Image quality question on WVC54GCA

The contrast ratio on this camera image seems way too high. i.e. the sunlit areas are too bright and the shadowed areas are too dark. Does everyone notice this on this camera or is it just me?
If there is a way to upload an image to this post... please let me know.
Thanks,
George

Check this link and try adjust the Color Balance on the GUI of camera.

Similar Messages

IChat to AOL/AIM image quality question.

This is a question about the image quality during a video chat from AOL/AIM and Trillian Pro on PCs to iChat on Macs. The details of the computers, connections and cameras are:
I'm running 10.4.8 on a MacBook Pro (2.33GHz CPU, 2GB RAM) with iChat AV 3 with a DSL connection that averages 1.24 Mbps DL and 271 Kbps UL and an external iSight camera.
My mother is running 10.3.9 on an iBook (1.33 GHz CPU, 256 MB RAM) with iChat AV 2.1 with a DSL connection that averages 155 Kbps DL and 146 Kpbs UL and an external iSight camera.
My sister is running Windows (not sure which version) on a Dell Dimension DIM4600 (2.60GHz CPU, 512MB RAM) with Trillian Pro with a DSL connection that averages 1.29 Mbps DL and 446 Kbps UL and a Logitech QuickCam Pro 4000 with QuickCam 8.3.0.
When I video chat with my mother my picture to her is good and her picture to me is good.
When I video chat with my sister my picture to her is good, but her picture to me is bad. The slightest movement causes the image to go break up into large squares that settles back down a decent image when the movement ends.
When my mother video chats with my sister, my mother's picture to my sister is good, but my sister's picture to my mother is bad. Again, the slightest movement causes the image to go break up into large squares that settles back down a decent image when the movement ends.
Also I have a friend (some kind of PC, some kind of Logitech webcam) using AOL/AIM 5.9 (I think) with cable modem connection (I don't know the speed). When I video chat with him my picture to him is good, but his picture to me is bad. Again, the slightest movement causes the image to go break up into large squares that settles back down a decent image when the movement ends.
Does anyone know if:
(1) this kind of behavior "par for the course" with PCs over the AOL/AIM network?
or if
(2) there is some "switch" in Trillian Pro and AOL/AIM 5.9 that needs to be thrown to improve the image (like the Bandwidth switch in iChat preferences)?
or
(3) is the camera or camera connection (USB vs. Firewire) that causes the problem?
Thanks.
P.S. I know the speed of my mother's DSL connection seems slow, but because our video chat images both ways are good I don't think that's the problem here.

Hi James,
I can relate to this somewhat based on AIM 5.9 to Macs.
You may be able to use the information to sort Trillian out further.
Ok first start a chat and then open the Connection Doctor from the Video menu at your end.
The Bit rate should be well over 100 for both of you.
Her Frame rate should be at least 10fps.
Now when on AIM 5.9 the framerate drops to about 1fps to the ichat end it is usually because the Pic Quality is set too high on the PC end. It then spends so long producing one frame it slows down sending the video.
To change this on the AIM app a user has to do the following.
They click on the preview tab (there are two; one for your incoming and one for their preview).
With the preview as the front tab a small icon appears to the right of the pic.
Clicking on this brings up a slider.
Sliding the slider to the left reduces the quality.
Visually you may not detect this but the effect is sort of converse in that the frames are produced faster as less detail is in them and the video frame rate goes up and therefore looks smoother.
I have not heard of Trillian needing this and consequently would not know where specifically to direct you.
I would start with the Preferences/Properties of Trillian and see if there are any setting there for output.
Look at size of the pic at their end as well as frame rates that they are aiming at.
As you say the slower 150ish connection is considered slow in many places now-a-days but is enough for 1-1 chats (min 100kbps).
The problem is likely to be a setting on the PC end.
I would also check the Trillian site for info about adjusting the frame rate or video quality. They have an extensive FAQ database.
10:51 PM Thursday; December 14, 2006

Image quality question.

hello forumers.
ive made the this adobe after effect icon.as you can see the left one is perfect quality,when i place it in indesign as an psd file it breaks and looks jagged.
and when i export it as a pdf file its also ugly looking,notice the right hand side A how the side lines look aweful?!how can i fix this.
btw my indesign is set to high quality so i can view my images 100% crystal clear.
thank you.

hello john.
yes you are right,but soem some odd reason,my AI file when exported as a pdf from indesign,it was buckled and jagged,whats why i was trying to find
another file to place into indesign and then export as a PDF file.
thank you.

Question about image quality! *please help*

Hello everyone!
I'm actually a beginner at FCP, so sorry if this question sounds kinda dumb:
I just shot a video in a DVX100, and imported it onto FCP. When I play the video
on the viewer, the quality of the image looks just fine. When I put it on the timeline
for editing however, the image quality drops quite a bit. How can I match viewer settings
with sequence settings?
Thanks a lot!
Stef

Step 1 would be to ensure the sequence settings match the source video settings. If the sequence is set to a lower quality size/codec than the original video, it will be reduced in quality in the timeline.
What sequence settings are you using?

Image quality of HDTV vs. monitor

How does the image quality compare, of sending the output of a Powermac to an LCD HDTV with a VGA input, vs. getting a regular LCD monitor (with DVI input)?
I can get a 23" or greater HDTV for about the same price as the Apple 20" Cinema display. Unless the image quality would be significantly worse, this would seem to be the better option as I could also watch TV or hook up a video game console as well. I could kill two birds with one stone and get both a better TV and monitor than what I already have, with just one purchase.
Or a related question, if I were to get an adapter to output to S-Video or Component for use on my current SDTV, is the image quality acceptable? I've tried it in the past with my PC and I wasn't too impressed.
PowerMac G5 Dual 1.8 Mac OS X (10.4.5) 5G iPod 60GB

How does the image quality compare, of sending the
output of a Powermac to an LCD HDTV with a VGA input,
vs. getting a regular LCD monitor (with DVI input)?
It depends a lot on the HDTV. Some HDTV only display 780 lines which is not much for a modern computer. Other potential problems are overscan (menu bar and dock off the edge) and non-square pixels (distorted images). DVI will give a shaper picture but some HDTV DVI ports do not wok well with computers. Sometimes the manual for the HDTV will give useful information, sometimes you just have to try it and see how it looks.
I can get a 23" or greater HDTV for about the same
price as the Apple 20" Cinema display. Unless the
image quality would be significantly worse, this
would seem to be the better option as I could also
watch TV or hook up a video game console as well. I
could kill two birds with one stone and get both a
better TV and monitor than what I already have, with
just one purchase.
A better choice might be a non-Apple computer monitor with DVI and video or TV input. Some have a buit-in TV tuner and speakers.
Or a related question, if I were to get an adapter to
output to S-Video or Component for use on my current
SDTV, is the image quality acceptable? I've tried it
in the past with my PC and I wasn't too impressed.
With SDTV the best you can get is about 640 X 480 interlaced. This is not much, and fine detail will flicker due to the interlace.

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.

Really bad image quality when burning

Hi, i am very new at this discussion thing and am a french speaker so hope i do this ansking question ok.
I'm having problems with image quality of my 1h46 min movie imported from imovie (initially from quicktime made from final cut pro). I am having pixelly images when camera is moving... Although have read some things about this on the forum none of the answers seem to resolve my problem.
I have selected best quality in my prefs but with no success. I figure it's a compression / codec problem but i do not have a clue about all this technical stuff. I don't know what next move i should make.
Thanks for any help...
V
I'm using iMac G5 divided my 250 GB in 2 disks wich has 31 Go of free space on my HD at the moment. Using iDVD and i Movie 6.0.2
Imac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.7) 2.1 GHz Power PC G5, mémoire 1.5 GO DDR2 SDram

Hi ! Thanx for responding...
In FCP i did choose export DV/NTSC and imported from camera with apple firewire NTSC (720x480). Should i have imported material in (640x480/30fps/interlaced...) ?
I have had this problem with smaller projects of 20 min of video also so i don't think it has to do with size... At the moment i am making a disc image of my dvd on my desktop hoping to burn through Toast. Otherwise i am also thinking about exporting movie from FCP to tape then importing back to iMov through camera...
I'm kind of desperate and don't really know what to do... I'm also gonna start reading compressor 2 and maybe forget about iDVD an d just burn it through toast. Wich is kind of dissapointing cause without interface, menu and all...
V

Image quality in PDF files

Hi. I add images to pdf files all the time and I have a question about them. The image quality seems to be bad in certain situations. For example I added a 501x483 72dpi gif image to a 1190x1684 pdf file. It looks great at 75% zoom but really jagged at 100% zoom. Why is it like this? Shouldn't it be same as the original image file at 100% zoom?
I'd really appreciate any guidance about making images look better in pdf files.

Hi
Thanks for the responses. I tried Print to PDF. In that images look better although they are little distorted. However, I cannot use print because the Table of Contents prepared in Word does not work when we use Print. Secondly, the PDF file size becomes too large when using Print to PDF.
While directly creating PDF from word using Acrobat, I changed settings for Images (in Preferences) turning downsampling off after changing it to 1800 pixels but that did not help either. Is there anything I am missing out or Is there any other resolution?
Else is there any setting in PDF so that after conversion we can show the images more clearly, maybe if someone hovers over the image it becomes big or clicking on it makes it look bigger.
Looking forward to make this problem resolve.
Thanks

How to prevent PDF presets to alter image quality

In experimenting with various PDF presets, I noticed that with grayscale images in Photoshop, saving as PDFs using different presets, alters image quality, specifically the contrast.
Therefore, it seems like saving an image in the "wrong" PDF preset could undo a lot of prepress work. Is there a better way/format?
To get a crude idea: there is an 8.7% decrease in the percent black between 10% and 50% values (the range) on a step wedge between the original in Photoshop and the HighQuality PDF, which showed the same values, and the PDF/X-1a, which compressed the range by 4 percentage points (approximately a 8.7% decrease).
A visual, and idiosyncratic, assessment of four versions of the same image (Photoshop grayscale, High Qualtiy PDF, PDF/X-1a, and PDF/X-3), which included a step wedge and color ramp, would rank the fidelity to the original from best, HighQuality, to worst, PDF/X-1a.
The same grayscale image in Photoshop CS6 was distilled (File > Print > Adobe PDF) to PDFs using unmodified PDF presets in Acrobat XI distiller.
The following composit screen shot (all four images on the screen, screen print, reorganizing them, then reducing the image to a 120 dpi at 4.2" wide (including text) gives some idea of the differences, but a lot got lost getting it here.
Walton

I do a lot of work with print-on-demand books (design and formatting), and I am active on the CreateSpace (the p-o-d division of Amazon.com). Although CS will accept work in virtually any PDF preset or origin (doPDF, cutePDF, etc.), PDF/X-1a is the recommended format, and for other companies it is the only accepted preset.
Here is the dumb question:
On the monitor (as the screen shot shows) the four images (PS, HQ PDF, PDF/X-1a, PDF/X-4) appear quite different: i.e. my video/monitor system is representing the images differently.
A screen shot of all four images on the screen at the same time, then with the info window open in Photoshop, I assessed their CMYK values in the exact same places on each image (lining the images up, using the measure tool and guidelines, measuring at high magnification); here (the color original followed by the original grayscalse conversion) are the black values (C00 M00 Y00 K1-100):
The images display differently, and those displays measure differently.
When I view the PDF images, they appear differently, but if i measure them (Output Preview set to Dot Gain 20%) the K values are the same.
When the same image is prepared using different PDF presets (a previous set of test using different images and looking for something different) they will print (printed in a black & white book by CreateSpace) differently.
How can one predict how a grayscale image will print? How can one prepare it and safely convert it to PDF?
Walton

How to improve image quality for book

I recently had a book printed from iPhoto 9 (large, hardcover) and the images in the book seem dull and dark compared to the actual images. For example, in one image of a church taken at dusk you can clearly see the outline of the church, including some details, and even people in front of it - but in the book, this area is completely black. I have had books printed before from iPhoto8 and had been happy with the past results.
Apple is refunding my purchase and letting me submit the book again, but told me if I don't edit the photos, I may have the same issue (though they also said it could have been a printer issue that day). Customer support did agree that the image quality itself is good. So, my question is, before I resubmit this book - in general, what attributes or combination of attributes are best to change to make the images more vibrant and not dark when printed for the book (ie. increase color saturation and exposure?)
Thank you.

Thanks. I did indeed preview the book before, and I have followed their tips. As, I said, I have purchased several books in the past and no issue. Apple even sent a couple pictures back to me as an attachment to show what they received, and they matched what I sent, but NOT what was printed. What printed is definitely much darker and in many cases you can't even make out the detail that you could in the images (including the ones they sent back to me for comparison). Maybe the printer really was off. I'll try a few enhancements and try again.

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

Image Quality - how to preserve it?

I have a web application in which I draw into a BufferedImage and Graphics2d created as follows:
BufferedImage bi = new BufferedImage(xlen,ylen,BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_BGR);
Graphics2d g2 = bi.createGraphics();
At this time, I am creating plots that mainly consist of horizonal and vertical lines, filled rectangles and text.
All the coordinate values are full integers, no roundoff.
I then create a jpg image and send it to the output stream of my servlet using the following:
ServletOutputStream sos = response.getOutputStream();
BufferedImage bi = sb.getPlotImage();
response.setContentType("Image/jpg");
ImageIO.write(bi,"jpg",sos);
The image gets transferred to the web component of the same dimensions as the image and the result looks really bad.
I see horizontal and vertical lines occasionally showing up as 2 pixels rather than 1 pixel wide.
And the text looks like hammered fecal matter.
My guess is that the resolution got hammered in either the image compression/transmission/decompression stage.
The question is:
How can I retain the quality of the image?
In the two lines where I convert the image to a jg and send it to the web page
response.setContentType("Image/jpg");
ImageIO.write(bi,"jpg",sos);
I am using jpg images. I am not able to get 'gif' or 'png' image types to work for some reason.
Can anyone suggest something that I can do to retain the original resolution of my drawn images?
I am willing to sacrifice transfer time for image quality.
Any suggestions?

You probably just want to use an effect, whichever one you like best. Select the button, then go to the "Window" menu, and select "Effects" to open the Effects panel. In the bottom left you'll see an "Add Effect" button, click that and experiment with your options.

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

Screen share image quality

Hello,
I have been working on the screen share aspect of LCCS and have a question around image quality.
I know there are settings around performance and quality but I need advice on what the best setting
is in order to get high quality frames without pixelation.
Having used Skype screen share, which is high-quality without any sort of pixelation, I am wonder
if it is possible to achieve that with LCCS.
I am running over 2mbps up and 20mbps down on both ends, so it should give me the highest
possible stream when set to 100 but I am still seeing a lot of pixelation and the on second
delay.
Any advice?
Thanks,
Michael

Hi Michael,
Try playing with these settings.
One setting that might yield good quality without pixelation - Again its just a suggestion
ScreenSharePublisher.quality = 75;
ScreenSharePublisher.performance = 70;
ScreenSharePublisher.keyframeInterval = 480;
ScreenSharePublisher.fps = 8;
while our default values are
ScreenSharePublisher.quality = 60;
ScreenSharePublisher.keyframeInterval = 20;
ScreenSharePublisher.fps = 4
A few parametres you could try adjusting are
ScreenSharePublisher.quality
ScreenSharePublisher.performance
ScreenSharePublisher.keyframeInterval
ScreenSharePublisher.fps
ScreenSharePublisher.enableHFSS
ScreenSharePublisher.bandwidth
Thanks
Arun

Adobe Muse Full Screen Slideshow image quality

Hi,
I have a question. Is it natural that if i add an image to my slideshow the quality of it in adobe muse or in my browser is worse than original size? My image is rather big 3400x and when it is exported to muse i see pixels and blur effect etc. Is it possible to not resample image quality in muse is there any option to stay with original quality??

Hi,
The way full screen slideshow is currently implemented Muse is resampling the hero images to the size they are in Design view. For most cases that will work fine, but there's no easy way to force a higher resolution image to be output. The only workaround that comes to mind would be to replace the image after publish/upload/export.
Hope this helps.
Regards,
Aish

Image quality question on WVC54GCA

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for