Image scaling causes jaggie edges.

Hi all,
I recreated a MS Publisher brochure in InDesign CS3 v5.0.4. It all looks much better and i can even apply soft drop shadows.
The only problem i can see is that MS Publisher scales images better than InDesign. Scaling images in InDesign creates jaggie edges.
From what i have read on the forum, it appears that i would be much better off to used a tif or psd of the image.
Is this correct or does InDesign have a problem with scaling images?
Also... if i use psd's, does it matter if there are other hidden layers in the file? will it cause a problem at the printing service?

Hi Ken,
The images are 720x480 video frame bmp captures that have been trimmed and converted to cymk then saveed out as jpg. I have keyed or knocked out the area surrounding the tubes and applied a white background. I'm not scaling the images up. If anything, i'm scaling them down.
I have a number of industrial tubing and tubing pallet images. The jaggies are around the outer edges of the images and in one case of an image of a tubing pallet that has a large number of tubes stacked together, the jaggies are throughout the image.
I have "High Quality Display" selected on all images so they look as good as they can on the screen.
I "Place" the images into the document.
I've to check on the "Graphics > Images > Send Data set to All".
Like i said... MS Publisher does not have the same problem.

Similar Messages

VI Method "Front Panel:Get Image Scaled" Memory Error 17

Hi all, I've got two almost identical sub vi front panels that I'm dumping to a jpg image for reporting purposes. One was copied and slightly modified from the other to show a different data set and plot. The original works just fine, but the second sub vi, when using the "Front Panel:Get Image Scaled" method to pass the image to write the jpg, always returns the following error:
"Error 17 occurred at Invoke Node in Myprogram
Possible reason(s):
LabVIEW: Not enough memory to manipulate image.
=============================
NI-488: Unrecognized command.
Method Name: Front Panel:Get Image Scaled
[Continue] [Stop] "
I've stripped the problem section into a simple tiny new that only opens the report and tries to get the image with the same working/non-working result above. Using the Execution Trace Highlighter, it error is definitely occuring when the Method executes.
Any ideas? Thanks.

Hey cjgpr,
I haven't been able to dig up much info on this error message. There's one other discussion forum post that talked about it some, and a KnowledgeBase article on it. It seems that whatever changes you made to the front panel have caused it to exceed your computer's memory when creating an image. Try removing items until it works, then see what actually breaks the functionality.
Brian B
Field Sales Engineer
Tennessee/Southern Kentucky
National Instruments

Image scaling changes

Before I started here, the team was using FrameMaker 8 and migrating to FM 10. During the migration, we noticed that images in the documents we opened, converting them to FM10, had their image scaling data changed.
Typically, we acquire screen shots using the highest resolution screen supported - mine is currently set at 1440 x 900. We scale the images to a width of 510 pixels (optimally) but no more than 600 pixels in our screen capture utility. We save the screen shots as Grayscale JPEGs. This process has, historically, provided images that fit our text column flow perfectly.
In previous versions of FM, the images imported by reference appeared as 100% scaling in the FM image properties. Now, they appear as 75% scaling. We're wondering why and if there is any effects we need to be aware of in terms of PDF and HTML Help file sizes.
While testing the import process, looking to see if the FM scaling data affected the image size, we saw that the pixel dimensions given by SnagIt varied wildly from the pixel dimensions given by FM. For example, the SnagIt dimensions for one image indicated it was 505x493 pixels whereas FM gave the dimensions of the source file as 507x315 pixels. Both are, as far as I know, giving me the source file dimensions but they are different.
We might not have noticed this, the images looked okay, but we were carefully going through the transition to FM10 and looking at every detail.
Question: why is FM10 auto-scaling the images to 75%?
Question: does this scaling do anything to our output that we need to be aware of?
Question: why do we get two different dimension data from the two software packages?
Thanks,
Wanda

We save the screen shots as Grayscale JPEGs.
Are the screen images contone (e.g. real-world photos, CGI imagery),
or flat (e.g. dialogs, line art)? JPEG uses curve-matching compression,
which is great for tones that vary smoothly, but introduces nasty ringing
edge artifacts on sharp edges of flat tones.
TIF(zip), uses repeat-count compression, and is both non-destructive to flat
tone images, and often compresses them more efficiently. We use EPS
for the import format (no compression) and let Distiller or Acrobat post
determine the compression to use.
This process has, historically, provided images that fit our text column
flow perfectly.In previous versions of FM, ...
What is the target delivery format?
... the images imported by reference appeared as 100% scaling in
the FM image properties. Now, they appear as 75% scaling.
In case you want to try it, I have never seen imported EPS objects
change size when migrating a document to a later rev of FM.
We import using 96 dpi.
If the target is PC screen display at 100% page size, that's probably a
decent target. PC screen resolutions today probably range from 80 to
110 dpi, and I'd guess that 96 is very close to the sweet spot.
We use (and I favor) bringing in all contone content at 200 dpi or
higher. We bring bitmap (bi-level line art) in at 600. But then our
target media is 600 dpi B&W bitmap on paper. However, we like
to give web readers of the PDFs reasonable detail in images.
Apple's "Retina" crusade is trying to move the industry to 300 dpi
displays. I'd be happy with 200.

Problems with image scaling

I'm facing a real problem with image scaling
I've used several algorithms but it all has defects but the most common thing is the out of memory error after several enlargments...
does any one know a solution...
note:
I've used several packages to do so,but I'm looking for a solution from the jdk itself
JAlexscorpio

Did you take into account that the getScaledInstance() -method creates a completly new Image?
So if you use it like in
ImageIcon icon1=new ImageIcon("Blah.gif");
ImageIcon icon2=new ImageIcon(icon1.getImage().getScaledInstance(400,400,SCALE_FAST);
you will end up with 2 different Images which have their own data and memory requirements.
even if you use something like
ImageIcon icon1=new ImageIcon("Blah.gif");
Image i=icon1.getImage();
icon1.setImage(i.getScaledInstance(200,200,SCALE_FAST));
You will need enough memory to store the data for the original image, as well as the data for the scaled
version of the image, at least for the time that it take the JRE to create the scaled version. You never know when the garbage collector kicks in to delete you old data so it could be that this takes some time and until
that moment your memory is not available. If your now doing several of the scaling operations, and there is no chance for the garbage collector to do its work, you will run out of memory.
I hope that might help, if not feel free to post again

ComboBoxRenderer with image scaling

hi all,
I would like to know how to make the comboBoxRender with image scaling. Because my combo box is smaller than the image that I want to put inside..
currently, I "extends JLabel implements ListCellRenderer", but if I call setIcon to the Label, it is not scale to the combo size..., so I think is it need to extends another type of component ?
Could some of you give me a suggestion , better provide me a simple code.. Many Thanks for help.

Hi,
I've extended the Icon framework to support scaling. I never tried it with cell renderers, but maybe it works:
Extend JXIconLabel, set the zoomingStrategy to FullZooming.RESPECTING_ASPECT_RATIO_INSTANCE and set the XIcon (eg. a XImageIcon).
Maybe it works. (The library is open source.)
http://softsmithy.sourceforge.net/lib/docs/api/org/softsmithy/lib/swing/JXIconLabel.html
Homepage:
http://www.softsmithy.org
Download:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=64833
Source:
http://sourceforge.net/svn/?group_id=64833
http://softsmithy.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/softsmithy/trunk/lib/src/org/softsmithy/lib/
API:
http://softsmithy.sourceforge.net/lib/docs/api/index.html
If you have questions just ask me!
-Puce

Why does my image not reach the edges of the page when printed, but appears fine as pdf?

Why does my image not reach the edges of the page when printed, but appears fine as pdf?

Check a printable area of your printer.
Make a (grey) rectangle that is larger than the paper size. Print it,
you'll get a message that some cropping will occur, that's okay. Then take a
ruler and measure the dimensions of the rectangle printed on the paper or
the white borders around the printed rectangle.

Image Scaling Percentage

I am converting from Quark 6.0 to Indesign CS3 and have a comparison question.
When viewing an image within Quark you can get specifics about the images scaling percent ratio. IE: 100%, Reduced would be obviously 99.99% to 10% or enlarged would be obviously 100.1% to 150%.
Is there anyway to see that kind of percentage in InDesign. We try to stay under 150% and above 10% for our printer specifications, so it will make things very difficult if we can not view that info like in Quark.
Any help is greatly appreciated!!

I guess what I was hoping for is for the % to actually give its configuration from the original 100% instead of saying that it 100% after it has been reduced or enlarged. Between the info and the % it more or less makes sense, but it is not exact and I guess the user has to somewhat guess? Seems like more work for the user.
Thanks for your help!!

s:BitmapImage get image scaled size and position after it loaded and scaled

I am try to know the dimensions of the uploaded image into <s:BitmapImage without success.
The data coming back to me are isthe real image size and not size after it was scaled to fit the component size.
I can see that the image scaled down and fit to the maxWidth, but I can't get the actual/real scaled width from the BitmapIMage properties.
I tried:
<s:BitmapImage id="mainBitMap" ready="mainBitMap_readyHandler(event)" complete="bitmapimage1_completeHandler(event)" source="{data.Thumbnail.URL}" maxHeight="250" maxWidth="250" scaleMode="letterbox"/>
protected function bitmapimage1_completeHandler(event:Event):void{
trace("----------------------Start-----------------------");
trace("mainBitMap.bitmapData.width" + mainBitMap.bitmapData.width);
trace("mainBitMap.width" + mainBitMap.width);
trace("mainBitMap.measuredWidth" + mainBitMap.measuredWidth);
trace("mainBitMap.displayObject.width" + mainBitMap.displayObject.width);
trace("mainBitMap.explicitWidth.width" + mainBitMap.explicitWidth);
trace("mainBitMap.preliminaryWidth" + mainBitMap.preliminaryWidth);
trace("mainBitMap.sourceWidth" + mainBitMap.sourceWidth);
trace("-----------------------End------------------------");
Result:
----------------------Start-----------------------
mainBitMap.bitmapData.width=435
mainBitMap.width=0
mainBitMap.measuredWidth=0
mainBitMap.displayObject.width=0
mainBitMap.explicitWidth.width=NaN
mainBitMap.preliminaryWidth=NaN
mainBitMap.displayObject.preliminaryWidth=435
-----------------------End------------------------
Thanks,
Nimrod.

Hi,
I tried the ready event, But I still receive the same results.
I expect to get the new scaled width And height according to the maxHeight and MaxWidth.
I see that the image scaled to fi it But I can't recive the new size of it.
Thanks,
Nimrod

Two days ago, I loaded Light Room 6. Today I went back to Light Room 5. LR 6 corrupted an entire folder of images, and caused errors on my Raid 5 causing win 7 to run "Chk Dsk" and fix the errors to the operating system. LR 5 has not shut down for the las

Two days ago, I loaded Light Room 6. Today I went back to Light Room 5. LR 6 corrupted an entire folder of images, and caused errors on my Raid 5 causing win 7 to run "Chk Dsk" and fix the errors to the operating system. LR 5 has not shut down for the last 5 hours. LR 6 has a serious bug. Anyone else experiencing this problem. Yesterday I was on tech support, waiting for 3 hours, finally they picked up and informed me there department was closing and someone else would call me on Monday. So, I'm working today and all day Sunday to make up for the down time using LR 6.
I don't know if the bug exists in the program or the "Creative Cloud.
Question: Does anyone know why if I bought Light Room 6 [NOT Light Room CC with the monthly rental], I have to enter my serial number if I want to use it?

Entering the serial number is probably part of the registration process.
Just out of curiosity, what were you doing on LR6 when the folder of images became corrupted?

Error 53 : BD.Get Image Scaled

Hi,
I used invoke node(method block diagram:get image scaled) to get a screenshot of block diagram of a VI. It works well in LabView 8.6. But with the application built based on the VI, I got a 53 error code. Any suggestion?

>>"Built" as in built into an .exe file?
>>
>>If
so, you can't get an image of the block diagram because the block
diagram is removed from the VI's when they are built into the
executable. The only thing present is any needed front panels, and the
underlying compiled code that is built from the block diagram.
>>
>>For what reason do you want to capture an image of the block diagram?
1. Yes, it is a .exx file.
2. The application is used to generate screenshot of a user specified VI, not a VI built into the executable.

JPEG Image Scaling Speed

I've got an application where I'm drawing images to the display from a TCP/IP stream. I'm unable to acheive much better than 8 or 9 fps and the real CPU consuming task seems to be the JPEG image scaling. The frames are being scaled by about 2x but the same color depth is retained. I'm running this application on a dual, 1 Ghz PIII with Red Hat 7.1 and JDK 1.3.1. Any suggestions on how to enhance the performance of Java's image scaling would be appreciated.

You could try using bufferedImages and doing the scaling yourself. I can re-draw a bufferedImage by altering it's raster data
ie..
byte [] data = bi.getData().getDataBuffer().getData();
I get up to 100 fps edditing a 640x480 area. You will have to account for things like bit depth yourself, and scaling algo's, but it might be worth it.
Also check the Bug database, I believe your problem MAY be related to a bug where scaling always converts the entire image to format -> RGBA -> scaled format.

SHAKE: Image Scaling

http://tech-algorithm.com/articles/trilinear-interpolation-image-scaling/
I am trying to scale an image with the above mentioned technique but cannot seem to find the best way to combine the images at the end of the process. Anybody have any ideas?

http://tech-algorithm.com/articles/trilinear-interpolation-image-scaling/
I am trying to scale an image with the above mentioned technique but cannot seem to find the best way to combine the images at the end of the process. Anybody have any ideas?

Flexographic Distortion/Scaling Causing Problems... Help!

Hello.
I am having an issue with the printing end of InDesign (Cs3 Version 5.04).
I'm trying to distort a document for Flexographic printing purposes.
The dots in screened areas are changing causing the image to change/degrade.
The screened areas are in text so it's very noticable because the hard edges of the text become jagged with dots after 'Scaling' for distortion (Print>Setup>Options>Scale>Height%>*unchecked constrained proportions).
Image degredation is only present in film after doing this in InDesign. Quality is fine printing at a constrained 100%.
This problem is not happening when I send the same image in a Quark document scaled down using there FlexScale extension.
The document consists of a placed Photoshop.TIFF file of some greyscale screened type, nothing crazy.
Any & all help will be greatly appreciated .... ideas & theories are good as well...

Yay!!!!! It worked!!!!! Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!
Creating, placing, & scaling a pdf in the document had the same result as I was getting from scaling in the print dialouge box.
The second work around was perfect! Placing the document in a new document & scaling that with the scaling factor was the ticket!
I really appreciate your answer .
BTW, I'm using an Agfa Apogee PDF RIP Series 2 v1.0 & the imagesetter is an Agfa Accuset 1000 printing seperations.
The is always more than one way to skin a cat right?!
I'll "workaround" 'til the cows come home as long as it "works".
Thanks!

Image Scaling Bug?

I've been working with flex for a few weeks now, and I've
come across this odd behavior in the Image class. The livedocs
state that the default value for the scaleContent property of an
Image object is 'true'. This is the case, and when setting the
width or height of my image it scales correctly. The problem is
that the container that holds the object only scales with the
explicitly set value and leaves the other as its original size.
The following code is a small testcase to show the behavior
in action.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<mx:Application xmlns:mx="
http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml"
layout="absolute">
<mx:Style>
.test {
cornerRadius: 0;
headerHeight: 0;
borderThickness: 1;
dropShadowEnabled: false;
borderStyle: solid;
backgroundColor: #333333;
borderColor: #ff0000;
titleStyleName: "myTitleStyle";
</mx:Style>
<mx:Box styleName="test">
<mx:Image source="glassdoor.jpg" height="32"/>
</mx:Box>
</mx:Application>
You'll have to replace the image name with one that you
provide, and set the height to something smaller that the image's
height to see the effect. The box's red border shows that it
realizes the image is 32 pixels in height, but doesn't seem to know
what to do with the implicitly scaled width. Any ideas? Am I doing
something wrong, or is this a bug? Since the box normally conforms
to the size of the object inside it, I would have expected it to
shrink on both parameters to continue hugging the outside of my
newly-scaled image.

The problem is that when the Box asks the Image for its size
it can only report the explicity set height. When the Image tag
loads its source it scales it to make the size you set (32 high)
but doesn't change its width - it is the Image and not the Box that
is causing what you see. The Image won't shrink to fit the image
loaded. Try adding horizontalAlign="center" to the Image and see if
the loaded source floats in the middle.
Using horizontalAlign and verticalAlign on the Image tag
aligns the actual image within the Image tag space. For example, if
you have <mx:Image width="100" height="100"
horizontalAlign="center" verticalAlign="middle" /> and you load
in a 300x600 image, the image will be scaled to 50x100 and be
centered within the 100x100 area of the Image tag.
In general, if you cannot give an explicit size, give a
minWidth or minHeight, so the measurement phase of the Flex
component layout cycle has something to work with.

Image scaling issues

I am using a 1280x720 PNG for the background in my Flash movie, but when I play it in fullscreen the image looks like crap. What's the best way to make images still look good when the movie is scaled up? Should I use a 1920x1080 PNG and scale it down instead?

Let me help you understand.
Resampling occurs even without scaling on any bitmaps with smoothing enabled. A pixel level detail loss is noticable immediately, pixels are resampled until blurred.
Without turning on smoothing, the original image has no original resampling applied. Scaling performs a cleaner nearest neighbor resample that preserves hard pixels. At original size and while upscaling this produces a much cleaner result. While pixel edges are less resampled (upscale blur) the detail is still intact.
While turning smoothing on, the original image is immediately resampled (bilinear, trilinear, bicubic, etc). The pixel detail loss is immediately obvious even at original scale. This blurring helps during rotation and reduction but during upscale the amount of resampling get heavier and heavier until the image is excessively blurred. The only slight benefit is edges appear smoother, but the reality is the edges are blurred to death. This is why it very limitedly helps to some people but really doesn't help at all.
Here's an example of a small choice piece of a free Harley poster showing the effects of smoothing at original and 200% scales. An additional small portion of the original image is scaled 3x (nearest neighbor resampling (no smoothing)) to illustrate the difference in pixels even at original scale. The detail loss, while much less at original size, is still visible with smoothing.
Example Image
The top 3 images are with smoothing enabled. It's immediately obvious the level of blur is pretty harsh on the original image. The zoom-in shows the pixel blurring compared to the image with no smoothing below it. Color is shifted and muddied from bright to dark very noticably.
The upscaled image is where the real destruction takes place. The curved tire, angled spokes and spring are the most harsh environment for nearest neighbor scale. Smoothing has blurred them so much in the resample they appear a lot smoother. Only it's so blurry you can barely look at the picture without your eyes watering. To a photographer, this is a throw-away photo, far too out of focus.
The bottom image shows no smoothing enabled. The original size bitmap retains a great deal more pixel clarity and detail. The 300% zoomed image shows much brighter, more accurate colors having not been resampled. During the upscale the pixels are only nearest neighbor therefore you can see the extremely slight anti-aliasing performed. Hard pixels stand out more, much more true to the original image. Highlights on metals are still bright, colors are more accurate and more pixel level detail is exposed and enlarged. While edge enhancement would be nice, it looks far better without blurring the details and colors out of existence.
Therefore smoothing really doesn't help upscale or even original size without pixel and color destruction. The best option is not to require Flash to perform any scaling on a bitmap unless edge-only resampling becomes available. The small benefit it gives is working with a far less quality bitmap which might render some slight performance advantages in memory ops for huge images. At the loss of detail, this is arguably more of disadvantage than advantage.

Image scaling causes jaggie edges.

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for