Horrible image quality?

I'm not sure if it's just me not being happy with the image quality as I haven't seen many people mention it before, but most (if not all) of my images come out with very obvious artifacting/noise/discolouration - whatever you want to call it.
Link to one of the most obvious examples: http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8721/img0885jw.jpg
Is it just me that's having this issue? Tried in all sorts of lights, with/without flash etc. Front facing camera doesn't seem to have this issue

Red seems to be a problem for a lot of image / video compression, I can't tell you how many shows I've watched that red looks terrible. (not saying that is the problem, just a common thing I see).
Having said that, I don't have anything red besides an all red CD here and it looks a little crappy, but not nearly as crappy as your flower (but it doesn't have any differing shades of red, just solid red). Plus I am indoor with non-ideal lighting.
No one elses pictures here had something really really red. Do your pictures look decent if you take a picture of a non-red flower?
Message was edited by: HawksFan

Similar Messages

Re: Horrible image quality after driver install.

test it in another computer to isolate the issue
is it something wrong with the card itself,
or is the issue caused from something in your PC like PSU or something else

all my games run from the 7200 HDDrive - now my problem is while the frameratecounter shows good FPS (around 60)
all the games stutter every few seconds...
in ryse it happens almost all the time when the game zooms in for the kill-moves.
in vanishing o...

Is iWeb 08's image quality horrible?...

Has Apple resolved the image quality problems we are having?
Does anyone have a workaround for the poor image quality we're getting in iWeb - one that doesn't involve converting images to swf and embedding as a web snippet.
If others are experiencing the same problems with image quality please speak up and voice your experiences.

You might want to just check this thread if you're looking for others experiencing the same problem.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1078666&tstart=0

How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6. (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
(1) (1) Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage. Then dragging the first one into the base document. It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image. Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
(2) (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
(3) (3) I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it. No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
(4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715 Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means. (Or even in a different program!). Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes. Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help. [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
Why this happens has to do with simple math.
inches x ppi = pixels
Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

Image quality bad in Web Gallery

I used the .Mac web gallery feature for the first time yesterday with images that I had edited in Lightroom and then exported to iPhoto for upload, I chose the jpeg compression at highest quality (they were RAW files taken with my Canon 40D) and saved as sRGB optimized for the web. The thumbnails look fine, but the images look absolutely horrible full screen...focus looks blurry and artifacts in some of the shots. Granted, I'm viewing on my 24" screen and it does look better on my other half's 13" MacBook, but still...the image quality should not suffer like this. I can't believe Apple would release a product the renders such poor quality photos.
Is there something that I'm missing here? Is anyone else noticing this with their web galleries?

Dave:
You can replace the 800 x 600 files with your full sized image files. But it would be a manual operation. Each photo in an web gallery has it's own folder with several versions of the file in it. They are located in the iDisk/Sites/Web/_gallery folder. The file titled web.jpg is used for the slideshow. If you replace it with the original file that's been renamed web.jpg, it will be the one used to display in the slideshow.
HOWEVER, the full sized image file takes a very long time to load when playing the slideshow. If you do that you should use an image resizing application like Resize! to reduce the file size by selecting a higher jpeg compression ( lower quality level) while keeping the pixel dimensions the same. With a 60% quality level and keeping the pixel dimensions the same I reduced a 2816 x 2112 pixel, 2.11 MB image file to 695 KB. The 2.1 MB file took 6 seconds to load, the 695 took 2 seconds and the iPhoto produced file were nearly instantaneous. Resizing down wot 1200 x 900 at 60% reduced the size down to 132 KB, much more manageable for loading and rendering online.
So you would have to test to see what pixel dimension and quality level would work best for you. But keep in mind that you'd have to manually change each file, rename it to web.jpg and copy up to the iDisk.
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.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Poor Image quality in iDVD from iMovie

After creating a video in iMovie using photos, video clips, transitions, music, and Ken Burns, things look great. Everything looks fine in iMovie ('09). I then export it to iDVD to create the menus, etc. So far so good. After burning the disc, the picture quality is really horrible, especially the photos using Ken Burns. I do not know how to describe it....wavy, pixilated, something. The video used, taken using a digital camcorder is tolerable if I remember to deinterlace. What do I have to do to get these pics to look right? IF I export in iMovie using Quicktime, the resulting .MOV is fine....looks great. After exporting to iDVD, it looks awful.....Any help would be appreciated....thank you.
jrsorte

Chris,
not using any de-interlacing
Both iMovie 08 and iMovie 09 only use one field of a DV video frame. iMovie 5 and earlier used both frames. I'm not sure that using just one field makes a lot of difference when the content goes through mpg-2's heavy compression to make a DVD in iDVD.
As far a still images are concerned, the best sizes for NTSC DVDs are 720x540 pixels for standard video and 854x480 pixels for widescreen. Going to larger image sizes can actually reduce the image quality on a DVD.

Poor image quality? Why do Jpeg's look so bad?

If anyone has tips on how to improve the image quality of jpeg's in acrobat.com I'd really like to hear them. I've edited the images in Photoshop (CS4), exported them as jpeg's, and inserted them into my acrobat.com presentation. They look horrible, and there are many artifacts. If I insert the same image into Powerpoint, they look considerably better, but I'd prefer not to have to use it. Is there an image quality setting that I'm missing?
Thanks for any help,
Rob

Hi Rob,
Thanks for posting - and sorry you're having trouble. It sounds as though the image's quality is suffering because it's being down-sized upon insertion. In Presentations, any images larger than 1024 on a side are resized to fit within a 1024 bounds (we do this to optimize performance - important for a web application).
Here are some tips from one of our fine engineers:
For the best looking images, pre-scale your images to fit the size of the presentation before you upload them; for reference, the slide canvas is 720 pixels wide and 540 pixels tall. Any image larger than those dimensions is larger than it needs to be on the client so you and your audience are downloading more data than they will ever see. If you resize your images to fit the size it will appear on the screen, you will have a better looking image.
The choice of image format makes a difference at this scale as well. For image with smooth transitions like photographs of landscapes, jpeg is a good format. For computer generated diagrams like charts, or images with lots of details like text, PNG is a better format.
It is important that the image be scaled to the appropriate size before uploading because the server will recompress any image it needs to scale using JPEG compression. So if you are uploading a PNG image with transparency, you will loose any transparency effect if the image is large enough to require scaling on the server.
I hope this is helpful, Rob. Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Best regards,
Rebecca

Poor image quality on exported version

I am trying to export versions of my photos to a folder on my external drive. Every time I do this the resulting jpg is washed out and has poor resolution + a ton of noise. The resulting image is substantially lighter than the images in my aperture window, yet the histogram does not indicate that the images should be that light or washed out.
The images are all starting as RAW images. The export settings are for image quality 12, 300 dpi, sRGB, original jpg. I have onscreen proofing turned on and set to sRGB. My print lab said that the image quality could be 10, but when they looked so horrible I bumped them up.
I had Aperture for a long time before upgrading to Aperture 2 in March. From March to August I did not have any problems, so this is a more recent problem. I have not yet upgraded to Snow Leopard. Please help!!! Thanks!!!

Hi
a. make a DiskImage first and test this with Apple DVD-player.
(File menu and down "Make a DiskImage")
b. I only use streamingDV - no .m4v or like (may be it works - I don't know)
else
*Not knowing the origin to Your problem - General approach when in trouble is as follows.*
• Free space on internal (start-up) hard disk if it is less than 10Gb should rather have 25Gb
• Hard disk is untidy. Repair Permissions, Repair Hard disk (Apple Disc Util tool)
• Delete iDVD pref file - *or rather start a new user/account* - log into this and re-try
iDVD pref file resides. Mac Hard Disk (start-up HD)/Users/"Your account"/Library/Preferences and is named.
com.apple.iDVD.plist
While iDVD is NOT RUNNING - move this file out to desk-top.
Now restart iDVD.
• Program miss-match. iDVD 5.0.2, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK - DON’T work under Leopard
• Program miss-match. iDVD 6.0.4, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK (might work under Leopard)
• Program miss-match. iDVD’08 v. 7.0.1, Mac OS X.4.11 AND QuickTime 7.5.5 - is OK (might work under Leopard)
• iDVD (08) v7 Locate theme folder. Move out iDVD1, iDVD 2 and eventually iDVD4 folders to desktop - re-try
• Try a Cleaning CD/DVD that cleans the laser lens on the DVD burner/player
iDVD 6.0.4 and iDVD 7.0.1 are compatible with Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
Last resort. from Craig. Solved the problem!! Finally!!
I deleted every iDVD application and folder from my boot drive,
emptied the trash and then installed iDVD 08 using the customize option
and I am up and running.
If You do a re-install be sure to get rid of all iDVD old parts AND then EMPTY the Trash-basket !
Yours Bengt W

Image quality in Viewer vs Full Screen

I've seen lots of discussions about this in earlier version (pre 1.5x), but they seem to be backward from what I'm seeing. I have an extremely noticable difference in image quality in the viewer vs full screen. At first, I just thought my images weren't any good. Then, I brought the same raw files up in Photoshop and they were pretty good. I looked in Aperture in Full Screen mode, and it was close or equivalent to Photoshop.
Is anybody else seeing the image be downright bad (looks horribly out of focus) in the viewer but good in full screen? I'm not talking about the thumbnails.
I'm using an iMac G5 20". I know that my video card is probably underpowered for this, but that should only affect speed (which is mostly tolerable).
iMac G5 20 Mac OS X (10.4.7)

I think I read in the manual that Aperture uses a different type of on-screen sharpening for windowed, full screen, and show master. Probably trying to speed it up in windowed by using a cheaper method.
They all should look the same when viewed at 100%.
And for what it's worth, I think Aperture does a lot better job than most programs when viewed at odd sizes. I don't have much to compare it to, but iPhoto and Adobe Elements look awful in comparison.

Poor image quality when publishing to .mac

This is very frustrating.
I buy a high resolution, high quality, royalty-free image. I resize it and crop it in my image editing program and save it as a maximum size .jpg.
I preview the image in Apple preview, and also drag the image into my web browser and it looks crisp and sharp.
I put the image on my iWeb page and publish to .mac. I check my site and the image looks horrible! It looks as though it got compressed again on the lowest setting.
Something very weird is happening to some people. I've read other discussion on this but they are all unresolved.
I'm a graphic designer and I've used dreamweaver and published to other servers. I know about image quality and optimization. I'm doing the same steps and procedures I've always done to optimize images and I've never had this problem except when I publish to .mac.
There is a very weird and serious issue going on and I hope someone can resolve this or has an answer.
Why would an image look crisp and sharp when I view it in my image editing program or in Apple preview, but when publish to .mac it gets re-compressed?
This may sound silly but do you think Apple is doing this randomly and automatically to users to save server space on .mac? Maybe they think people wont notice or care?
I am very upset and frustrated and I can't think of any other reason why this is happening.
Any advice is helpful. Thanks!

James,
Thank you very much for your help.
Here is what I did. I used Apple grab and took a screen shot of my iWeb page where the low res graphic was in position.
I used this as a "template" for cropping my original image in my image editing program to the exact size I needed.
I cropped my original image to the size of my "grab" template, deleted the template layer and saved the sharp image as a maximum file size .jpg and placed it into my iWeb page, with "use original size". It fit perfectly in my layout and looked sharp and crisp.
Now, I published my site and checked the image.
You were correct! The image came out crisp and sharp, no more quality loss.
To test your theory, I went back to iWeb and placed an iWeb mask around the same image and re-published it.
Sure enough! The same image that was once sharp had terrible image loss.
So I guess you're right, adding any effects to an image creates the image loss.
Well, this is a terrible shame because I really like some of the border effects. For example, in a photo gallery, you can use an effect such as a slight page curl with drop shadow that appears only for the thumbnail image but the when you click on the image full size, there is no page curl, just the pure image.
If I create this slight page curl effect and drop shadow in my image editing program, then both my thumbnail and full size image will have this effect.
Not only that, but in order to get the thumbnail image to lay over my background color, I would have to re-create the page curl effect and place it on a border of the same background color as my page layout. When someone clicks on my thumbnail they will now get the full size image with the page curl effect and a slight border of the page color.
Also creating this effect in my image editing program will make it more time consuming when I want to change layout styles, because when I create the page curl / drop shadow in my image editing program, I have to change the background color around each image to match the new background color I'm using for my page. Doing this for 20 images every time I want to change my design is allot of work.
If this is what I have to do, then I have no choice. But at least I would like my thumbnail to have the effect but NOT my full size image.
How do I do this so only my iWeb thumbnail image has this effect without iWeb forcing it to a PNG and loosing quality?
Thanks I appreciate you help!

Poor webcam image quality (HP Touchsmart Notebook

I recieved a HP touchsmart Notebook as a Christmas gift and the image quality is horrible! Even in a well lit environment, the image is still not clear. I have adjusted the settings to try to improve the image quality, but there is still not much of a difference in the way the images appear. I have also tried to reinstall the Cyberlink YouCam application but the image quality is still the same (poor). I like some features on my laptop, yet I'm still getting aquainted with it. However, the image quality along with a few other technical issues such as (freezes), has negatively impacted how I view this product. I hope that there is something that could be done! Please help!

Hi @mzdymond01
Thank You for the inquiry, I will do my best to assist you!
I understand you received this notebook at Christmas and image quality of the WebCam is poor.
Have you done all your Windows updates?
Have you tried Using automated troubleshooting (Windows 8)?
Have you ran the HP Support Assistant to assist with HP updates?
Here is a link to Webcam Troubleshooting (Windows 8) that will guide you through some steps.
If the issue should remain I suggest contacting HP support for further assistance. As this is a new product you want to ensure everything is performing as it should.
Please call our technical support at 800 474 6836. If you live outside the US/Canada Region, please click the link below to get a support number for your region.
World Wide Phone Support
Best of Luck!
Sparkles1
I work on behalf of HP
Please click “Accept as Solution ” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Click the “Kudos, Thumbs Up" on the bottom right to say “Thanks” for helping!

Image quality reduced when scaled down on black background

I am trying to view two tracks at the same time so I have scaled them down. Once I rendered them, the quality was horrible and then I changed the background to checkerboard instead of black, which worked, but I would like a black background for viewing, so how do I fix the poor image quality problem?

I'm guessing you're making this judgement in the Canvas. You really can't. Check it on an external CRT, and make sure your render settings are all set to their highest. Just because it plays back or evven has a proxy render doesn't mean you're seeing its highest quality.
Are you saying that when you put them over a different background the quality improved? I don't know why that would be, bbut if it works then try putting a slug on V1 as a black background.
Or by checkerboard you mean you set the Canvas to a different mode...?

Poor photograph image quality

First off, I am a hopeless newbie, so please treat me gently....
I am trying to put together a DVD which is a combination of DV and still images - using FCE4. Everything is working fine - I am happy with the video and the stills. The problem I face is when I attempt to emulate the Ken Burns effects on the stills: the image quality is just horrible.
Any truly still image looks fine but as soon as I attempt to pan or zoom them, the image quality drops amazingly. Initially I thought that perhaps it was to do with resolution of the images I was using, so I went back to the original RAW files and re-exported them as full resolution (12mp) JPGS. This didn't seem to make any difference at all.
Any clues as to what I am doing wrong (I am certain that it is me!) would be gratefully appreciated.
Kind regards
Simon

Exactly what do you mean by horrible quality ? Blurred ? Jittery ?
Remember that your high quality stills are going to look comparatively poor when put onto DV because they are going from maybe 3200x2400 down to around 768x576.
So a tremendous amount of detail is going to be lost.
The originals can be of much lower quality than 12 megapixels.
Are you looking at the effect on the computer monitor or on a TV lashed to your setup ? It is important to see what the video is like on an actual TV rather than your computer screen.
I don't know whether this tutorial will be of any use, but take a look :-
http://www.fcpbook.com/MotionControl_inFCE.html
Ian.

Screen protectors and image quality

I have a screen protector on my 3G and thinking about getting one for my iPhone 4. How you guys liking them so far? I am worried about it degrading the image quality of the new high res screen.
Tom

I've had every iPhone since it came out & I've never used a screen protector. I've never once ever had even the slightest tiny little scratch. That's not to say though that the screen on the ip4 will have the same luck bc I know it's not the same plus, in addition, I know the back is glass also & it's exposed due to the design of the bumper, which is my personal choice at this time.
I do wonder what the future will hold in reference to the other companies design for the new phone like Ncase, Griffith, Frogz, etc.??? They may come up with the clear plastic type snap on cases on different colors or variations of smoke colored to clear plastic. This way we can still see the phone, especially if you prefer the white if they ever start selling them, & it will be protected at the same time. Only problem is with those cases is u have to keep the touch pad exposed for use & you would still need a screen protector if this model does indeed scratch. Better than nothing though. I still wonder if it will scratch. I am HORRIBLE at putting on those screen protectors. No matter what I do I get bubbles etc. Used a credit card & started one end very slowly & it comes out looking ********. I KNOW that I NEVER had ANY scratched on my ip3Gs & the glass is the same as the iPad.

MBP Retina: Poor image quality from hdmi output

I just had to return a Macbook Pro 13" because of this problem. I was using a HP 2311 HDMI monitor. At first, the screen would only show the upper half of the dock. I was on the phone with Apple Care and they suggested I use underscan. It worked, in that it corrected the screen size problem, but the image quality, especially rating to text was ridiculously poor. There was no suggestion available as to how to fix this. Yet, in display it says that the display is optimized for the HP 2011.
I must say I was really surprised about this defect. I was even more surprised that the problem has been around so long without a resolution. There is no doubt that this shakes my confidence in Apple products. Thankfully, my iPad, iPod and Apple TV have always been reliable.

I've now tested with the following cables/adapters between my rMBP -> Dell U2410:
mDP -> VGA
mDP -> DVI
mDP -> HDMI
HDMI -> HDMI
HDMI -> DP
None of them work. Some people are reporting *minor* differences when switching from HDMI to DVI, but I think that's mainly psychological persuasion. In my experience nothing helps - fonts are still blurry, bad image quality. I've taken still photos with a Cannon DSLR to compare the pixels - no difference.
Someone also reported on other threads that lowering the Dell U2410's sharpness "solves" the problem, I find this to be untrue and a "fool's solution". Fonts do look sharper, but everything else looks horrible.
My understanding is that this is related to rMBP and/or Mountain Lion external display drivers. Hopefully this can be addressed with a software update. I really hope Apple is aware of this issue (many have filed bug reports).
More "good" discussion on the matter can be found here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1390034

Horrible image quality?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for