Graphics look bad on pause at end of chapters

I've created a presentation in Keynote that I've exported as a QT movie and imported into DVDSP. Since the presentation will be manually advanced via remote control, I've set infinite pauses at the start of each chapter. My problem is that when the pause occurs, the still graphics look really bad. I realize this probably has more to do with the DVD player itself but I was wondering if anyone has found a work-around for this issue. Thanks in advance.
Mac OS X (10.4.4)

Thanks EJP. I need to keep the transition effects though from Keynote so still images won't work. One thing that is kind of weird though it that the still frame at the end of a track looks fine. Its only the pauses at the chapter markers that the video looks bad.

Similar Messages

FM makes nice PDF graphic look bad. Why?

We are having a tough time with graphics that were created in Interleaf. I make a PDF of the Interleaf document and it looks/prints excellent, just like the original in Interleaf. But, when I import it into FM and print, it looks quite bad. If I open the same PDF in Illustrator and save it as a PDF from there, then import into FM, it prints fine. Same thing if I save the same PDF as an AI file and import to FM. It prints fine. Do I really need to resave all my PDFs in AI or is there a better way? It seems like FM should be able to handle the original PDF as well as AI, but it doesn't. Maybe I am missing something...
Any thoughts? Thx!!

Link is below. Thank you. Upon further review I see that the schematic is being coverted into a million pieces when it is exported from Interleaf. I think that is the problem. Let me know what you think...
https://acrobat.com/#d=KbdDAcvHjibr3M*bfbbrSA

Resizing image and looks bad afterward

So image manipulation in java is not my bag. I wrote a program to help save me time with my photography, the idea was that I could point it at a directory and then it would read all the files in that folder that are jpgs and resize them to blog ready sizes. This works really well cept the final images that are produced are not of same quality as say when I used GIMP to resize to the same size/aspect ratio the quality is much different. It looks like its a problem with setting my type perhaps to an only 8bit file? Maybe I am wrong, also goofed with the compression stuff (found code online) to turn the compression to 0 (i.e. no compression)...still no avail. Some code I am using:
    public static BufferedImage scaleImage(BufferedImage image, int imageType,
                 int newWidth, int newHeight) {
             // Make sure the aspect ratio is maintained, so the image is not distorted
             double aspectRatio = (double) image.getWidth() / (double) image.getHeight();
              if(newWidth==-1)
                   newWidth=(int)(newHeight * aspectRatio);
              if(newHeight==-1)
                   newHeight = (int)(newWidth / aspectRatio);
             // Draw the scaled image
             BufferedImage newImage = new BufferedImage(newWidth, newHeight,
                     imageType);
             Graphics2D graphics2D = newImage.createGraphics();
                //I admit little clue as to what im doing with the rendering hints.
             Map map = new HashMap();
             map.put(RenderingHints.KEY_INTERPOLATION,
             RenderingHints.VALUE_INTERPOLATION_BILINEAR);
             map.put(RenderingHints.KEY_RENDERING, RenderingHints.VALUE_RENDER_QUALITY);
             map.put(RenderingHints.KEY_ANTIALIASING, RenderingHints.VALUE_ANTIALIAS_ON);
             RenderingHints hints = new RenderingHints(map);
             graphics2D.setRenderingHints(hints);
             graphics2D.drawImage(image, 0, 0, newWidth, newHeight, null);
             return newImage;
    then the call to it looks like:
public BufferedImage processLandScapeImage(BufferedImage img)
              int width = Integer.valueOf(theHeight.getText()).intValue(); //my desired width
              return scaleImage(img, BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_RGB, width, -1);
         }So this is close, the files dont look bad but alas... they still aren't the same quality. Should I post a sample of what I get with GIMP and what I get with my little program?
Thanks to anyone who has some pointers...
-Shane

If you don't care about the original source BufferedImage, then you should be able to draw the image onto itself in an incremental fashion. That would avoid the use of intermediate images and consequently not throw the OOM.
Also note that the code in that article has a slight hiccup. If you specify you want higher quality and targetWidth > w || targetHeight > h, then you'll get an infinite loop. So it needs to be structured slightly different (indeed, the intermediate images should probably be flushed since they're being draw to and from at least once).
I didn't realize such a task was so non-trivial.If you're not worried about the speed, then I guess the trivial good-result way would be to use Image#getScaledInstance with the area average parameter. It's not so much that it's too slow for normal consumption (it isn't), it's just that the Graphics way is so much faster.
GIMP probably uses a more sophisticated resampling technique like Lanczos or something.

Fm2-a55m-p33 driver problem? Game LoL looks bad

Hello,
I'm a newbie in all this hardware, but i have a new computer with a fm2-a55m-p33 motherboard and a AMD A6 processor running Windows 7 64bit.
Normally this board has on bord video. And everything looks fine, but when i play the game LoL the graphics looks horrible.. some textures are missing etc..
When i look in het device manager, i see that the Display Adapter shows "ATI Radeon HD 7840M".
I have no video card installed, so its only the motherboard and a processor and ram. Is it normal that the display adapter shows radeon hd?
I have tried uninstalling the graphic drivers, and installed the new drivers from MSI website. But it seems there are 2 different drivers:
"AMD Chipset Driver" from 3 weeks ago
"ATI System Drivers for Axx Series" from end 2012
When i install "ATI System Drivers for Axx Series" the device manager shows "standard vga adapter"
when i install "AMD Chipset Driver" i get the ATI Radeon 7840M adapter. Specially the M (stands for Mobile?) makes me think..
I see the latest VGA and RAID drivers are for Richland support, but i have no clue what that is
The shop i got this computer from installed it, so they probably installed the latest Richland drivers showing the Radeon 7840M
So to recap:
What does the display adapter in device manager should show when using the on board vga?
So what drivers do i need?
And are these latest drivers causing the graphic problem in LoL, or how to fix it (main problem)?
Thank you

the board has no onboard GPU so its using the mobile GPU core that's integrated into your AMD A-6 Processor so it will show what the APU has!
as for drivers i would suggest you use the AMD Catylist graphics drivers!
Richland is the code name for the AMD FX 6xxx skew processors like the A-10 6800K. but as yours is showing a 7840M then that is a codename Trinity APU which is a last gen one!
as for the graphics errors i would suspect that it doesn't like your current Graphics Driver but that's just a guess! <--- try the Catylist Drivers from AMD and see if it corrects the problem!

My vector graphic looks pixelated when I scale it down

I'm using CS5 on Mac OSX 10.7.4 and the graphic looks pretty good at 100%, and prints just fine. The design shop is trying to put it on a coffee cup though, and when they scale it down, it looks horrible. Pixelated everywhere. Am I doing something wrong?
-antialiasing is on
-resolution is 300 DPI
-align to pixel grid is not checked.
Here is a screen shot at 100%
Here is a screen shot after I scale the object 70%... looks pretty bad.
I am new to Illustrator and vector graphics so I am sure this is some setting I don't understand. Thanks for any help you can give!

check my post #20 in this thread http://forums.adobe.com/message/4455955#4455955 I tried to explain what is causing this. Nothing to worry about it won't affect the printed result.
However this statement of yours could be a cause of concern if you are talking about the printed image.
.... The design shop is trying to put it on a coffee cup though, and when they scale it down, it looks horrible. Pixelated everywhere. ...

Why does everything look bad on my retina screen?

Brand new retina iMac (two days old). Everything looks bad on my monitor. Fonts, graphics, finder windows, etc.

You can return a new Mac within 14 days of purchase.
Return it and get another one.
A new Mac comes with 90 days of free tech support from AppleCare.
AppleCare: 1-800-275-2273
Best.

Fonts looking bad after upload

Hi,
I have used a special font, by that I mean a font which will not be found on most computers. Now within some elements, such as a some buttons, a few graphics, the font appears perfectly. When I check on other PC's the font is not what I had selected. Also, the font, when I run the movie through Flash CS4, appears perfect, but once I upload it, the font is not smooth and looks bad. I read up a little about embedding characters, and even tried the option which comes in the text box properties, but nothing seems to help. I don't think I grasped the concept well. Can anyone please explain how I can get my font to appear and look good on all PCs??
Thanks,
Aditi

Is this all dynamic text or is it text that is manually written in to the file at authoring time such that it could be static text? If it is static text but you are using dynamic textfields, then try switching them to be static textfields. If it is already static textfields, then you could try breaking the textfields down to being raw graphics (select the textfield, then choose Modify -> Break Apart, Modify -> Break Apart)
If they must be dynamic textfields, and using the embed option in the properties panel isn't working, then try embedding the font in the library and use it from there... To do that... in the library in the upper right is a small menu where you can select "New Font"... choose that and select the font you want from the list. Then you can assign that embedded font as you normally would, but you need to find the name it has in the library and in trhe font selection it will have an asterisk next to it. So if the Font is named "Font 1" in the library, then in the font selection in the properties panel it will appear as "Font 1* "

Subject : Slideshow looks bad Hello guys I have a project in my Final Cut just about done. I want to add my slideshow as part of the project and burn it to DVD. In my slideshow, there are some stills from the movie clips and some downloaded from the i

Subject : Slideshow looks bad
Hello guys
I have a project in my Final Cut just about done. I want to add my slideshow as part ofthe project and burn it to DVD. Inmy slideshow, there are some stills from the movie clips and some downloadedfrom the internet but they all look blur when playback and even worse if Iapply Ken Burn to it. Pleasesome one can tell my how to do it right or it can’t be done because thedownload quality and stills from the clip are not suitable or slideshow. Thank you
PSC

Thank you Ross.
The entire DVD containing Quick Time movies (Final CutExpress project) and slideshow was done in iPhoto. The Final Cut project was rendered prior to export to QT, the slideshow was sent to iDVD withoutrendering. The slideshow with most of the pictures from my still camera incombination with stills from movie clips and some downloaded from the Internet.After burning, the movie playback is perfect but the slideshow is not. The slideshow containing 3 differentkinds of pictures; those from my still camera looks OK; the stills from themovie clips and from the Internet are not. I don’t have much knowledge in this game, but I think NTSCwith frame size 720x480, and the downloaded picture Item Property shows most ofthem are between 400 to 500 x 300 to 600, may be both of them are not suitablefor TV screen while the stills from my still camera looks OK because they are2048x1536. Please enlightenme. Once again, thank you so much,I really appreciate the time you offered.
psc

Why does my 24fps look bad on my TV?

I just got the Panasonic AG-HMC150. I have shot some footage at both 1080p24 and 720p24. I transcode the files to Pro Res in FCP and they look pretty good, I realize the panning isn't as smooth as 60i. I drag one of the files into the FCP timeline and let it automatically "optimize my settings" for the sequence. I have verified that it is 23.98fps and field dominance is none. I have tried selecting "share" and going straight to AVCHD from FCP, and also taking the original MTS file, and Apple Pro Res and dropping into Toast and trying that way. The footage just looks choppy, jiddery and unsmooth. I have seen enough movies in my life to know that when they pan, or have cars drive by, that movies 24fps looks a million times better. My Sony HDTV even accepts and displays 24fps, and when I press info on the TV remote when watching one of these AVCHD discs it in fact says 1080 (or 720) 24p. It just looks bad. Even taking the HDMI output from the camera and hooking up to the TV and playing from the camera looks lousy.
What am I doing wrong? I know a ton of post work goes into Hollywood movies, but why does their 24fps look nice and smooth and mine looks horrible? Do I need to render with pulldown in FCP or something. I can't figure it out. Any advice, suggestions?

I transcode through FCP to apple pro res, the files shows up as 1920x1080 24fps. Field dominance is none. I edit the video and then export as quicktime movie using current settings. The Pro Res file says 23.98 when played in quicktime so I know that's good. I simply then drop the file into Toast (10.0.4) and burn blu-ray disc, selecting DVD as the media. I noticed too I need to change the field dominance under the encoding tab in Toast to progressive, as automatic doesn't work. It only burns the top half of the image. Regardless, when I make these discs and play them on PS3, my TV's info says 1080/24p. Maybe my eyes aren't use to seeing 24fps. Does it sound like I am doing anything wrong in my workflow/encoding process.
Again, good tip on the shutter speed Jerry.

Graphic looks like chips when SCRIPT convert to PDF by E-MAIL

Hi, Experts,
I have met a difficult problem in my program.
As required, i draw a SCRIPT form , and convert it to PDF, then send by mail . There is a graphic in my form, and I create the graphic using program RSTXLDMC (first save the picture as a TIFF document and then get the graphic, ), and write
INCLUDE ZHEX-MACRO-BMON OBJECT TEXT ID ST LANGUAGE EN
in the script form.
And my problem is that, if I choose PRINT PREVIEW , the graphic looks great, the same as the picture it was. But if I choose E-MAIL,
and then i open the PDF in my m ail, the graphic looks like chips and totally I couldn't identify the picture.
Anyone who has met the same problem? Please help me.
Thanks a lot.
Sincerely Julie
Edited by: julie 2192 on Sep 3, 2009 4:18 PM

AND when I run SE78 , and import a TIFF document
use
INCLUDE Z_IBM_ZGBT OBJECT GRAPHICS ID BMON LANGUAGE EN
the same error again.
Anyone could help me?
Thanks a lot.
Sincerely
Julie

MSWORD templates with graphics look pixelated

When converting Word templates to PDFs with both text and graphics, the text renders fine in the PDF, but the graphics look very pixelated and fuzzy and ragged. Have tried both .doc and .docx files, and with graphics as JPG and EPS files. Same results.
Any ideas here?

They do print pixelated. All content looks crisp in the word template, but any graphics still show as pixelated and ragged when PDF-ed. Smoothing is turned on.
Thanks for the tip - any other suggestions?

Fonts look bad in OSX jagged text

Hello
I thought apple gave us font smoothing in OSX! My fonts look terrible in QuarkXpress6.0. Is this what I have to look forward to? I miss my ATM.
I did the "font smoothing thing" in appearence-no change.
Also will all my older fonts from when I used OS 7 +8, will these still work in OSX? and by Quark XPress?
Please enlighten me!
all fonts look bad; Goudy old style, bellvue etc. (postscript type 1)
imac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.4) 21" screen

if I zoom out in Quark to view document at say 125% the 45 pt type really looks bad
Hmm. I'm unable to duplicate your problem. I've pasted some random text into Quark, sized it to 45 pt and set the zoom to 125%. No matter if I go up or down, the fonts look very smooth with both Goudy Old Style and News Gothic (I have the Adobe version, not MT, which is from MonoType). Well, if I look real close, I can see a little bit of jaggies around curves. But nothing very noticable.
Is your 21" monitor a CRT or LCD? LCD always produce the best image when used at their native resolution. A CRT's best display varies depending on whether it has a shadow mask or aperture grill tube. If your monitor has an independent control for sharpening, it may be too high.
I have some fonts installed that I don't know where they came from ex: News Gothic MT (Microsoft I think) Will these view and print okay in any program?
As long as it's a standard Mac suitcase style TrueType font, or a complete and proper Type 1 PostScript font, it should just as well as any other.
I keep all my fonts in classic folder and manage w/font book (thats another story) It seems that my classic apps, Illustrator, see most of the fonts all the time eventhough I turned many off in fontbook. Also illustrator doesn't see ALL the fonts.
That's a handful. When it comes to Classic, the rules are a little different. Fonts you manually place into the OS 9 Fonts folder, or are put there by the OS when activating them from Font Book with OS 9 as the choice to be activated for, fonts are then available to both Classic and OS X.
If you deactivate them in Font Book, the fonts will become unavailable to OS X apps. However, any Classic apps will continue to see them until you shut down all OS 9 applications and Classic. In other words, once you open fonts for Classic, they can't be closed to Classic without shutting the entire environment down. Confused yet?
As far as Illustrator not seeing all the fonts, that relates to this part of your question:
Please explain the limitations of classic apps and fonts.
Classic can use any fonts that were in existence for the Mac before OS X. All of your older Mac TrueType and Type 1 PostScript fonts will work in OS X and Classic. Fonts that will work as is in OS X that you couldn't use before on a Mac are PC TrueType fonts. If you have copied any of the OS X .dfonts into the OS 9 Fonts folder, those will not work. A .dfont is a variation of a TrueType font, with the data in the data fork rather than the resource fork as they are with the older Mac TrueType fonts. Neither OS 9 or any Classic apps can read these fonts. Those are likely the ones not showing up in Illustrator.
It sounds like you do a lot of work with fonts. While Apple has improved Font Book quite a bit in Tiger, it's still very much a consumer font manager for those who handle fonts only occasionally. You'd be much better off using a font manager such as Suitcase X1 or Font Agent Pro.

Custom white balance looks bad/off when set on the 5d Mark iii

I got my Mark iii in June and every time I set a custom white balance it doesn't look right. I have used both a purchased grey card and a white piece of paper, both look bad. When I set it on my Rebel Xs it looks perfect, no adjustments needed in post processing, but not the case with the Mark iii. Shouldn't it be the other way around, considering the price tag on the iii ?

Canon "tags" RAW images with meta-data regarding white balance (and other info) but does not actually alter the image. Depending on what you use to process the images on the computer, it can read those tags and decide to apply it's interpretation. But those white balance adjustments would be applied by your computer software (assuming they are being applied -- not all software does this) -- and not by the camera.
I use Aperture (Apple's pro photography software), which has a camera profile for each camera. The profiles can compensate if, for example, one camera is naturally "cooler" than another.
Tim Campbell
5D II, 5D III, 60Da

DV clips look bad, good when converted to H.264 in QuickTime and reimported

Still a problem after 7.0.1:
DV camera -> iMovie 08 -> looks bad when playing and exporting/sharing
DV camera -> iMovie 08 -> "reveal in finder" -> clip opened in QuickTime -> looks good -> export as H.264 -> re-import to iMovie 08 -> looks good when playing and exporting/sharing.
In plain words: Importing DV clips from my DV camera into iMovie gives bad results when playing and exporting/sharing. Have tried everything, but the clips look blurry and not sharp at all. The actual DV clip in the events folder looks sharp and clear.
If I take the very same DV clip from the events folder ("reveal in finder"), open it in QuickTime, export it as H.264 and then re-import to iMovie 08, it looks brilliant, retaining the quality the DV clip in the events folder has.
Why can't the DV clips look good in the first place? What is it that iMovie 08 does to these poor clips? Some have suggested re-encoding, re-rendering and so on, but if I do just that in QuickTime and re-import it to iMovie 08, it still looks razor sharp and crystal clear. No reason that iMovie 08 shouldn't handle the DV file in the same manner.
Some have suggested that this is because iMovie 08 internally re-encodes to AIM or H.264, enabling edits with different kinds of formats, but if I do this myself in QuickTime before importing to iMovie 08, the problem isn't there!
If this is difficult to achieve, why not add the option of importing from a DV camera as H.264 and not DV? That would make my day!
(I have posted this to Apple using the feedback menu item in iMovie 08.)
(Background here in these threads:)
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1088568
Sample clips in Apple TV format here:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=5173005

iMovie '08 stores rendered projects in H.264 form. This happens when you render to the Media Browser. The rendered file(s) (you can have several different sizes) are in the iMovie '08 project package. The original flies in your Events folders stay in whatever format they were in.
Yes, the movies exported to the Media Browser use the H.264 format, the same as iMovie HD 5/6 did when we exported using the presets Email, Web, Web Streaming and CD-ROM. They were all H.264 too. Apple is obviously putting the (powerful) H.264 to good use to prepare movies for Web pages and other purposes.
As you know, the Full Quality export in 5/6 was to the project's native format, which varied according to the type of project. For DV projects, that was DV video. Everything was converted to DV when imported into the project, and to preserve the original quality we could export to a Full Quality DV movie.
There is nothing like that in iMovie 7, at least that I've seen. As you said, nothing is converted to a "native format" when imported to the project. (Still images are added to the project's single Apple Photo - JPEG "Still Images" movie, which is a nice twist.)
So I think of iMovie 7 as having no "native" format, but a nicely-designed path for using H.264 as the delivery format. The Media Browser — a virtual library of movies with no shared place — is a nice invention.
When I export slideshow movies in DV format out of FotoMagico I always select 'Best' and it DOES make a difference in iDVD.
I think of iMovie 7's problem with DV as more profoundly flawed. Exporting ANY DV video that's in the project to DV or ANY OTHER format is messed up. It's the handling of the DV inside iMovie that's messed up, not just the export to DV.
My guess is — and it's only a guess — that FotoMagico's Best setting adjusts the content of the image delivered for iDVD. Put another way, it prepares an image that works best with iDVD's own encoding algorithms.
One long-standing diappointment I've had with iLife is that Apple has never coordinated the image it prepares for iDVD with what(ever) iDVD does best. It's as if the programmers never talk to each other. iMovie engineers have never asked the iDVD engineers how best to deliver the image to deliver the best quality on the DVD.
Given Apple's emphasis on H.264, one would think that iDVD would be written to embrace any H.264 video and deliver great quality on the DVD. It doesn't. And with iLife '08 it doesn't even embrace iMovie's own DV exports!
I suppose Blu-Ray will change all that, but for now we're stuck with a version of iLife that can't deliver a quality DVD of our home movies.
Karl

WMF Graphics Look Terrible After Re-Opening InDesign File

I hope someone can provide the answer to this one, or at least a decent work-around.
Very detailed schematic drawings are provided to me (the tech writer) in the form of Windows Meta-File (*.wmf) graphics.
I must take these drawings and import them into my V.6 InDesign (CS4) files using the Place command under File.
The graphics look fine immediately after I import them. If I print the file to PDF (Adobe 9.0) before closing the file, they look great in PDF as well.
The problem: If I close the file and then re-open it, these schematic graphics look absolutely awful; like they "melted" or something. The many labels are completely indiscernable and blocky. Printing to a PDF does not improve the look (but doesn't seem to make it any worse though, if that's even possible).
So the problem lies between the time I close (after saving) the file and the time I re-open it. ID is reducing the graphic quality of these WMF drawings upon saving/closing the file and I cannot find the solution.
The technical details:
System: PC, Windows XP Professional, Version 2002, Service Pack 2
Adobe CS4: InDesign Version 6.04
Thank you for your time and attention. I shall be happy to provide more detail to get this question answered.
- WPH

OOPS.
Totally misread the quote. I'm going back in my hole now.
Sorry.

Graphics look bad on pause at end of chapters

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for