeID('Sltv') );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('RChT'), false );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('RChV'), false );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('AuRd'), false );
        desc9.putInteger( charIDToTypeID('NCol'), 256 ); //Number of colours.
        desc9.putEnumerated( charIDToTypeID('Dthr'), charIDToTypeID('IRDt'), charIDToTypeID('Dfsn') );
        desc9.putInteger( charIDToTypeID('DthA'), 100 );
        desc9.putInteger( charIDToTypeID('DChS'), 0 );
        desc9.putInteger( charIDToTypeID('DCUI'), 0 );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('DChT'), false );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('DChV'), false );
        desc9.putInteger( charIDToTypeID('WebS'), 0 );
        desc9.putEnumerated( charIDToTypeID('TDth'), charIDToTypeID('IRDt'), charIDToTypeID('None') );
        desc9.putInteger( charIDToTypeID('TDtA'), 100 );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('Trns'), true );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('Mtt '), false );
        desc9.putInteger( charIDToTypeID('MttR'), 255 );
        desc9.putInteger( charIDToTypeID('MttG'), 255 );
        desc9.putInteger( charIDToTypeID('MttB'), 255 );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('SHTM'), false );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('SImg'), true );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('SSSO'), false );
            var list3 = new ActionList();
        desc9.putList( charIDToTypeID('SSLt'), list3 );
        desc9.putBoolean( charIDToTypeID('DIDr'), false );
        desc9.putPath( charIDToTypeID('In '),File( saveFile) );
    desc8.putObject( charIDToTypeID('Usng'), stringIDToTypeID('SaveForWeb'), desc9 );
    executeAction( charIDToTypeID('Expr'), desc8, DialogModes.NO );
function FitImage( inWidth, inHeight ) {
if ( inWidth == undefined || inHeight == undefined ) {
alert( "FitImage requires both Width & Height!");
return;
var desc = new ActionDescriptor();
var unitPixels = charIDToTypeID( '#Pxl' );
desc.putUnitDouble( charIDToTypeID( 'Wdth' ), unitPixels, inWidth );
desc.putUnitDouble( charIDToTypeID( 'Hght' ), unitPixels, inHeight );
var runtimeEventID = stringIDToTypeID( "3caa3434-cb67-11d1-bc43-0060b0a13dc4" );
executeAction( runtimeEventID, desc, DialogModes.NO );

HT5182 How can I convert Raw images from iphoto to jpg for the web?

I have some pictures in Raw mode stored in my Iphoto that I need to convert in JPG for the web and to print in business cards, I have been going around e-mailing the pictures to myself in large or medium size and then saving them again to my iphoto. Is there a way to do this from iphoto directly?

iMac (24-inch Early 2009), iOS 6
Are your pictures on your iMac or on an IOS device?
On your iMac use "File > Export " set the jpeg quality and size you want:
Regards
Léonie
Sorry, Ralph, I see, we have been cross posting

FCp for the web

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for