File looks different on another PC

Hello there, I am using Fireworks CS5 both at work and home for web layouts. The problem is when I get a file I worked on at work to finish up at home, the file looks different. Lots of the layers are decolored, and that becomes a big problem when we are talking about a complex and precise gradient. Both PCs have the same version of Fireworks. Any help?

The problem is likely be the difference in the monitors themselves. Have you calibrated them?
http://www.pcworld.com/article/241957/how_to_calibrate_your_monitor.html

Similar Messages

The way Aperture renders my Nikon RAW (NEF) files look different than...

The was Aperture renders my NEF files looks different than NX...
Ok so I use all the in camera setting/tools to the best of abilities to try and cut my editing down as much as possible but when shooting RAW I end up having to tweak every images to get them back to what they really look like... I shoot often RAW and JPG combined and when I open a NEF in NX and a JPG in PS they are identical and need very little work, when I use Aperture the NEF files are very different looking from the JPG (or NEF in NX) and every single one needs tweaking (I get more redish/pinkish skin, often a hint of green cast to (slightly off WB/tone thing) and more contrast.
Below is screenshot showing the difference between a JPG (or NEF in NX) and a RAW file in Aperture
[img]http://www.pbase.com/ray645/image/120052970/original.jpg[/img]
This is just a silly snap shot in very flat overcast light, and has the least amount of shift or difference of any image type so far, when I use strobes, shoot for a more contrasty image, gel for color and manual WB the differences are huge almost to the point that you would think you where looking at two completely different images and not the same NEF opened in different software.
How do I go about getting Aperture to render my NEF's more like what I shot like NEF in NX, JPG in anything, and even the back of the camera screen?

Thank you, that seems like will work, just having the boost turned down a bit on import has helped tremendously but I cant stop feeling like I am moving towards the "Fix it in post" mentality
I will need to get better at tweaking my images... No matter how I try I cant kill the pinking skin or the very faint green glow in blond hair or bright neutral tones without affecting other areas of the image.. I am sure I will figure it out but anyone having any tips or links that could speed up my process I would appreciate it.
The green is weird its like someone snuck a small florescent light into all my shoots without telling me, not major but enough to be annoying.
I shoot a ton of motor sports (3000 images a weekend) and shoot JPG and have gotten good at using in camera pre sets, knowing what I got and getting it right in the camera, I wish Nikon would give up the code or whatever is needed for all the info to be carried over to Aperture..... I would pay the $100 or whatever to use the NX engine in Aperture

Printed file looks different...

When my files print, some of the text shows up as a different weight even though they are all set to the same weight in indesign. For instance when I print a magazine spread, I have all the text set to book but the first paragraph when printed looks light and the second bold and only the third looks as it should. The only thing I can think of is that a graphic is somehow messing me up.
Does anyone know why this happens and how I can fix it? Thanks!

This is a known effect on low-resolution printers. You can put a small transparent object out of the way on the master page and it may make them all consistent, though a bit bold. It's also important to keep text above transparency or effects in the stacking order.

D600 RAW files look different that D300 raw files

Please help me understand what's going on and more importantly, how to fix it.
RAW files from my D300 and my D600 look completely different. These are both NEF files, imported to Lightroom 4.2 using exactly the same import preset. I did NOTHING to either file, except that the D300 one was at 1/160 second and the D600 one was at 1/200 second, so I changed exposure on the D300 one by 1/3 stop so they would match. What I did was to shoot the D300 picture, then carefully changed the lens over to the D600 without moving anything, changed the D600 to DX mode to match the field of view and shot the same picture. The files should be essentially identical.
[b]This is from the D300:[/b]
[b]This is from the D600:[/b]
You will notice that the saturation on the D600 image is much higher. And it's much more yellow. The pictures were shot 2 minutes apart, from the same spot. Same lens, same camera settings.
First thing I did was to change the color temperature and tint to match: from 4150/+6 to 4200/+2. There was no visible change (I'm looking at them in compare mode in Lightroom on a calibrated monitor).
Next, I tried to change the D600 image to match the D300 one. I had to make substantial changes to both color balance and saturation of various colors, as well as contrast and black levels to get close. I'd give you absolute numbers but it varies from image to image. In this case, I had to drop the color temperature to 3500, for instance. The easiest way to do this was to use the white balance eyedropper on a grey area in the road.
I'm wondering if this is related to how LR handles the D600 NEF files. LR 4.2 says the D600 algorithm is 'preliminary'. Could this be part of it?
Anyone else here have a D600 and noticed the same thing?
Message title was edited by: Brett N

I'm not really good at using the right technical terms. Let me go back to basics.
Adobe came out with Lightroom 4.2 which has (preliminary) support for the D600. I installed it. I put the memory card from the camera into the card reader and Lightroom popped up because that's what I had set for the default for uploading photos. I told it which folder to store the image in (J:photos/2012-10/2012-10-05) and where to put a second copy (D:/px/lightroom import copies). Then I told LR to "save Current Settings as New Preset..." and I named it "D600 imports". Then I clicked "Import".
When I looked at the files afterwards in Lightroom, the sliders were all at zero except for the ones I noted before. I don't know why Lightroom chose 25 for the sharpening, but it did. Coincidentally, that's the same number it chooses for my D300 imports. I also don't know why it chose a color temp of 4200 and a tint of +4 (I was shooting on auto white balance).
Then I plugged in the card from the D300. I decided not to touch the preset (which still said "D600 imports") and I clicked "Import". The files went to the same folders and presumably, had the same sharpening and other slider levels applied.
Now when I look at the camera calibration in the develop module, under profile it says "Adobe Standard" on the D300 images and "Beta" on the D600 images, so Lightroom somehow knows which camera I used and sets itself accordingly.
At no time did my fingers ever leave my hand, and I did not modify, click on or even breathe on any of the Lightroom default settings. FWIW, my programming days are 35 years behind me and I'm a total non-tekkie user now. I wouldn't know how to 'hack' the D300 files if my life depended on it.
I know that conditions could have changed in the 98 seconds between the D600 shot and the D300 shot. Trust me when I say they didn't.
Regarding Noise Reduction: as far as I know, there are only two user accessible settings in the cameras: "Long Exposure Noise Reduction" and "High ISO Noise Reduction". Generally I have both of those on... but since these shots were at 1/200 sec and ISO 400, they wouldn't have kicked in anyway.
For WB, I used exactly the same spot on the road in both images. But you're right, I should use a grey target and I will next time.
To make the two pictures match as best I could tell onscreen (I changed the D600 image to match the D300 one), I had to change the temp from 4200 to 3500, the tint from +4 to +18, the exposure to -.33, shadows to -48, blacks to -19 (these are huge changes) and it still didn't look as good as the D300 image. It was 'harder' or 'crisper'. There was no mood, no softness to it. It's like looking at a "vivid" Jpeg vs. a "Standard" Jpeg, or a cooked HDR, if that makes any sense.
This isn't so much a complaint as a request for understanding, so that I know when I bring up an image, how to fix it. I shot a landscape and blew it up onscreen to 200%. I could see every leaf, every twig, every shadow's hard edge. That's not a bad thing, that's amazing: I just want to be able to control it.
Glenn

Can my AI documents look different on another computer?

Hello, everybody.
I made some very simple forms for a woman, consisting of nothing but lines and text on a page, that wound up looking like a grid with text. Each one was perfectly centered on its own page. I sent them to her as pdf files. Before sending them (email) I checked each one in AI to be sure the pdf looked as good as the ai file. She took them to Office Depot to be printed, and they came out very off-center. The OD employee told her it was because of "differences between computers," and she suggested I make them off-center to compensate.
I thought the very purpose of pdf was to make sure that files would look the exact same regardless of the computer they were viewed on. Am I wrong about that?
Thanks

Thank you, Karen. Will you marry me? : )
Because... I had a pdf document of my own printed at the same OD a couple weeks ago. The employee at that time didn't know how to properly print a pdf and someone else had to show her how. But when I told my "client" about that, she just blew it off and said the employee had assured her I was the problem.
Incidentally, back to my original question about the "differences in computers," aren't pdf files supposed to be exactly the same regardless of what computer they're viewed on?
Thanks again for your help, it was very nice of you to do that.
John

Raw files look different after opening them in CC

HI,
I open them in ACR to edit the raw files for white balance and what not, once I get them perfect I click open image to send them to photo shop CC the image is drastically different. Please help and I doing something wrong? it worked great in CS5.
`Terry

You have a broken display profile. The conversion from source profile to display profile should end up with the same result in each, but since the source is different it can happen that one app chokes and the other not.
The choice of working space in Photoshop has no bearing on this, unless you've done something silly like setting Photoshop's color management to "off". Whatever profile comes out of ACR should be honored by Photoshop. They do not have to be the same.
Recalibrate, or if you don't have a calibrator set sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as default display profile in Windows color management. Relaunch Photoshop so that it can pick up the new profile at startup.

Repository file acts differently in another enviroment

Hi,
We are using OBIEE 10.1.3.4. We have combined multiple facts in single Subject area. It works fine in our "development enviroment" (Does joins only when needed). However when i transfer this Repository file to our "testing enviroment" it creates unnessary joins. Has anyone seen this kind of behaviour and know where the problem is? How can i trouble shoot this ?

Hi,
When you notice that the BI Server is unnecessary joins, the first point of suspicion is the "LTS".
Most of the times, we might be combining many tables to one logical table. In this case, we should almost have one LTS for each table and also LTS for combining table.
Suppose, two tables "A" and "B" are merged into one but with only one LTS as "A inner join B". So, when a report requests for columns from "A" alone, the BI Server still does the inner join with "B" because it has got no other way to go.
I suspect the same thing in your case too. Hope this helps.
Thank you,
Dhar
Edited by: Dhar on 07-May-2012 03:05

2 files with exact the same PMS color look different

I was working on a print project for my company and all files are created in Illustrator CC. Here is the confusing part, in this logo color file I found from the company inside files, the PMS color code actually matches the CMYK color code, and they look exactly the same on screen:
But on all the files I'm working on, the PMS color looks washed, when using the convert button to convert PMS to CMYK, the code looks different too:
Is there a file color setting I need to change? Besides illustrator, the PMS color in Photoshop cc and InDesign cc all look wash out.

The Color Mode of the swatch only impacts how the the color appears on your monitor. The important thing is that the Color Type always be "Spot Color" regardless of the Color Mode when you're dealing with files for print. If it's set to Spot Color, then exporting the file to film will have a single color pass. If it's set to Process Color you'll get 1-4 color passes when exporting depending on your CMYK values.
For the company's branding guide, you have both color options depending on how the logo will be printed. If you had something that included a photo, then you would want to use the CMYK version of the logo because you're already going to have CMYK values from the photo. Using an additional spot color just for the logo then makes it a 5-color job, thus increasing the cost. If you were printing something that only used black for text and also included the logo, then you would use the PMS version as this makes it a 2-color print job.
In some circumstances you don't have an option of a CMYK break of a PMS color, such as metallics and fluorescents. Some companies only print their logo in a spot color despite having it as part of a 4-color print just due to how a CMYK version of their logo appears. Not every PMS color has a 100% accurate CMYK break. Most frequently the CMYK version is dull compared to the PMS color simply because the gamut for CMYK is not as diverse as the full range of PMS colors are.

IPod cannot be updated/restored/ejected--files in use by another app

Since I downloaded iTunes7, I cannot update, restore, or eject my iPod from iTunes. I get the error "<iPod name> cannot be updated(restored, ejected) because it contains files in use by another application." I'm still able to sync music and tv shows with the old iPod software, but not movies. I eject it using the Safely Remove Hardware icon in my system tray, or from My Computer. I've tried disabling security programs and peripherals, and even sifting through the processes in Task Manager. I had no trouble ejecting prior to iTunes 7/7.0.1.
And yes, I've done the R's I'm able to do (Restore is not an option due to the nature of the error).

Hi again, Corey!
In regard to "recovery mode" message, you'll most likely just need to restore your iPod. For more details, read here -> Restoring your iPod
If this message persists after restoring your iPod, try assigning your iPod a different drive letter; see these steps below:
Log off of any other users on your computer.
1 - Don’t plug in your iPod yet.
2 - Go to "START -> Control Panel -> Admin Tools (if you don't see this, click on "classic view" button on the left panel) -> Computer Management."
3 - Click on the "Disk Management" button in the left panel area.
4 - Now, with "Computer Management" and Control Panel windows opened, reset your iPod, and connect it.
5 - Right-click on your iPod's listing there (after a few moments when it gets recognized in this drive window), and click on "Change Drive letter and Paths". Then the "Change..." button.
Here's what it should look like:
Assign your iPod the letter "M" "N", "O" or the like (further along in the alphabet).
For more details, see this article:
Windows confuses iPod with network device / Changing drive letter
I hope this helps you!
-Kylene
If any post helps or solves your issue, please mark it that way accordingly. Thank you for helping the boards!

Pdf color looks different in preview and acrobat?

I notice that the colors in various PDF files I have look different in Preview and in Acrobat. Is there some weird color profile issue?
To be specific, I can create a PDF file in various ways, of a slide deck I originally created using Keynote. It has various different color blocks in the slides. In particular some acid green colors look very different depending on whether I open the PDF in Acrobat or in Preview.
Preview shows the colors as they were in the original keynote application. But Acrobat shows them far more muted.
I learned from another post that if I create the PDF by first saving to postscript and then creating the PDF using Acrobat, the issue seems to go away. However this is very inconvenient.
In short, it seems as though there is some peculiar difference between the way Preview and Keynote (and probably Pages ) handle color and the way Acrobat handles color.
Is there some way to fix this using some setting in one of the programs?
By the way, this is not a new problem. I noticed it with previous OS's as well as previous versions of Keynote. I am currently using the latest version of everything.

Same problem here. I was printing a PDF that my designer had sent me. Before I have always used Acrobat, but I've started using Preview in Leopard since it's faster and more powerful than before. But the colors were seriously wrong, often reversed completely. I believe this file was originally created in Illustrator.

Why do Sony DSC-RX100M3 raw files look strange in PE9 when flash has been used in the shot?

I have just bought a Sony DSC-RX100M3 camera and use it to shoot raw + jpeg. I want to use the raw files in my Photoshop Elements 9, which has the Camera Raw plug-in version 6.5.0.216 installed. I have downloaded the Adobe DNG converter version 8.7.1.311 so I can import my Sony raw files into PE 9 as they cannot be used directly. Most of the time these raw files look OK, but when I use the flash on my camera and then look at the raw files in PE9 they look far more pink than the corresponding jpeg files. The jpeg files look more or less as I remember the scene when I shot the picture.
When I look at the same raw and jpeg files in Sony's own Image Data Converter software (version 4.2.04.17270) the raw and jpeg files look very similar to one another, and there is no pink colour cast in the raw file.
What am I doing wrong in Photoshop Elements? I though the DNG converter keeps all the information from the original raw file and makes no changes to it, so why does the raw file look so different when flash has been used?
Thanks for any help you can give!
AVM

Looking at the pictures of the camera online, I'd say there is no lens shade--a device to keep light from the sides from causing lens flare--and the camera lens, itself, was just too far extended and there was a lens shadow. You probably can't use the flash that close up and should back off and zoom in further. Experimenting would give you a sense of what situations will have a shadow of the lens or not.
Your ACR plug-in is old enough not use have Process Version 2012, yet, only 2010 and 2003 so Adobe didn't have the idea to put the selector down next to the camera profile. The toning options are better with Process 2012 so that would be a reason to upgrade, but I am not sure that the Camera Neutral profile in PSE9 would be different than PSE13. If Adobe changed the camera profiles then people's pictures would look different once they upgraded to a new version and that's not something that's supposed to happen.
You can certainly download the PSE13 trial and see if things look any different, but they may not: Download a free trial or buy Adobe products | Adobe downloads There would be newer minimum OS version requirements for the newer versions of Adobe software so check those out before trying to install, unless you're on Windows 7+ or OSX 10.8+ then it should be fine.
One more thing, the White-Balance tint is set to +10 by the camera:
This As Shot WB is more magenta and even when using the Adobe Standard profile, moving the Tint down to +0 makes things a little more green like your camera JPG. So there is more than just changing the camera profile that you can do:

Saving as PDF from Excel looks different to Excel version

Hi
I have been working in Excel and been saving PDF files for the past year using the inbuilt feature in Excel. I have recently installed Adobe Acrobat so that I could save PDFs directly from Excel instead. When I save exactly the same file from Excel, the adobe acrobat PDF looks different to the excel PDF version.
I have uploaded an image to show you what I mean.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1z1ux6d&s=8
The image on the left is the correct version, this version was saved using the "Save As PDF" option built into excel. The image on the right is the version saved with the Excel acrobat add-in. You can notice how the font is different on acrobat version, the part where it says "Date" and "Description. You will also notice the black lines above the little card icons do not go right to the end of the line like they should. Each of of them little card icons is a seperate image, does Acroboat have trouble converting these little images or something as they appear fine on the Excel version.
Is there anything that can be done so converting it to PDF will look closer to how its suppose to look?

I checked the properties of each file. The Excel PDF version has more fonts listed in the properties section compared to the PDF maker one. I can select the "Date" and "description" and copy and paste it as text but now it appears the text is fine, its showing correctly now even though I havent changed anything.
The icon problem is still there though.
I have also attached another image of a close up of the little card icons:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=nqac9j&s=8
The version on the right is correct, created within the built in PDF feature in Excel. The version on the left, created with the Excel pdf maker addin.

Footage Looks Different in SpeedGrade and when rendered

Hello
I’m having some problems figuring out what my file actually look like.
Is there still a QuickTime bug that cause QuickTime to show a gamma-shifted or otherwise-screwy image?
5dMkII h.264 .mov file
The same file in QuickTime and VLC looks different. VLC version is darker and redder.
That file in SG looks even darker, and slightly redder.
Rendered out from SpeedGrade to ProRes422 (Automatic Color Adjustment switch on in SG) looks close to SpeedGrade display, but a few points redder and a touch darker.
Rendered out from SpeedGrade to ProRes422 (Automatic Color Adjustment switch off in SG) much lighter and paler than SpeedGrade display.
Same results with ProRes444.
Why do these look different?
Latest MacPro Tower
Latest OS X
64GB RAM
AMD FirePro D700 6144 MB
2x LaCie 321 monitors, calibrated with Spyder3 Elite
QuickTime Pro 7 or QuickTime Player bundled with OS
All files viewed on the same monitor
Thanks in advance for any help.

In general, it depends.
You can't be responsible for every other computer & user in the world ... even though at times they'll try and make you so. The best anyone can do is run a calibrated "shop" and know you're delivering good technical content. Test it on other calibrated systems, and over broadcast monitors if such are available somewhere you know. For clients with specific needs, TEST. Send a test over and have them check it ... for most TV use this is crucial. For say adds on movie theatre screens between shows, arrange to take a sample over before they "open" for the day and have it played on their equipment onto the screen ... see what it looks like, adjust & retest as necessary.
For web use ... that's a total crapshoot off the mark.Best you can do is again, see that your system is as accurately calibrated as you can. Set the preferences for video players on your machine to use your system's calibration rather than their internal, which will ALWAYS do something odd to the signals. But not only odd ... unpredictable computer to computer. If your system is fully calibrated, your work over the web will hopefully average out pretty decent.
For web-delivery clients, still ... do initial testing to see that they are happy with the results you give them. If on their computer they want it bluer, and ... you know that means it's gonna really be BLUE on many machines ... perhaps showing them on a laptop that it does look good as-is on another system or some sort of client education moment may need to happen. I've heard plenty of complaints that the client demanded someone deliver something too dark ... and then complained back at them because they got comments from others that the material was too dark. Love that, eh? Client demanded they change it darker even though told it would be too dark for most computers ... then groused at them that it was too dark. Right. Oh frabjous joy.
Over in the video lounge here and on a couple other sites ... the threads on Stupid Client Demands have at times been a riot and at times something to near cry over. As a 30+ year stills portrait photographer, we've had the same thing at times from clients ... a demand to just plain print their images GREEN or something. Most of which we've complied with, some we ... didn't. What an interesting variety of brains and eyes there are about the planet ...
My experience is that just doing the best I can, it looks pretty darn good on my client's tv's and computers. Some go one way or the other a bit, but in general, it works fine. And check if you've got a setting in either system controls or the Qt & VLC controls for system-managed color.
Neil

Bug? Corrupt Tones / Colours - Image looks different in photoshop

Hi,
Am hoping somebody can help me as I must be doing something really stupid here. I'm currently evaluating various workflow products, and really like Lightroom but find that whenever I import an image into LR the tones, particular shadow tones, look way too dark. They look kinda posterised.
My monitor is color calibrated with a spyder. I am running Windows XP.
I've attached a link to an image to demonstrate. I took an sRGB JPEG and imported into LR. I then edited a copy in PS (exported as ProPhoto - converted in PS to Adobe 1988 colorspace), another copy is shown exported to Capture NX (also Adobe colorspace).
http://www.hamiltonconsulting.net/strange%20tones.jpg
if you look at the shadow tones in the folds of the jacket you can see a minor difference between PS and Capture NX but you can see a clear difference in LR. The shadows are way darker.
The image opens fine it every other application I have tried, including the free XP viewers. LR is doing something strange to the file but I cant work out what.
I first noticed the problem occuring in Beta 4.1 and am now getting the same issue in the new Lightroom demo ( I had hoped it was a bug that would have been fixed). I have been installing all sorts of evaluation software of late, so maybe something hasnt been cleaned out of my registry, or something is clashing.
So far, I've tried lots of different images (all with the same problem). Recreating an image database. Reinstalling LR (countless times).
Does anyone have any ideas as to what I can try or do I need to reinstall my entire PC :-(

The image on the left in PS looks the same in Picasa Image
Viewer (I selected it to be color managed based on the monitor profile), looks the same in Windows Image Viewer, and looks the same in the thumbnail. The image on the right in LR is how the picture looks when I look at my image in Firefox but in Internet Explorer and in Chrome, the image looks like the image on the left in PS. The image below shows how the thumbnail looks different from the actual picture when it's double clicked and viewed in Picasa. The thumbnail (which shows the subjects having green skin) would be how I saw it online while the double clicked version is how I saw it in PS, even though it was sRGB (I checked the image properties to make sure of the color space).
I have a ATI 5470 GPU on my ASUS 17.3 inch laptop. Not sure about the drivers.

Why do certain clips (photos), viewed in preview, on Adobe Premiere 11 look different on YouTube?

Hi folks,
I've posted, via Adobe Premiere 11, two different music videos on YouTube and on my Facebook page. The first one, "Back In The Day", looks the same on YouTube (and Facebook) as it did when I viewed it (previewed it) on Premiere 11. But the second video, "Wicked World", that I posted on those internet sites, has certain clips (photos) that look different than what's seen on Premiere 11.
With "Wicked World", it almost looks like certain Panned & Zoomed photos are bigger in size than what the YouTube screen can show?
I used Pan & Zoom on some photos in both videos. But maybe with "Wicked World", I always set the "Hold" times to zero (0) when using Pan & Zoom on some photos. Or could it have something to do with the Track Size on the "Wicked World" Premiere 11 video? BTW, I see that by right clicking in an empty part of the track, the Track Size choices come up as small, medium or large.
Or is it something about upload choices on YouTube? Two different friends helped me with uploads to YouTube for each video, so maybe the first one, "Back In The Day", looks OK because that friend chose proper upload choices?
If you have time, or the inclination to see the difference for yourself, you can go on YouTube and type in on the search bar, "Wicked World Bob Fuchs". You'll see both a head shot of me playing harmonica for one YouTube choice, and a painting of Van Gogh as another way to get to the "Wicked World" problem video, and the "Back In The Day" good video.
Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated. Once I find out why "Wicked World" photos slide partly off the YouTube screen, I will delete it from YouTube and replace it with an issue free one.
I just want to learn what caused that, hopefully, so I can avoid that problem going forward.
Thanks!
Bob Fuchs
[email protected]

A.T.please note:
After sending you a previous email reply to your latest response, I am forwarding a new thought.
I just tried out something you had suggested. I think it may solve the issue I have with the panned & zoomed photos on my "Wicked World" video - the ones that look weird when I view the video on YouTube (and Facebook).
So, in case you also think the following may be the answer, I will now copy and paste relevant parts of my previous email, PLUS include my new thoughts - in order not to waste your valuable time looking into an answer I may already have.
Here goes:
The Premiere 11 Edit area monitor Magnification had already been set to "Fit".
In Edit Menu Preferences General, I already had a check mark on "Default Scale to Frame Size".
The properties of the first file (a Title screen) that I dragged into the Timeline are 1920 Horizontal, 1080 Vertical. But properties of subsequent photos, some of which I panned and zoomed, are mostly only around 648x599.
Upon viewing my "Wicked World" video carefully on YouTube, I see that what actually happens is that the box-like area where my video is shown (probably the same size of my Premiere 11 screen edit area?) is smaller than the YouTube's screen viewing area. That does not bother me. However, when the panned and zoomed photos occur, my smaller box area, within the YouTube screen, itself moves along with the panned & zoomed movement of the photos! That inner box moves slightly vertically, either up or down, and to lower right or left, depending on which direction the pan and zoom of each photo is going. And an empty border around the video area hangs there, within the YouTube viewing area.
So ... as you talked about, I tried something: I replaced an existing panned & zoomed photo (clip) in the Timeline with the same photo, and then I clicked on "Scale to Frame Size". The photo got bigger. I then did a new pan and zoom on it, and reduced the duration of how long that photo clip plays. Therefore, although the pan and zoom happens faster, it cues to the proper places in the music (audio) track. And I'm guessing that the larger "Scale to Frame Size" on that photo will now show properly in the YouTube viewing area, without the smaller inner box area moving too, along with the panned and zoomed photo?
I have only done this on one of my previously panned and zoomed photos in the video. But if you think this may solve the viewing issue on YouTube, that I described above, then I'll do the same with all the previously panned and zoomed photos in my video, and save it as a new version on Premiere 11.
I guess I'd then try and delete the existing "Wicked World" video from YouTube, and replace it with the new, hopefully issue-free version.
What do you think? Should I try this, and then replace the old one on YouTube?
Best Regards,Bob [email protected]

File looks different on another PC

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for