Image resizing not looking as good as MS Paint?

I can't figure out why, but for some reason Paint makes my resized images look better than Photoshop when saved. I've messed around with Photoshop's Image Size/Resampler, but none of the options I have used seem beat the quality I am seeing from Paint. I think this has something to do with the low file size Paint is saving it as. I've tried replicating the ~60KB size in PS but can't seem to save the example image anything below 105KB in PNG.
Help?

Similar Messages

When i am editing in finalcut, my image does not look particularly good. do i need to export it at the end in order to see it in full high definition? thx

when i am editing in finalcut, my image does not look particularly good. do i need to export it at the end in order to see it in full high definition? thx

Open FCP X Preferences / Playback / Use Original... Media / Playback Quality...
How does the exported movie-file looks like...?
Regards
Nolan

New iPad 2 does not look as good as old ipad?

Just got my iPad 2 and first thing I notice is the screen does not look as good as my old iPad. There's a difference in brightness (dimmer) but that's fine, I just increase the brightness. However, even after adjusting to approx same level of brightness, the iPad 2 still does not look as good. For one thing, there is a yellow cast to the iPad 2, whereas the iPad is more neutral. Also, the iPad 2 feels like it has a haze over it. Somehow I am very aware of looking through a screen, whereas with the iPad it's just sort of not there. It's like there's an extra extra layer on the ipad2. (yes I took the plastic film off, that's not it).
Am I nuts or does anyone else feel this way?

I googled iPad 2 yellow display and it looks like some people have a yellow spot near the edge due to the glue not sufficiently drying. Mine is different; the whole screen is on the yellow side, so white isn't white but a bit yellow. If I tilt it and look at an angle, then white becomes white.
It is apparent you look at it side by side with an iPad 1, but maybe if I didn't have one to compare it, I wouldn't know any differently. I don't know if this is normal for an iPad 2.
I do notice the screen feels different. The iPad screen feels hard, like glass. The iPad 2 screen is softer, more like plastic, which I like, except for the yellow thing.

IWeb and Aperture photos not looking that good?

hey guys can any of you tell me why
when i done edit my photos in aperture and loads them over in iweb they are not looking that good as in Aperture why is that?
can any help me here?

Opps. I thought I was in the iPhoto forum. Getting old(er).
Have you done this before and had better results?
Are you dragging them onto an iWeb page or into an iWeb album or photo page?
Do you have iWeb's preferences set to optimize photos upon import?
Click to view full size

When I first am looking at my newly uploaded photos in "Library", a box appears near the bottom of the photo that says "loading" (the photo looks good to me), then it is more "faded" and does not look as good. Is there some setting on that I am not aware

When I am first looking at my newly uploaded photos in "Library," a box appears near the bottom of the photo that says "Loading". While it is loading, I usually think the photo looks "good". After the photo is done loading, it looks more washed out. Is there some sort of setting that I might have on (or that I need to turn on) so that this does not happen. I have Lr4. Thanks.

Hi Tracy,
There used to be a way to see if poster was new to the forum.., anyway - welcome to the forum.
As I was alluding to, biggest differences in initial display are due to:
* Camera calibration profile.
* Auto-exposure/contrast settings (for which compensations have been auto-applied in camera, but not in Lightroom).
So, choose a matching camera calibration profile (whether that's an option or not depends on your camera model - they're available for many but not all models) if you prefer one of them over "Adobe Standard" (the factory default profile).
Also, your camera covers for underexposure due to non-optimal auto-exposure/contrast setting, Lightroom doesn't, so your options are:
* turn it off in camera.
* learn to compensate manually (or automatically via a plugin) in Lightroom.
Of course, in addition to preferred defaults (alt-click big "reset" button in dev module), come up with some presets which are appropriate for your druthers and type of photography.. e.g. these will compensate Nikon ADL settings:
http://www.robcole.com/LrForumSupport/ADL%20Compensations%20%282012%29.zip
Cheers,
Rob

Lightroom images do not look the same when opened in PSCS5

Hi,
I am using LR 3 and PS CS5, but have an annoying problem which I don't know how to fix. Basically, when I look at an image fit in window inside LR 3, it looks real well as far as contrast and saturation and hue... when I choose Edit In Photoshop CS5, the file opens in PS but the contrast and saturation and even hue are slightly off. Why?
Thanks,
Juan

Juan, note that in Develop Lightroom does not use all of the available raw data at once to give you a preview. It does this as otherwise, the program would be unusably slow. Every move of a slider would have to result in a complete rerendering of the data at full resolution and then downscale the image to screen resolution. Even on the very fastest machines out there this still takes about a second which would make everything glacial especially on normal computers. So in zoomed out views, it simply takes a subset of the raw data at lower resolution and uses that to render. This can subtly affect saturation in cases where there is a lot of fine color detail because there is no averaging going on to arrive at the lower res image. When you zoom in to 1:1, Lightroom simply renders only the small subset of the image that you see in your window. Because this is only a small subset, this is again very fast, but is now done at the full resolution. In Develop, you will only in 1:1 see Lightroom apply noise reduction and sharpening which can also affect apparent saturation at zoomed out levels. This will certainly remain an issue until we are a few generations further on Moore's curve. However at that point the resolution of cameras will have increased by the exact same amount making the problem remain.
Now consider what happens when you go to Photoshop. Lightroom (or ACR when you use "edit in Photoshop") renders the image from the raw into usually a 16-bit prophotoRGB tiff. This is then opened in Photoshop. Photoshop does NOT know how to deal with raw data. It needs a fully rendered RGB image which is supplied either by ACR or Lightroom. Now, since you have a fully rendered image, scaling down is very easy. However, you no longer have the freedom to reinterpret the raw data. The model used in Photoshop is very different from Lightroom and therefore different restrictions apply.
In Lightroom's Library views, a prerendered jpeg is used for the display. This means that in Library view, the image is scaled down from a fully rendered image and should show a desaturation with respect to Develop when you have lots of fine color detail. Note that neither Lightroom's Library preview and Photoshop's scaled down preview are actually accurate. Both scale in a gamma corrected space, but only for display. To compound this, Lightroom scales down using a different algorithm than Photoshop (which uses several mechanisms based on the zoom level - i.e. whether it is divisible by two). It is simply impossible to highly accurately display a high resolution image on a very low resolution computer display. You always have to deal with scaling, for which there exists no most correct method. They all have issues (certainly Photoshop's silly method does).
Lastly, many people that see subtle (or even extreme) differences between Photoshop and Lightroom actually have a problem with their monitor profile. Make sure to recalibrate your monitor and when you do, make sure that the calibration software generates a v2 profile (most profiling software has this option in the advanced setup). Lightroom treats v4 LUT monitor profiles differently than Photoshop. This difference will be gone in a v2 matrix profile.

HD to SD not looking very good

I finally got the original HD tapes, captured them with Canon XH A1 (not my camcorder) as SD. The final DVD is very poor, "ghosting" with movements, etc. Just not clear and crisp looking. I have been reading the forum and will experiment with different codec settings. (If you can recommend the best one, that would save me some time). But, I am also wondering, would it work to capture it as HD, render that to an avi file and then import that into a SD project?
Also, while I have CS3 and CS2 on my computers, my client has only CS2 and has asked me to work on his computer...I am thinking CS3 is the way to go?

Hello Harm,
I'm trying to figure out the best way to edit record and edit in HD 16:9 format and then export in SD 4:3 format so I can use Encore to burn it to a DVD. So far the only way I have found to go from HD to SD is to create an NTSC Standard project into which I import the HD video. I really want to edit it as a HD project so I can also create a HD version of the video in 16:9 format and then somehow also create a Standard 4:3 DVD from the same editing session. I tried exporting the HD timeling to Encore but it did not crop the edges, instead it added black bars to the top and bottom of the frame. I tried exporting the video as an AVI file so I could quickly import it into a Standard NTSC 4:3 project and export it in a cropped 4:3 format, but 5 minutes of video created a 32Gb file. Do you have any suggestions?
Regards,
Mark Miller

Image resizing not working

When I go to
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Closing_Time_%28TV_story%29
The picture of the robot take half of the screen overlapping the text and causing the layout to go all haywire.
So is there a way to fix this?
P.S: That same site doesn't seem to have a problem with layout when i use Chrome but does have the same problem when i use IE.

I think this is one of those indeterminate measurement problems, where the image is sized to 100% of the element it is contained in, but that is a floated element sized to 40% of its container, and blah blah, anyway, I have a headache from this site.
Anyway, you can make it behave by injecting a definite size into the page. As a proof of concept, you can use the Web Console. Copy the folloowing line of script:
var r=".info-pic{max-width:324px !important}"; var s=document.createElement("style"); s.type="text/css"; s.appendChild(document.createTextNode(r)); document.body.appendChild(s);
Press Ctrl+Shift+k to open the Web Console, the paste the script on the bottom line next to the caret (») and press Enter to inject the new style rule into the page. The column should take its proper position.
To apply this full time, you could create (or edit) a userContent.css file, or use the Stylish extension. However, I'm out of time to elaborate at the moment.

Motion Project does not look good in FCP

I am using FCP 5.0 and Motion2. I made a lower third title graphic in Motion. When I embed the clips back into FCP they look pixalated. They do not look as good as they did originally. Does anyone have a solution?

Hey,
Here's the result from last night. The quicktime file is good. It seems that Motion projects in FCP, even from rendered QT files, don't display their true image.
My output this morning for my project is flawless. Even though the timeline looks horrible.
The reason this seems to come up in this forum again and again, is probably that Boris 3D, FCP's titles, even LiveType, all display their true clean rendered image in FCP. Motion, however, doesn't seem to do that.
My guess is that it hangs on to a thumbnail representation for FCP of the rough draught render that motion must create so you can place your motion project in your FCP timeline live. (you know, you can switch back and forth and update a motion project and it updates it in FCP. )
It just doesn't say that anywhere that I was looking.
So, if anyone else is creating Motion projects and importing them into Final Cut, be aware that what you see in Final Cut is not what is going to render in your output. It will be full resolution and without the alising that appears in FCP's timeline.
Whew!
Gord
G5 Dual 2.3Ghz Power PC 3GB RAM, 2x120HDD, & 15" Powerbook Mac OS X (10.4.6)

MacBook Pro 13 on LG Monitor Not Looking Right

I am using a 13" MBP with an LG W2040T Monitor. I believe it is running in Clamshell mode. The MBP is closed, but I am using the external display. The monitor is running in 1600x900, and when I click on the display icon on the finder bar on top it says it is running in 1600x900. For some reason though the fonts and display in general isn't looking quite right. It almost seems like the resolution isn't supported or something. The only way I could really explain it would be saying it seems like the computer is trying to run in a lower resolution than the monitor. Is 1600x900 not supported in Snow Leopard?

Yes, you're right, and I read your post carelessly. In clamshell mode you should be able to select the 1600 x 9000 native (maximum) resolution of your external display. If you've selected that, then your display is as sharp as it can be. It may just not look very good because by today's standards, that's a low resolution for a 20" display. At $150 plus or minus $10 brand new, you can't expect the 2040T to compare very well with higher-quality monitors.
You may be able to improve text crispness slightly by tinkering with the font smoothing settings in System Preferences > Appearance, but your LG display will never look as good as the MBP's own screen.

Batch Procedure Not Working For Image Resizing in Fireworks 8

Scaling graphics with a batch process. You can alter the
height and width of images being exported using the Scale option in
the Batch Process dialog box. To set scaling options for
batch-processed files:
Select Scale from the Batch Options list and click Add. In
the Scale pop-up menu, select an option:
Scale to Fit Area makes images fit proportionally with the
maximum width and height range you specify.
If you have chosen either Scale to Size or Scale to Fit Area
in the Scale pop-up menu, you can also choose to scale only
those documents that are currently larger than the target
size. To do so, select the Only Scale Documents Currently Larger
Than Target Size option. Click Next to continue the batch
process. For information on completing the batch process,
This routine us not working as described: It is only
modifying files larger than the dimension I wanted, whereas in the
Fireworks MX, it would upsize smaller images to this requirement.
Just FYI, we did not have the box checked to only apply to
documents that are currently larger than the target size.
IS THIS A BUG IN THE FIREWORKS 8 ???
This is one of the primary reasons we use this software
ALL RESPONSES WELCOME, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT WILL FIX THIS
ISSUE !!!!
JSEVonda

I agree the option should not be there if it doesn't work.
Quite
honestly, I think the FW team missed it in the last upgrade.
And you're talking about more than just scaling - you are
most likely
including an export command as well, this was not indicated
in your
original post. Keep in mind your scaling occurs BEFORE any
saving of the
file at any new optimization setting. Maintaining a low
compression
would help, yes, but I'm not referring to quality loss
through
compression, I'm referring to quality loss through data
extrapolation
(interpolation?). When you resample an image to a large pixel
count, you
are asking the software to use an algorithm to create pixel
data that
did not exist in the original file. Whether it's Photoshop or
Fireworks,
quality loss will happen in a bitmap file. In short, you're
asking the
software to make an educated guess about the data in these
new pixels.
As for your end results - you did not indicate the original
size of your
files (pixel dimensions), nor how much you are upsampling. If
your
files are not being upsampled too greatly, and/or there is a
great deal
of pixel data to begin with and/or the final upsized images
are not
really large then it's possible that you do not notice any
significant
loss in quality.
My assumption was you were working with small files in terms
of
resolution. Generally, though, web images are not large to
begin with
and do not have a huge pixel count, so resizing them upwards
would
usually be noticeable.
All I am pointing out is that the file would not have the
same quality
as the original, even if the option was working. Whether that
difference
in quality is noticeable . . .
For example, I took an image that was 72 x 54 pixels, resized
it 200 %
to 144x108 pixels. Bigger image, but quality is low and
noticeable.
I do the same thing with a file that is 1024 x 768 and I can
still see
some loss, but it doesn't look quite as bad. IT is however,
noticeably
more blurry than the original.
And now how about a possible FW solution? ;-)
Open ONE file in FW
Set your jpeg quality to 100 (Type the value, do NOT use the
slider)
Go to Modify > Transform > Numeric Transform
Set your new image size to the desired dimensions
Click OK
Go to Modify > Canvas > Fit Canvas
Find those three steps in the History panel and save it as a
custom
command.
You will now be able to access this step in the Batch Process
Wizard, in
the Commands menu. or in the Commands menu in FW.
Add your other batch steps. You do not need the export option
because we
set that up in the custom command, but you might want to use
the Rename
operation.
Click Next
Choose an export directory if you wish
Save the script to create a complete custom command that
handles both
sizing and exporting and file renaming and a custom location
for saving
the file.
This one script can then be used either from the Batch
Process Wizard OR
from the Commands Menu in FW.
One note, if you choose a custom location for the files to be
saved,
that directory gets written into the command, so whenever the
batch is
run - that is where the new files will go.
As for other programs, Photoshop comes to mind. I'm sure
there are
other, specialized batch processing programs out there which
could do
exactly what you want.
HTH!
Jim Babbage - .:Community MX:. & .:Adobe Community
Expert:.
Extending Knowledge, Daily
http://www.communityMX.com/
CommunityMX - Free Resources:
http://www.communitymx.com/free.cfm
.:Adobe Community Expert for Fireworks:.
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.fireworks
news://forums.macromedia.com/macromedia.dreamweaver
JSEVonda wrote:
> Well if that is the case, they should have notified the
users to tell them, as
> that is one of the primary reasons we even use the
product. On that note, from
> reading above replies, the upsampling did not degrade
any image quality if you
> simply chose "custom", as it allowed you to set the
image quality to 100% of a
> jpeg, during the batch routine, if you so desired.
>
> That said, what other product will do the task of
"upsampling" as you call it,
> in a batch format, as I do not want to have to go thru
over 1000 images each
> week and upsize them one at a time.
>
> JSEVonda
>

Slideshow in iMovie - images w/movement don't look as good as in iPhoto

I love iPhoto with the Ken Burns effect, but I had problems that when an image would dissolve up, the position would be in an undesirable spot (image might be with a person's head cut off). I tried working around the problem by giving the images very very wide black borders. But this didn't help. Also, when I've burned an iPhoto slideshow to a DVD using iDVD, the image quality fell off (perhaps because TVs aren't as good as my monitor).
By going to iMovie it was great to get all the controls I wanted, BUT I find the image quality not as good, even on my HD Cinema Display. Is this too be expected? I tried changing the frame rate, but that hasn't helped. I was concerned that it might be because the image file size was too large, but I have ruled that out (I think).
I created a quicktime movie and still the images don't look nearly as good as they do in iPhoto with Ken Burns effect (so it's not about the movement and my screen resolution and refresh rate - unless iMovies is changing things).
I would so greatly appreciate any information on this. Whether it is to confirm that, yes - through I photo, slideshow images look better. Or, to say "iMovie slideshow images should look great - you need to change these settings....."
Thanks so much fo your help, Leo
Powermac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.1)

I'm not sure, but maybe you hit on something I'm
doing wrong. I've not taken any care in how I've
been getting images into iMovie. I've taken in
images through the clips section and I've taken it
through an ALBUM in iPhoto. Are you saying I need to
have the images in a slide show in iphoto so that I
can import them from there with Ken Burns on - that
does something to the images!? Wow.
Note that the Ken Burns Effect in iPhoto has nothing whatever to do with the Ken Burns Effect in iMovie. Configuring the KBE in iPhoto affects ONLY that iPhoto slideshow or one of its slide, not the iPhoto images you import to iMovie. (Actually, slides in iPhoto slideshow slides are never imported to iMovie, only the images in non-slideshow albums.)
As photos are imported into iMovie the iMovie KBE is applied to those images using the KBE settings you've configured in iMovie.
ALSO - I have to be honest - I never knew that Ken
Burns was customizable! If this is the case, doesn't
it mean that KB doesn't have too be random. Can't I
establish start and end points for the whole show and
it will be repeatable?!
Yes, making them all the same is possible, but variety is the spice of life, so you probably don't want all slides of the iPhoto slideshow to look the same. I find the random KBE in iPhoto surprisingly effective.
It's also surprisingly easy to spot the slides where it's probably going to point at someone's shoes or do something that looks ridiculous. Configure those manually.
I suppose the big draw back of so carefully
programming a slideshow in iPhoto is that you can't
save it to a disc.
Actually, you CAN save it to disk. Export the slideshow to iDVD and iDVD puts a copy of your slideshow — as a MOVIE — in the Movies folder. You can import that movie to iMovie if you want. Or use QuickTime Pro to export it in a compressed format to share with friends.
But before I give up on iMovie (and the hours and
hours I've spent in making this show), perhaps I'm
missing a good way of saving the project. I have
made an iMovie project which plays in iMovie and is
labeled as DV-NTSC and I've created a quicktime .mov.
Is there a better option? You say "The DV is better
than you see displayed in iMovie". So is there a
way I should play this DV project in another
application that would be better?
You can export the iMovie project to any kind of QuickTime movie you want, large, small or anything in between. High quality, low quality or whatever.
Thanks so much for your help. This has been great
help.
You're welcome. Good luck on your project.
Karl

My images will not auto resize for viewing

This is somewhat embarrassing. When viewing images from the web, if they're too large to fit the current window, they get re-sized to fit. Okay. I have a file/page of thumbnails generated by XnView and when I click, the image is loaded, everything is good except the image is always larger than the window. The problem is Firefox WILL NOT auto-resize the image to fit. If I right mouse, I can select "View Image" to view whole image, but I don't want to have to do that for 1000's of images.
Any help/insight would be appreciated.
Regards,
Dave

Lilly.Love wrote:
Hi, I'm new to this and for some reason my images are not appearing to full scale on adobe premiere cs6. This is really annoying as I am trying to make a stop motion video but I can't see what I'm doing. Please reply soon, this is an important project. Thanks
Your sequence settings and clip settings are not matching. To make them match, right click on a clip and choose New Sequence from Clip and a new sequence will be created based on your clip settings.

I am trying to connect a Macbook Pro to a projector for a Powerpoint presentation. When I use a VGA cable, the color of the projected images are not good. When I use a USB cable, the projected image includes the presenter notes on my computer screen?

I am trying to connect a Macbook Pro to a projector for a Powerpoint presentation. When I use a VGA cable, the color of the projected images are not good. When I use a USB cable, the projected image includes the presenter notes on my computer screen?

To move an iPhoto Library to a new machine:
Link the two Macs together: there are several ways to do this: Wireless Network,Firewire Target Disk Mode, Ethernet, or even just copy the Library to an external HD and then on to the new machine...
But however you do choose to link the two machines...
Simply copy the iPhoto Library from the Pictures Folder on the old Machine to the Pictures Folder on the new Machine.
Then hold down the option (or alt) key key and launch iPhoto. From the resulting menu select 'Choose Library'
and select the Library that you moved. That's it.
This moves photos, events, albums, books, keywords, slideshows and everything else.
Your first option didn't work because you imported one Library to another. Every version and thumbnail is imported like a distinct photo, you lose all your Albums, Keywords etc., the link between Original and Previews is destroyed, the non-destructive editing feature is ruined and so on. In summary: it's mess.
Your second option didn't work because you simply referenced her library on the old machine.
Regards
TD

Resizing Image and Not Keep Aspect Ratio

Is there a free program to resize images and not keep the original aspect ratio?
I need to resize loads of images to 100x100 pixels and have tried Image well and IResize yet they do not seem to have an option to not keep the original aspect ratio.
Thank you
20" Intel 2GHz Core Duo imac, 2GB Ram, 250 GB HD

Hi, Downsize does not seem all that great according to reviews. Why not see if you can buy PS E' 3 mac -- maybe ebay/amazon (if I remember I only paid about $70 for PS E3) As PS E4 just came out I'm sure someone has PS E3 for sale. You will then have no problems completing your image resizing.
2 other questions for you..are you using the Mac side of your intel or Windows?
if your using the Windows side I can let you have PS 6 (PC) ..freegratus.

Image resizing not looking as good as MS Paint?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for