Image quality affected by spillage?

Spilt a small amount of coffee on Macbook Pro trackpad but working fine now as far as I can see. Accident took place a few days ago.
However is it possible for image quality to be affected when watching Netflix etc?

Unfortunately, yes. What Apple would do is replace the motherboard. That's in the $600 - $700 range. How old is it? I'm not sure if this service would work for you, you'd have to contact the guy and ask.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/271139379677?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m142 3.l2649

Similar Messages

  • Photoshop slice tool and Save for Web image quality. Will it affect prints?

    I want to slice a large photo into multiple smaller (4x6) printable photos to arrange in a 12x12 inch scrapbook binder pocket (made of of 4x6 pockets). I need to order separate 4x6s online so tiling in the print options is not what I need.
    The slow way I know to do this involves cropping and saving each section (maybe even recording this action to do batch processing). However, another way is to use the slice tool to quickly divide up the sections then "Save for Web...". I can adjust some parameters, but I'm afraid there are other automatic adjustments that I don't want. For example, all images are converted to 96 dpi instead of the original 300 dpi. The number of pixels remains the same so I don't think there will be problems printing the picture.
    My question is: does the Save for Web function reduce image quality in any way when printing (it is obviously intended to be used to optimize images for websites)? Are there settings in "Save for Web" that would optimize for high quality prints? Is there a better way to tile an image?
    I have not yet compared any prints.
    W7
    CS6

    If you understand that something will do something you do not want like convert to 96 DPI as long as it does not resample you can always convert back to 300 DPI. If you want 6 4x6 to form a 12x12 you must start with an square 1:1 aspect ratio image. That you resample to 12"x 12" at 300 dpi if you want 6 4x6 300 dpi images.
    If the original images vary in size and aspect ratio you need to crop them square or add two borders to make them square.   The rest is easy to do with an action.
    The square crop or border can be automated with a little scripting.  If crop  a center crop would be the route to go. My crafting actions package contains  more the a dozen scripts to be used within action. One is a plug-in script that would make center cropping a snap two steps menu File>Automat>AspectsRatioSelection followed menu Image>Crop.  Add a menu Image>Size set side to 12" and resolution 300 DPI and you have your  starting 12"x12" 300 dpi image.
    Flatten the image make your first 4"x6" selection copy past to add it as a layer. Select the background select the next 4x6 area copy and paste repeat that process till you have added the 6 4"X6" layers. Then delete the background, Select all, target all layers and use layer>Align layers to selection>Top edge then repeat align to left edge. the Image>Trim you have your 6 4x6 in a stack.   You can the use Adobe Photoshop Script Export Layer to file.   All automated in an action however the last step Export layers to files is interactive for its not a plug-in script. So if you batch it you keen to hang around to interact with the last step for each image.
    You could also write you own export script that would not need human intervention to use instead of Adobe interactive script.
    Crafting Actions Package UPDATED Aug 10, 2014 Added Conditional Action steps to Action Palette Tips.
    Contains
    Action Actions Palette Tips.txt
    Action Creation Guidelines.txt
    Action Dealing with Image Size.txt
    Action Enhanced via Scripted Photoshop Functions.txt
    CraftedActions.atn Sample Action set includes an example Watermarking action
    Sample Actions.txt Photoshop CraftedActions set saved as a text file.
    More then a dozen Scripts for use in actions
    Example
    Download

  • Firefox mage quality and resolution was superb when I used XP and Vista. Now that I have Windows 7, however (with the Firefox 3.6.3 version), the image quality and resolution is poor. Please help me!

    I am using the Firefox 3.6.3 version with my new Windows 7 operating system. When I used all the previous Firefox versions in my XP and Vista operating systems, image quality and resolution was excellent! However, now that I have upgraded to Windows 7 and Firefox 3.6.3, the image quality and resolution is poor (unacceptable for downloading purposes).
    == This happened ==
    Every time Firefox opened
    == I first activated my new computer and installed the Firefox 3.6.3.

    All my images are pixelated in firefox 3.6.3
    http://www.dcgdcreative.com
    Not only on my site but on most sites I view.
    The issue is not solved by resetting the zoom text view (ctrl+0)
    The issue is not resolved by starting in safemode with add-ons disabled
    The problem seems to only affect .jpeg files and only on Windows 7 on my desktop; as I have viewed several sites using windows XP with my laptop, no issues.
    I had the same issue with IE8 and was able to fix the problem with by setting up the compatibility view for all sites. Issue fixed no problems at all. But nothing similar for firefox?
    Whats the deal?

  • 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.

  • Imovie slideshow image quality problems

    I have created a slideshow in imove with music of a wedding my wife and I shot. For some reason the image quality is really poor. I tried going through idvd and I tried exporting it as a quicktime movie and burning it with toast but they both look crappy on the tv when we watch them. Please help because I need to get it out to the clients.
    I have done this once before and I did have some problems but somehow got the quality we wanted. Any help is greatly appreciated.
    Wayne Sawyer

    If some slides show a lot of "jaggies" the project may have been affected by a long-standing bug in iMovie that adds jaggies to photos when you share the project with iDVD. If we grant permission for iMovie to render the images when sending the project to iDVD, it messes them up pretty badly.
    If that's what happened, you'll need to re-import those images to replace the badly-rendered clips.
    Lots more here:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=2105598&#2105598
    Karl

  • Idvd image quality problems??

    Will the length of video on a dvd created with idvd affect the quality of the image? I have just created a dvd which is pretty packed 3.7 GB are used on the dvd. Most of the video looks great. However some sections later in the movie (which when shot at night were much darker anyway) are pretty pixelated. I have created a DVD with a main movie, chapter selections and an extras folder which contains a bunch of 3 minute clips. The only place I really see teh pixelated image problem is while viewing these 3 minute "extras" clips.
    I am wondering if by creating a "packed" disk, the overall image quality was degraded. And, is it a general rule of thumb that you should not try and cram in as much video onto a disk as possible?
    Thanks for any help.
    Pete

    IDVD looks a the length of things ... technically you can put two hours total video on your dvd (this includes motion menus, slideshows, music, etc) You select Best Quality to do this
    And yeh, generally a longer video will affect the quality of the DVD. In general, tho, you need the "strongest" video you can get to stand up to the MPEG2 compression
    DVD Studio Pro with Compressor, gives you more encoding options and you can become adept at "fudging the numbers"
    But in my opinion, with iDVD, anything longer than 90 minutes total can lead you to potential probs

  • 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.

  • Trouble with the image quality when viewing under 100%. First time posting on the forum.

    Hello everyone. I am sorry we have the get acquainted this way but I am having some issues and this is one of my last options of getting help.   Allow me to explain the problem.    When viewing a file under 100% zoom, everything looks jagged like the anti aliasing is missing.  Once I zoom in to 100%, everything looks the way it should. The saved file ( jpeg format for instance) is okay. I can zoom out and it still looks true to the image. The problem is related to photoshop. I installed my latest GPU drivers twice just to be sure and it was not from that.   This problem started last night and I don`t quite know how to solve it.  If I work on small resolution images, it isn`t such a bad problem because I will be working on 100% zoom, but I am working on high resolution images/ paintings. Somewhere around 8000x5000 pixels thus, working at 100% is not that doable. I attached an image that shows this issue. The one on the right is the zoomed out version and the one on the left is the zoomed in version.  Yes, the noise is affected by this, badly, but this started last night. up until then everything looked good even with noise or an out of this world sharpness. I can`t imagine what I could have done to trigger this.
       This being said, I am at the mercy of the more knowledgeable folks from around here. I do hope I posted this question in the right section. This is my first post here so sorry if I messed something up.   Looking forward to your replies.

    Here is a simplistic view that I feel may help you understand reality.
    The only time you're looking at your image pixels in Photoshop is when you're zoomed in to 100%,   There your look at the actual image pixels Photoshop has for your image at your displays resolution.
    At any other zoom level you are looking a scaled image that  has more or less pixels than your actual image these too are displayed at your display resolution.
    The scaling done by Photoshop is done for displaying your image is done for good performance not for the best image quality a quick interpolation.   Therefore at some zoom levels image quality looks poorer  than at other zoom levels.
    High resolution Display have now add a new wrinkle.   User interfaces were designed for displays  with resolutions around 100 PPI elements like text, icon, and other things like checkboxes, buttons etc. were created so there size would be useable are this more or less fixed 100 PPI resolution.   While Photoshop was designed to scale your images so you can work well on it is was not designed with a scalable UI.  Photoshop can not scale its user interface independently from its image display display window for you displays high resolution.  Photoshop's Image display area has the same resolution as the rest of Photoshop User Interface.  Just like there is only one resolution in all layers in a document. CC 2014 2xUI changes that.  PS UI is scaled to 1/2 resolution the image Area is at the displays actual resolution.
    Photoshop CC 2014 2x UI scales all of Photoshop User Interface including the image display to 200% which is 1/2 your display resolution effectively cutting you display pixel count to 1/4 its actual pixel count.   Your once again running on a low resolution display.     If your display has a native resolution  200 PPI you're running it at 100 ppi if your display has a 300 PPI resolution  you're running it at 150ppi.    Which defeats the reason of having high resolution.  Which is you would like to be able to edit your images at print resolution.  Adobe cc2x UI scales the UI but not the image window soa inage is 216ppi on the Surface Pro 3 the UI is large and dpoes not fit. screen
    To be able to edit your images at print resolution  you need a display the has a print resolution and you need and application the can scale its image display  and its UI independently.
    Current there is no OS interface for having multiple resolutions areas on  a display  and applications like Photoshop can not scale UI and Image independently.  OS and Photoshop can scale what is displayed.  Adobe Photoshop executable is coded in a way that it tell Microsoft Windows OS that it will handle display scaling so it can using your displays native resolution.  Currently Only  Photoshop CC 2014  Provides you with the option of running you display at half resolution.
    Windows can scale you display to many resolution and as several presets.  like 100%, 125%, 150% and like Adobe 200% half resolution.    You can make a Windows Registry and add an External Photoshop  Manifest file the tell's Microsoft Windows to handle display scaling.  I have a  Microsoft Surface Pro 3 m windows machine. Its LCD has a 216PPI resolution.  Windows 8.1 had 4 preset for scaling its LCD.
    Surface Pro 3 LCD Display 12"  IPS display 3:2 aspect ratio 9.984603532054124" Wide, 6.656402354702749" High 216.3330765278394  PPI
    Microsoft Preset Display scaling
    100% 2160x1440   216 PPI
    125% 1728x1152   173 PPI
    150% 1440x960    144 PPI SP3 Default setting
    200% 1080x720    108 PPI
    Most user these days has 1024x768 or better displays and Web pages are often authored for 800x600 pixels pages. So the give you a better handle on Resolution and scaling I have edit a 800x600 document with 25x25 px grid one my Surface pro 3
    using Windows 4  scaling presets and captured the 2160x1140 scaled screens  Only at the 100% preset does the image window have a 216ppi Also note  @ 2x UI Photoshop UI doe not fit on screen
    Adobe Photoshop  CC 2014 2xUI Scales the UI  to a display 1/2 resolution but does not scale the Image area  uses actual screen resolution. Photoshop  Help system info show the screen i 1/2 resilution 1080x720 but scalet the imase to the real resolution 2160x1440. however the image window is the 216ppi the ui 108ppi via scaling

  • IMovie 11 loosing image quality in still pictures

    I shoot RAW photos with a Nikon D300 and import everything to Aperture 3 where I organize, correct and adjust.
    I use iMovie to make slide show sequences - i.e. my daughter's third year - and have found that though the image quality is perfect in Aperture and in any file that I export, there is a loss of quality when the images are brought into iMovie. It is especially apparent in areas that have shadows or are dark - like the skin on an arm that is in a shadow while the rest of the person is in the sun. The shadowed skin looks like it's been pixilated -rather than a uniform transition of colors, it's blotchy.
    I have tried importing the photos from the media browser in iMovie, I have tried dragging them from Aperture, and I have tried exporting them from Aperture to a folder and then importing them from that folder into iMovie. The results are the same - loss of image quality especially in dark areas of the photos. It doesn't matter if I leave it as Fit, Crop or Ken Burns - it's as if the base image information has been degraded for some reason.
    The image quality degradation is clearly evident in the viewer - so it's not a matter of what the intended output / export / share option is or will be.
    I have also found that this happens if I take a video file like a *.m4v file and import it into iMovie - wicked loss of image quality.
    I also find that if I shoot video with my iPhone 4, and then download that into Aperture, I get a nice and crisp movie in Aperture. But when I try and pull up that same video in iMovie 11, again there is a loss of quality. This is especially apparent if I let it do image stabilization as it enlarges the frame a bit. Given that I have a really big monitor I can pull up the same video in Aperture that was not stabilized and moved to the same scene and resize side by side for a direct comparison - clear image degradation in iMovie 11.
    As with the photos for slide shows, the bright areas don't seem to be affected, or if they are it's not as apparent - it's as if some setting is trying to automatically adjust the black point. But I don't know what would do this or how to stop it. Can't find such a setting anywhere.
    Given that the system is a Mac Pro 2 x 2.8 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xenon with 14GB and two 1TB drives it's not, or should not be an issue of the system being overtaxed.
    Hope someone knows how to fix this.

    Hi!
    I'm loosing a lot of video quality when I transfer movie clips from my Iphone 4S to Imovie11.
    Did you find an answer to your problem?
    If so, maybe you could help me out?
    Thanks!!

  • Resaving pdfs and image quality

    I have clients submit ads as pdfs but sometimes I need to recreate the pdf because the client forgot to include all printer marks, or I need to convert a spot to process, or whatever. The way I do it is to create a new InDesign CS3 file, place the pdf file into it, and export to pdf using my preset. My question is does importing a pdf file into ID and then exporting back into pdf affect image quality, even slightly assuming the compression settings are the same in the export to pdf' dialog box - mainly all compression set to none?
    Thanks.
    -Mark

    New Bie:
    Many of the adjustments you want to make can be done to the PDF within Acrobat if you have the Acrobat Professional version.
    Such as: convert colors, add printers marks and change Page Box sizes.
    You'll find these tools under the "Advanced" menu > "Print Production"
    And also under the "Document" menu > Crop Pages > Change Page Size

  • Loss of Image quality and shimmering in Imove

    Hi. This is a posting very similar to another forum user but I have the same problem!. I am downloading images from a Pentax K10D onto the Book pro and they are fine, as soon as you load them into iMovie they are terrible, poor image quality, edges of what ever is inside the photo move with a shimmering affect. I have been to the macintosh shop where I live and they don't know!. I have put this on Mac help pages in the USA and Spain still now help or comments, surely someone must have an idea as to why this is going on or is it through bad design of software!!??. regards to all. Kevin

    Hi Matti. Thanks for your work and help you are giving to me and others. I have printed off your info and will try and get my poor old brain round it!. So many people are having the same problem with iMovie it's amazing that the mac software dept has no don anything to rectify this bug and or problem. I have downloaded the software you state "Photo to Movie" but it does not seem to have the same things as iMovie with all the fancy transitions of images and music in the background, I have tried 4 images in this software and thay come up on full screen as 100% perfect, I still have to work out how to get them onto DVD with some kind of presentation. I want to start in the field of wedding photography and need some high end presentation software for digital wedding albums or Imaging with transitin affects, what would you recomend?. I am in spain so we are on PAL here, I think!. I have people over here in the Spanish Mac forums asking about the same problems, is it OK with you to translate some of yours and pass over to them in Spanish?. best regards. Kevin

  • Image quality with ATV 3rd gen

    Hi.  I have a 2nd gen ATV and am very happy with it.  I use it to stream movies from my iTunes library on my Mac, and occasionally from Netflix.  I recently  bought the 3rd gen ATV.  Over the weekend I used the 3rd gen ATV to stream portions of some movies from my iTunes library to see if I would notice a difference in image quality on my 47" LDC TV.  Some were better (the 1080i HD ones) than with the 2nd gen ATV, most looked about the same, but it surprised me that a few looked worse.
    I don't know how to describe the ones that looked worse.  It's not an issue of pixelation.  I believe Hollywood produces films on 35mm or 70mm format, whereas TV and home movies often are on lower quality 8mm or 16mm format.  With the 3rd gen ATV, the movies that I thought looked worse seemed to have the appearance of lower quality 8mm / 16mm movies, rather than of higher quality 35mm / 70 mm movies.  The characters and images on the screen looked more plastic somehow, with less depth.  Any yes, I am talking about 2D images, not 3D.  The movies in question were purchased from the iTunes store in SD format.  They look better on my 2nd gen ATV than they do on my 3rd gen ATV.
    Has anyone else had this experience?  Is there a setting I am missing somewhere on the 3rd gen ATV that might cause this affect?  Thank you

    SD movies need to be scaled to fill your screen.
    If your TV has a 1080 screen and your Apple TV is set to output at 1080, then your Apple TV does all the scaling.
    Your Apple TV 2 has a maximum output of 720, therefore your TV had to do some of the scaling.
    If your TV is significantly better than the Apple TV at scaling, this may account for what you say.

  • Image quality and editing in pages

    when i insert an image into an a4 doc and I'm viewing at 100% image quality is poor but fine if i zoom in? Also image editing such as saturation etc seems to revert on its own?

    Hi Matti. Thanks for your work and help you are giving to me and others. I have printed off your info and will try and get my poor old brain round it!. So many people are having the same problem with iMovie it's amazing that the mac software dept has no don anything to rectify this bug and or problem. I have downloaded the software you state "Photo to Movie" but it does not seem to have the same things as iMovie with all the fancy transitions of images and music in the background, I have tried 4 images in this software and thay come up on full screen as 100% perfect, I still have to work out how to get them onto DVD with some kind of presentation. I want to start in the field of wedding photography and need some high end presentation software for digital wedding albums or Imaging with transitin affects, what would you recomend?. I am in spain so we are on PAL here, I think!. I have people over here in the Spanish Mac forums asking about the same problems, is it OK with you to translate some of yours and pass over to them in Spanish?. best regards. Kevin

  • I want to make a copy of slide show create from my own photographs and with a an audio track behind them. I have carefully followed the iDVD tutorials and burnt the result to a disc but image quality is very poor. What is wrong?

    I want to make a DVD of a slide-show with an audio track behind the photographs. I have carefully followed the iDVD video tutorials but the result is far from satisfactory. The quality of the images on the resulting DVD are blurred and indistict although the original photographs are of a very high quality. Where am I going wrong? Would I have better results from a different program than the inbuilt iDVD and if so so what programs have others found to be better? I should be grateful for some expert guidance.

    Hey Falcopebo,
    Thanks for using Apple Support Communities.
    Looks like you have image quality issues when using iDVD to burn.
    iDVD 7.0: Burned DVD has interlacing, pixelation, or image quality issues
    http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4078
    A standard DVD made by iDVD is made to the standard DVD resolution of 720 X 480, which is smaller than most HDTVs and monitors. When expanded to fit the entire screen or monitor, the image will distort slightly due to upscaling to fit the screen or monitor.
    Have a nice day,
    Mario

  • HT1338 What is the best online storage for photos. Specifically one that allows the original image quality to be downloaded should your hard storage goes belly up

    What is the best online storage for photos. Specifically one that allows the original image quality to be downloaded should your hard storage goes belly up

    I'd put them on an external hard drive(s) and burn them to a DVD as well (at least 2 - 3 copies on different drives/media); I prefer having control and a local solution instead of relying on a server and the possibility of someone (who shouldn't be)  downloading my work.

Maybe you are looking for