ICloud calendar (iCal) looks better than the one in MBP

Hi,
My calendar in MBP looks different from my calendar when viewed thru
https://www.icloud.com/#calendar
The iCloud one has a timeline under the calendar etc. Can I make my "MBP calendar a look alike?
Please advice,
pyry

No, unfortunately there is no way to do that.

Similar Messages

Why are the jpgs that are generated in my camera better than the ones i create from the nef file in camera raw?

i shoot raw+ jpg in camera, for some reason the jpgs that come from my camera (nikon D300) always seem better than the jpgs i create
from the nef files in camera raw. i am saving at the highest quality. the jpgs from the camera seem to have more detail in highlights
better color more vibrant, sharper. could my camera be doing some enhancements to the jpgs before processing?

I had similar thoughts back when I first started shooting raw. Really, it's just a matter of editing to your personal taste.
Yes, that camera applies lots of presets before creating the jpeg, as Trevor.Dennis mentioned. Also, as he said, you can far surpass native jpegs with raw.
If you need it more vibrant, make it so. If you need to bring down the highlights, do so. Need sharpening? Apply some.
Here is one of my edits that I made a tutorial of: Sunrise Raw File Edit - Adobe Lightroom - Landscape Photography - YouTube. It is one of my less dramatic edits, but still a good one.
I don't want to clutter this thread with links, but if you take a look at my Facebook page, I put a lot of before and afters up in January and February. A Google search for Benjamin Root Photography will bring it up.
I shoot in raw, and highly recommend it.
I'll leave you with a nice NEF RAW file before and after:
BTW, D300 is a nice camera, I've used it...
Benjamin

Quick preview looks better than processed raw image...??

Hey all, probably a bit of a "newb" question here... so forgive me, and thank you...
Using a D7000 and often times when I shoot - the preview image on the camera looks BRIGHT, VIVID and ROBUST ... after import however - when reviewing my shots, JUST as I arrow over to the next shot - many of the preview images tend to look better than the processed image that aperture displays once it's done spinning it's wheels.
Perhaps I've messed up a Raw Fine Tuning setting?
When I click on quick preview and browse through an import, the pictures truly look nicer to me than the when aperture processes them.
Without question, the display on my acer monitor is a far cry from the miniature compressed image on the back of my nikon, however the more i shoot, the more I realize a disconnect between what I think I should see, and what I'm ultimately seeing in Aperture.
Are their specific settings to fine tune the import of raw d7000 shots?
Thanks much.. gk

I take it you're shooting and processing RAW images?
It's worth remembering that if you have a picture style selected (i.e. vivid etc), your camera might be applying extra contrast and saturation etc to the image you see on the back of the camera. Camera manufacturers do this so that we can give our pictures some extra punch and colour automatically.
I'd also be wary of comparing what you see on your camera to what you see on your monitor. Unless both are calibrated, you shouldn't trust either of them 100%. The best example of monitor calibration is going to look at TV's in an electronics store. You'll probably notice that in a wall of TV's, some pictures will be darker, some lighter, some more vivid, some more saturated. Using a calibration tool adjusts the picture your screen and monitor displays so that it is 'accurate'.
It's a bit like having a room full of scales and adjusting them so that they all read 1 kilogram when a 1 kilogram weight is placed on each of them. Calibrating monitors will mean that when you display an image on it, it will always look the same rather than getting the some light/some dark problem you saw in the TV store.
It's a tricky subject to explain (don't worry if it doesn't make sense), but you might like to have look around YouTube for videos on the subject.

FLV quality looks better than F4V, what am I doing wrong?

Hi,
I exported a small clip as a on2vp6 flv, a h.264 f4v, and a h.264 mp4 file with the adobe media encoder cs4. Each file is the same clip, exported with pretty much the same settings. Resolution: 640x480, 0.5mbps target bit rate, 29.97 fps.
Everything I read says that for a given file and a given bitrate, h.264 should provide better video quality when compared to a h.263 flv file. I would like to know what I am doing wrong, because the h.264 files look worse than the flv file. I have provided download links for a short demo clip in each format.
fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.f4v
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7b/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_f4v
fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.flv
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc7e/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_flv
fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr.mp4
http://www.filefactory.com/file/af5gc71/n/fl7756n_29_640x480_500kbpsbr_mp4
Why does the clip look better in h.263? It seems that everything I encode at low bitrates looks better in h.263 which leads me to believe I am doing something wrong.

Okay, that is true, they are different codecs. But even adobe says:
Q: How does H.264 compare with the current video formats supported in Flash Player?
A: Flash Player supports the Sorenson Spark video codec (based on H.263) and On2 VP6. H.263 is the predecessor of H.264 and was designed for teleconferencing applications, at 64k rates. H.264 delivers even higher quality at lower bitrates. H.264 will deliver the same or better quality when to compared to the same encoding profile in On2. Factors you should consider when choosing a format include the complexity of the content, the desired reach, ability to archive, and licensing considerations.
at
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flash_Player:9:Update:H.264#Q:_What_is_H.264.3F
Are there any tricks to getting the h.264 to look "better" than the h.263? Like, the h.264 version of the video doesn't even look close to as good, and I think that the f4v version looks worse than the mp4, which I don't really understand since they are both h.264 files. The footage is from a canon XL2 and the original source is ntsc 720x480. Is there anything special I should be doing for encoding in h.264 instead of h.263. The video is going to be only for the web.

Song on youtube sounds better than the on bought on iTunes

Hi,
Having just migrated to iTM, I was having a listen to some songs when I noticed one song - Gigi's 'Bale Washintu' - sounded distorted on the chorus (around 3:45).
To doublecheck it wasn't my speakers or soundcard I played the youtube version and it sounded better than the one on my iTM.
To doublecheck doublecheck I bought the original song again from iTunes and STILL the youtube version sounded less distorted.
Can the Youtube version be better sounding then a 256kbps itunes download??

Keep in mind, if you bought this from Apple or an Apple Store, you only have 14 days from initial purchase to return it for a full refund (in the USA at least).
If it is past that 14 day window, you will have to sell it privately and then buy a different machine.
If you bought from an Apple authorized reseller, then be sure to check what their return period and polciy is.

Is there a better external drive than the one Apple offers?

Hello all,
I've got the 15" Macbook Pro with Retina display, and of course I don't have a disc drive, was just wondering if there was a better quality drive than the one Apple offers? I will be using this drive to burn audio onto CDs if that helps (I DJ)
***Sidenote: I have no problem with paying for or using the Apple one, I just didn't want to get it to then find out that another brands' drive does the same or a better job for less money
Thank you all in advance,
Ryan Huff

I actually have been reading some stuff online and came here after mixed reviews, I guess it's a very subjective topic,
Like I said I've got no problems with the apple one, thank you for your help!

HT201365 the activation screen(set up screen) for ios 5 and 6 kinda looks better than ios 7 and 8

the activation screen(set up screen) for ios 5 and 6 kinda looks better than ios 7 and 8

So what? Do you want a prize for posting such an illuminating comment?

Okay, so WHY is intel's legacy driver way better than the new one?

I bit the bullet and installed the intel-legacy video driver because I wanted to see if it was true that the old one was better than the new.
Result: Compiz is REMARKABLY smoother. As in, I'd forgotten just how pretty a silky smooth Compiz setup really is. I've done no benchmarking, don't care to. The point is, for example, I can set the opacity to 85% in the Move Window plugin and it doesn't hose the framerate.
My question is, why? What's going on in the new driver that made the performance totally tank? When there's a new driver and EVERYONE seems to have the same problem, I'm a little confused as to why they "improved" it.

Not only KMS, but also DRI2 and GEM. The next Intel video driver release should support only UXA, getting rid of the legacy cruft and concentrating on supporting one option properly.
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/col … g_features
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/col … t_graphics
Last edited by lucke (2009-06-06 14:08:13)

Why is the Nightly build so much faster and has better looking features than the final Firefox product ??

The Nightly build is so much faster than Firefox, and the download feature is much better than the download feature in Firefox.

The Nightly build (22.0a1) is updated daily and has the latest code fixes and thus may be unstable.<br />
This version is meant for experienced testers only to check out new code and to see if it if working properly before it will be added to a release version, so it may be faster to some extend.
You should always install such an alpha (Nightly or Aurora) or beta release alongside of a the current release in case of problems (a lot of times websites may be broken).
* http://kb.mozillazine.org/Testing_pre-release_versions
*http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Why is it that I downloaded Firefox 4.0 but I do not have the orange firefox box in the upper left hand corner of screen. My screen still looks like the old verison of firefox. My screen does not look like the one in the video. looks nothing like the one

My Firefox 4.0 does not look anything like the videos you show about the features of the new Firefox. My screen looks totally different than yours. It does not have the orange box in the upper left hand corner of the screen. My screen still looks like the old version. I have the logo on the top of my screen with Ask a Question a vertical line Firefox Help - Mozilla Firefox.
Under this line I have File, Edit, View, History, Bookmarks, Tools, and Help. Below this line is a tab with Ask a Question Firefox Help and a +. My husbands screen looks identical to the orange Firefox Box in the upper left of screen. I would like my screen to look identical to the ones shown in your videos. I only have one version of Firefox 4.0 my husband does have the Firefox 4.0 plus the Beta version. How do I add the Beta version? I have Windows Vista running systems. Please help. Thank you

You're welcome

New MBP's better than the old MBP's?

i have a 2009 13" MBP and been none too impressed with it. i just had an issue with wake from shutdown and i am wondering if the new MBP's are any better than the old ones.
i have been told i have issues because i am a "power" user (even though i don't really feel like i am and i don't do anything computationally intensive on the laptop) and i'm wondering if i have to get the 15" to get full power, if there is a machine anyone would recommend etc.
i have been sort of hankering for the 12" that is rumored to come out in part for the form factor and portability but i am a bit scared that this will be a step down and mean i have additional problems.
thanks for any advice.

iyacyas wrote:
I would have to totally agree with EWW...
I also agree that the 12" not only has the best keyboard but is the best Mac ever, and I am not looking forward to the day that I have to put the ol' girl down.
I still mourn mine. One tiny solder connection on the motherboard broke, and it is $800 to replace, but I sure loved that computer. Bought it the week it was introduced and it was wonderful.

Use a different SSO Server than the one specified during install.

Hello,
I found on documentation that OAS Portal Configuration Guide would tell me how to use a different SSO Server than the one specified during install. I need to tell an existing Portal installation to use a new Identity Management infrastructure server I installed.
However, documentation does not mention anything related to that. It states that ptlconfig would do the trick, but ptlconfig instructions are not clear on how to accomplish this.
Could anyone that has done this before, help me out? Thanks in advance...

Hello jlubbers,
That is exactly what I am talking about, the ptlconfig does not model SSO components. So I assume it is incorrectly referenced on several points of documentation as a tool to work with SSO parameters or configuration.
I need to know how to tell my Portal to look at the new SSO server. If someone has done it before, please let me know.
Thanks again.

Is the external isight better than the internal?

I have a macbook, but I am considering purchasing an external isight as well. I know the external has auto focus (I do not believe the internal does) but I am more interested in color. Does the external have better color and low-light picture? Is the same 1/4 inch chip from the external used in the internal, or is the internal a lessor chip?
I enjoy the macbooks isight, but I would like to make some movies with iMovie. The internal is not overly impressive with it's colors when doing this. Sharpness is also not excellent, it seems the external will definitly improve upon this.
Any input is greatly appreciated. I would really like to hear from owners of both cameras who could possibly compare and contrast these two.
Kalel

Hi Kalel,
I agree with Eddie. I have an external mounted on my G5 at the office and an internal on an Intel iMac at home. If nothing else, the ability to reposition makes the external the hands down winner.
Personally, I believe the external records ambient light better than the internal, but I have different lighting situations at both locations.
Both the internal and external have autofocus.
One of the best additions you can get for either one is a program called iGlasses. I has been mentioned many times in this forum with plenty of user comments.
Good Luck
John

Is the 17 inch better than the 15 inch mac book pro?

Which one is better to get and use? 15 or 17 inch?

I have both. One is not necessarily better than the other, really depends on what you plan on using the computer for. Even though the 17" is classified as a portable computer, IMO it's not very portable at all. Go to a store, view handle each for yourself. The 17" is quite large, mine sits on a desk as a desktop replacement. In terms of performance, equipped the same(processor, RAM & GPU), there is only about a 3% performance gain with the 17". Not enough to write home about. The big advantage of the 17" is screen real estate. But, if you want portability, get the 15".

ICloud calendar (iCal) looks better than the one in MBP

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for