Image quality in FCE: Not as sharp as it should be...

Hi, I'm getting in the queue with those who are having troubles with the output of FCE.
I'm doing a simple DVD editing, by cutting the beginning and the ending titles and keeping the mid content.
I extracted the VOB files from the DVD and converted them in QT format with the result being as nice and sharp as it is on the DVD.
The final output is 768x576, H. 264, Integer (Big Endian), 25 fps, total BR 6,480.
I put it in a FCE new project, where it has the same properties, but the sequence that contains it, for some reasons are 1280x720, Apple Int. Codec, 29,97 fps.
I added a new beginning and ending titles in separate sequences in FCE, with a png image and some generated text, but the quality and the sharpness of the final export are not even close to the original.
I know the original editor for the DVD personally and I know he works on Windows based machines, so no FC there.
In this picture:
http://www.jcmonteromultimedia.com/jcmm/download/FCEcomparison.png
on the left is the original footage, very clear and sharp, on the right my own graphics done in FCE, with the .png logo and the added text, very low quality.
Any help on this issue will be much appreciated!
Thanks.
JC

768x576 is what? That's square pixel PAL. What is that? It's completely non-standard. And why H.264? That's a delivery codec not a production codec.
FCE only works with DV and HDV using the Apple Intermediate Codec. If you're converting PAL material from DVD you convert it to QuickTime using the DV PAL codec at the standard frame size 720x576. Any material created in a video editing application is in a format designed for display on a television set. You must assess the rendered output on a video monitor. You cannot assess it on a computer monitor. It is not designed for display on a computer monitor. If you are looking at it in on a computer monitor in the QuickTime player you must make sure it is set to high quality playback.

Similar Messages

  • Poor Image Quality In FCE With Photoshop Imports

    I'm using scans created in Photoshop in my current FCE project, and am extremely disappointed with the image quality. All scans are 72 pixels/inch, 720x534 pixels (changed to 720x480 for import), sharpened with Unsharp Mask. In Photoshop, they look terrific. Imported into FCE and viewed in the viewer, they look terrific. When dropped onto the canvas to add to the timeline, suddenly they look like crap. The sharpness is gone, the edges are pixelated, and most are rendered unusable. What happened? Can I fix it? Thanks in advance.
    Dual 2 GHz PowerPC G5   Mac OS X (10.4.5)   FCE 1.0.1

    Really!? I'm surprised, as those numbers come from the Apple Pro Training Series book on FCE. But ok, I'll redo my images at 720x540. I should still make a version at 720x480 for import, to avoid "squeezing" the image, right? Should I avoid sharpening the image at all, or just cut back on the amount (or does this depend on the image)? When you say "the canvas is a reduced display output," do you mean that this reflects the compression that occurs with the DV format? Thanks, Tom, for your help.
    Dual 2 GHz PowerPC G5   Mac OS X (10.4.5)  

  • Why am I getting poor image quality on PowerPoint notes pages?

    Hi,
    I am using Acrobat Pro version 9, pre-Lion.  I have upgraded to Lion, but have this problem before Lion.
    When printing slides from a PowerPoint presentation, and choosing the standard "Save as Adobe PDF" option, the image quality on the output is perfect.  If, however, I do the same thing but try to print the notes pages, the image gets pixelated.
    I searched the Microsoft site for help, and all I could find is a recommendation to use PNG images in my PowerPoint, which I am indeed using.
    Any ideas?  Thanks....

    Lion should not cause the blacks to print faded. The printer drivers used by Snow Leopard and Leopard are the same version as that used by Lion.
    For starters I suggest you check that you have the latest version installed. This Apple KB article shows the MG6100 series has v10.51.2.0 as the latest version.
    I also recommend you do a Nozzle test print. This can be executed from the MG6120 control panel or via the Printer Utilties window (via Print & Scan, select the printer and then open Options & Supplies and then select the Utilties tab).
    If the nozzle test print is okay but the blacks still look faded when printing photos (note the printer has two black ink tanks - one for photos and one for text) then try a reset of the printing system. This will remove the MG6120 from the Print & Scan pane but not the supporting drivers. So you will only have to add the printer again.

  • Cropping Photo appears to reduce image quality - but maybe not

    Hi,
    This morning I took some pictures of hoar frost, and then emailed a couple of them to a friend. I chose the actaul image size which said it was 3.3MB. Tonight, I was going to email them again to have them printed, so I cropped the picture (with the built in editor) and constrained it to 4x6, and then emailed it. Before it sent, I noticed "actual size" was about 850KB - at least that's what it said. That made me nervous considering it was going to be a print quality photo. If it was true, that would have been a significant resolution loss.
    I pulled the email that I had sent earlier in the morning - which said it was 3.3MB -  and sent it to myself. I then sent myself the 846KB picture and pulled them both up side by side on my large computer screen and they look identical as far as resolution.
    Is this just a weird fluke or have other's experienced this as well?
    Thanks!

    No it is however best to use save for the web to do so for the best optimization.
    keep in mind the only lose in quality will be if some one grabbed it off of the website and tried to enlarge it or view it at a larger display size.
    What you want to do is the best way of reducing the size.

  • Poor Image Quality -- Design View & Published Content (CP8)

    If I prepare a high-quality image, picture perfect, sharp, sized to let's say 500 x 500 px in Photoshop  (max JPG quality setting) and then dump into Captivate, I find that Captivate significantly degrades the image quality.  It changes the sharpness of the image and destroys exposure settings like colour saturation and hue.  Even if I publish to an LMS with 24-bit, no compression, it still looks degraded.
    Is there any way to improve image quality?

    I am on PC, not on Mac and have used this feature all the time since (not totally sure) version 5. Maybe it is a Mac bug?
    This is a screenshot, I imported a Photoshop file 'IconsTips' and choose to import Layers as images, you'll see the folder with 6 images.

  • Radeon 6850 poor image quality via hdmi

    Hi have a  connected via HDMI cable to a Sony Bravia 32in 100hz LCD TV and the image quality is poor Windows appears really pixalated, have used this TV with on board graphics and image quality is great any ideas?

    Still you should be able to bump the Res up with DVI to DVI if it has that port.  VGA PC to DVI TV will work 1080P.  Some manufacturer though do not allow DVI to do 1080p I read somewhere.  My LG 50" TV has every port I could think of DVI VGA RCA COAX HDMI probably more that I dont even know. It does 1080p with DVI but HDMI is easier with the sound.

  • WVC200 Image Quality Problem

    Hi,
    I have an WVC200 internet camera connected to WAG325N ADSL router. Image quality is too poor. There are lots of different coloured dots on image. I attached current image settings and image samples. Images are taken in good light conditions. Any solution ideas?

     So after two weeks I got a replacement WVC200 and I'm still not satisfy with the image quality, I'm not sure if the replacement is also bad or I'm expecting to much of the camera. Here are two sample images.
    What's your opinion?
    If you have any suggestion on how to improve the quality please let me know.
    Message Edited by globalmcs on 10-23-2007 08:31 AM

  • Bizarre Lightroom image quality issue

    I have a weird image quality issue with Lightroom, when opening RAW files (haven't tried it with any other file format, admittedly).
    Here's an example of how the image appears in Lightroom.  As an experiment, I exported the image as a TIFF and opened it in Gimp to see if it was just down to a display issue, but the exported TIFF showed the same quality issues as Lightroom. Aside from exporting as a TIFF (and then saving as a Jpeg), this image is SOOC:
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/swisstony10/4912360565/" title="IMG_4134 by swisstony10, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4093/4912360565_5891c0160f.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="IMG_4134" /></a>
    If I open the same image in Canon's own DPP software, this image quality issue does not occur, so I know that it's not an issue with the memory card, the camera, or my laptop's monitor.  The SOOC image from DPP (exported as a Jpeg) looks like this:
    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/swisstony10/4912362053/" title="IMG_4134b by swisstony10, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4116/4912362053_1ca92078c9.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="IMG_4134b" /></a>
    Has anybody else experienced this, and if so, is there a fix?  (there had better be - I'm not going to be overly chuffed if my expensive Adobe software is being outperformed by the free stuff..  )
    Russ.

    This is proving to be an extremely helpful forum!
    Thanks for the advice on embedding my calibrated colour space - I don't very often send files anywhere other than my own home network (where all the monitors are calibrated), and when I do upload any to Flickr, it's never caused a problem in the past (and if I get anything printed by a lab, I use their ICC profile).  I'll definitely keep that all in mind though..
    Here's the original RAW file of the image I used as the example  https://www.yousendit.com/download/aHlUa3ZONmNFd2Z2Wmc9PQ   - I hope that helps someone to shed some light on what's going wrong.  From what you've said though, it does look as if this is just an extreme example of something that Lightroom isn't very good at doing.
    As I said in my original post, it'll be a bit disappointing if that's the case though, because a fair amount of the pictures I take tend to be of bands playing in what are, let's face it, diabolical conditions for photography.  (At the festival I was attending at the weekend for example, all of the photographers - even the seasoned pros - were moaning about how awful the lighting was in the Big Top, and how much it sucked to try and get a decent picture there, as opposed to the main stage where everybody wasn't completely backlit by either red or purple lights.  I appreciate that Lightroom is a much more powerful tool than Canon's DPP - the noise reduction controls on their own completely rock - but I must admit I'm a bit surprised that it can't handle highlights terribly well...

  • Quality control? crashes, performance, image quality...

    I like to functionality of new lightroom, but once more I have to say: what about quality control? even after 2.1 this prog is a beta-version at best:
    - performance: slower than a mountain duck
    - image quality: adjustment-brush not ready for prime time
    - stability: lightroom crashes more often in one day than all other programs together in one year.
    summary: very poor quality control and very poo customer.
    Phil

    Phillie1
    I understand your frustration. I too love LR's functionality but I've had a nightmare with it, particularly since 2.1. I have a high specified machine; Q6600, 4GB RAM, ATI 4850, XPsp3. LR constantly crashes.(the only program that does so) No Virus checker, Latest GFX driver, etc.
    My main Issue-The Develop Module, After 30-45 mins usage.
    (No difference whether it's my H3D-39 or 1DS mkIII files.)
    In v1.0 I used to get an upside down red out of memory error.
    I had to quit and restart to resolve.
    In v2.0 unfortunately things got worse. The red OOM message was gone but unfortunately this was replaced by a gray area where the image should've been. I had to quit and restart to resolve.
    I read that the problem in the develop module had been fixed in 2.1, seemingly it was attributable to a memory leak? Guess what?
    Still a gray area where the image should be, sometimes preceded by the image flipping 180deg. I have to quit and restart to resolve.
    Task manager confirms some odd things going on with memory.
    I cannot use 2.1 with confidence, particularly so in front of my clients. It's not solid enough.

  • Images imported from iPhoto to iDvd are not as sharp as originals. Any solution?

    Trying iDVD for the first time. Imported images from iPhoto. However on the DVD, the images are not as sharp as the original files which are very sharp and well-focused. Any solutions or is this kind of degradation just to be expected?
    Thank you!

    Hi
    There are several layers to this.
    a. There are no HD-DVD - DVD is as standard only Standard Definition as on old CRT-TVs and can never be anything btter as iPhoto showes on Your Mac screen (5 to 10 times higher resolution)
    b. One can get a result less than iDVD SD quality and down to really bad by
    • Using iMovie'08 or 09 or 11 - as they discard every second line in the picture = 50% loss
    • Using iMovie HD6 and NO Ken Burns effect AND "Share to iDVD" as this also results in disaster (heavely pixelated Bad bad pictures) - (as iMovie will render badly)
    c. I build my SlideShow in
    • iMovie HD6 - and no Ken Burns effect - BUT I close iMovie and import iMovie movie project (SlideShow) from within iDVD and now iDVD will render and so much better.
    • FinalCut also delivers maximal quality over to iDVD
    (from FCE/P - Export out as QuickTime .mov - NO QuickTime conversion (Important))
    • iMovie'08 to 11 - I Share to Media Browser and as Large (not HD or other)
    iMovie HD6/FinalCut + iDVD will give as high quality possibly to the resulting DVD.
    I use
    • Verbatim DVD-R
    • set down burn speed to x4 (Plays better on many DVD-Players)
    • Pro Quality encoding - I got the time and like the result
    Yours Bengt W

  • NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

    Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
    First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
    Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
    I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
    Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?

    Jeff,
    I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
    And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
    Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
    I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
    Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
    If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
    Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
    Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again

  • Satellite S70-A-11H web camera image quality is not good

    Hi,
    Running windows 8.1 which came with the laptop.
    New out of the box.
    As per title.
    I find the image quality of the camera image to be very grainy, poor color etc.
    When I start the web camera using the search bar on the right, it starts using the Microsoft application, when you scroll down to settings all that is available under settings/options is Photo aspect ratio, Grid lines, Location info.
    I have been in touch with Toshiba Tech support who advised to do a Laptop refresh, which I did.
    This made no difference.
    After which they asked me to find the Toshiba web camera application on the laptop, this should have been in the Program Files folder in the Toshiba folder.
    This application does not exist on my laptop.
    The tech checked the same model laptop that he had available, which I was told when he selected the web camera, it opened using the Toshiba Web camera application, not Microsoft.
    I have looked at other Toshiba laptops with web cameras, and found the image quality to be better. Unable to get to settings as these laptops were on display and in demo mode, hence locked down to some extent.
    I can't believe that a web camera in this day and age for this value of laptop to have such poor image quality. My digital camera from 10year ago has better image quality.
    I have checked through the laptop, and I do not have this application installed.
    I have checked for updated drivers and software for my laptop, and cannot find this application to be applicable for my laptop. Drivers etc appear to be up to date.
    I would like to know, do other users of this S series have any issue of camera image quality.
    When the camera is selected what application is being used, Toshiba or Microsoft.
    Is Toshiba web camera application applicable to Windows 8.1, as I cannot see it listed for 8.1
    Does this sound like a hardware fault or a application/software issue.
    Any direction or help on this matter would be appreciated, as I am getting to the point of returning this laptop for a refund.
    Thanks in advance.
    D.
    Yes, I have tried using the FORCE!

    > The tech checked the same model laptop that he had available, which I was told when he selected the web camera, it opened using the Toshiba Web camera application, not Microsoft.
    The Toshiba webcam application is available for Win 7 system but the Win 8 and Windows 8.1 system use the own Microsoft webcam application.
    > I have looked at other Toshiba laptops with web cameras, and found the image quality to be better.
    Different Toshiba notebooks are equipped with different webcams.
    Satellite S70-A-11H was equipped with a *0.92 mega pixel webcam*
    A Satellite A660 for example was equipped with an _1.3M mega pixel webcam_
    So there is a difference in webcam resolution

  • I just set up a new computer running Windows 8.1. When I go to my icloud photostream, the pictures are in PNG format NOT JPG. When I open and upload photos from the photostream, the resolution is so low that the image quality is terrible. Help?!?

    I just set up a new computer running Windows 8.1. When I go to my icloud photostream, the pictures are in PNG format NOT JPG. When I open and upload photos from the photostream, the resolution is so low that the image quality is terrible. Help?!?

    Hey Sierra, You can do just what you have stated. My question, what is your "other"? If it is over 1.5 GB you most likely have corrupt files. Doing a Restore to New, Factory restore should correct it. Just make sure you make a full backup of all information on your iPod to your computer before you restore, so you don't lose your stuff, contacts, videos, pictures, non-iTunes music, etc, use the cable and connect with your computer. Then, via cable, connect to your computer, run the Restore to new, don't use your backup. Treat this iPod as if it was your first one ever. When restore is done, set up and add what info you wish to install on this iPod. The music apps etc you purchased should be on your computer, if not you should be able to retrieve purchased apps and music from iTunes. Any music, videos, apps not purchased from iTunes will be lost to you if you do not save them to your computer or the cloud first. When your done, make a current Backup and you should good to go. Hope this helps. Good luck. Cheers.

  • Do you know if it's possible on an iPad to set the image quality/size or do we just have the one size - the photos I've taken work out at approx 8 x 6cm @300ppi - not that big!

    Do you know if it's possible on an iPad to set the image quality/size or do we just have the one size - the photos I've taken, work out at approx 8 x 6cm @300ppi - not that big!

    8cm * (1 in/2.54cm) * 300 dpi = 944 pixels (should be 1280 if this is the back camera)
    6cm * (1in/2.54cm) * 300 dpi = 708 pixels (should be 720 if this is the back camera)
    The back camera on iPad 2 is 1280x720 = 0.92Mp.  No way to increase that.

  • Image Quality Issues from FCE to iDVD

    I've been attempting to take a 16 minute video shot in DV to a DVD and have been disappointed with the results. Using Final Cut Express, I've tried every codec but have found the image quality to be quite a bit less than the original DV footage. Also having a difficult time retaining the original 4:3 aspect ratio of the footage, despite specifying NTSC 4:3. When converting the footage to a Quicktime movie, the quality of the movie appears fine when played back on the Mac, but degraded when the final DVD is burned. Haven't used iDVD much, so the issue may lie there, but it's hard for me to believe that such a relatively small amount of footage would require so much compression that the final DVD image would show this much degradation from the DV footage.
    Is there some magic combination of codec and size that I'm missing when converting to Quicktime?

    Your FCE Easy Set should be DV NTSC.
    Your FCE Sequence Settings should also be DV NTSC.
    Export a QuickTime Movie using Current Settings, Self Contained.
    Bring that file into iDVD where it will be converted internally to MPEG 2.

Maybe you are looking for