Importing images: why low quality?

Hi, I inserted a high quality jpeg into a slide for a demo.
(Here it is
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23205536@N04/2777619229/sizes/o/
But when the demo is rendered in captivate, it looks crappy.
Why? (I should not that it looks acceptable when inside the edit
screen).
I had to scale the image down within captivate so that it
fits inside a single slide.
Is captivate just mediocre in importing raster graphics, or
is there something I'm doing wrong?
rj

Hi rj
Try examining the Slide Properties where the image is of poor
quality. In the Slide Properties should be an option for adjusting
image quality for that slide only.
Cheers... Rick

Similar Messages

Imported Media Looks Low Quality - Why??

Hi. I just got Priemiere Elements 7.0, Before I was using Windows Movie Maker under Vista. When I import DVD movie files into that - they look just like on the DVD - really good quality. However I just imported the same files into Premiere Elements and they look low quality and a bit blocky. What do I need to do to get them looking normal. Thank you very much
Rich

Rich,
What you are seeing in your workflow is twofold. WMP (Windows Media Player) is playing the MPEG-2 file directly, while the Preview in PE is playing a DV-AVI Type II file, which is what PE needs to work with. As you also found, the red line indicates that one needs to do a Render to get better playback. Also, if your Program Monitor is set to "Fit," the quality of playback (remember, this is just an emulation of the playback of the file), it will be slightly degraded. A setting of 100% will get you closer to what you will be seeing in final and should be used to judge the final output - though it is STILL just an emulation.
Now, the better workflow would be to go back to before that source DVD was created. The source footage will be better, as that DVD has been compressed to MPEG-2 and image data lost forever. You rip the MPEG-2 files to something else, or maybe directly to MPEG-2, then bring into PE, which will convert them into DV-AVI Type II. Though only slightly compressed, it cannot restore the lost data. Then, if you Export back to DVD, you are re-compressing to MPEG-2 once more. The quality of the original source footage will be many times better, if you can go back to it. If not, then you are stuck with the quality hit. The best that one can ever do is to use an editing program that will edit the MPEG-2 files natively, and not re-Transcode anything that has not been altered. However, most of these will offer limited editing functions.
What you are doing is akin to taking a film negative, and printing it to a "silk finished" 4x6 print, and then scanning that print to bring into Photoshop. It will never be as good, or as sharp, as that original negative. However, sometimes we just cannot go back to the source and have to live with what we've got.
Good luck,
Hunt
PS, I think that Steve addressed your other question. Let us know if you now have all the necessary info.

Imported images with poor quality

Hello,
why when I import images from Photoshop into InDesign project, do they lose quality ?
thanks

Ha!
Well, it's also worth noting that InDesign, by default, displays lower quality previews of the images when they are placed (to speed up processing and display). You can view the full resolution images by going to View > Overprint Preview, or by changing the options in View > Display Performance.

Help with Converting Already Imported Songs to Lower Quality

Hello,
I just bought a new 2GB nano, and before I even thought about it, I just dragged and dropped my songs over to it. However, I had forgotten awhile back that I had upped the quality of my library to import at 320 kpbs. This was obvious after the fact because my estimated 500 song nano is saying its full at 294 songs. How do I convert my library to a lower AAC kpbs? I tried changing the import settings in the advanced menu, but the conversion process stops when it hits a song that I purchased from the iTunes Music Store. Any ideas?
Thanks!

Adam, did you change the import settings in ITunes Prefs > Advanced? If you left the settings at 320Kbps, then you've accomplished nothing. If you did change this setting then highlight Library, in the Source list, pull down Edit > View Options and click Bit Rate. Click the OK button then sort your Library by Bit Rate to find the new songs.

How can i import files to trial version LR5.6? Message:Your disk "MobileBackups", to which you are importing images, is low on space.

how can i import files to trial version LR5.6

I currently am up to about 65,000 images cataloged in LR. I backup on launch several times a week and have used the "relaunch and optimize" function periodically as well. I am a bit reluctant to do anything aggressive as, even though I have encountered this warning 6 or 7 times in the past 4-5 months or so I have never had to shut down. I have emptied the recycle bin (which, as I mentioned, usually has very little in it) and then I continue and notice no impairment of function. So at present it represents more of an annoyance and a bit of a mystery only. Maybe I will just report this to Adobe and sit tight unless someone can see an obvious explanation and correction here.
I appreciate all of the input and advice I have received already.

Importing images - why 3 boxes?

a quark user who is trying to make the switch...
when i import a graphic into quark, it comes in one box. when i import into ID i get 3. i understand the container box (used with selection tool), and the item box (used with direct selection tool and has a gold frame). but what is that third box? it has a thin light blue outline and seems to be exactly like the item box but with different dimensions. this is confusing. i keep selecting it by mistake when i want to select the item. it does not move the item, but seems more like an illustrator box in which i can change its shape. can i get rid of it? if i want to change the shape i'll do so in another program. this may be a dumb question, if so, sorry.
thanks

here it is again...
ok - so relating this in quark terms:
the thin blue box is the window in which the content (gold box) is placed
the heavier blue bounding box is only for sizing and moving, rotating. basically the thin blue box and the heavier blue box with the adjustment handles are the same thing.
it seems to me that the there is no need to even see the thin blue box, unless i want to change the rectangular shape into a trapezoid. is that true? (which is very rare). i would only select the thin blue box with the direct selection tool if i want to do that. otherwise, to move it around i will just use the selection tool (black arrow) and to move the content around i use the direct selection tool (hollow arrow).
the reason all this confusion came about because i'd go to move the content around with the direct selection tool and end up changing the shape of the window (thin blue) by inadvertantly selecting one of its sides or corners.
i think i understand, if i don't have this correct, let me know
assuming i do, thanks to all for your patience and explanations. i realize this may seem very basic to you, it has been a source of confusion for me because it is much more nuanced than the way quark behaves. more sophistication and elegance translates into more layers of understanding, as well as more options to do things... thats a good thing ...i think
thanks again! - pat

Low quality images in web gallery from Output Module

So when I create a web gallery slideshow using the output module I get SUPER-low quality images, like big jagged, pixellated lines in place of any diagonal line in the pictures. However, only photos in the portrait orientation are affected by this problem. Landscape-oriented photos look perfectly normal, just smaller.
My first thought was that maybe the images were low quality in the web gallery preview but wouldn't be in the actual saved file, but alas I saved the index.html file and when I preview it in my web browser I get the same result with the portrait-oriented photos.
Any idea how to fix this? Other than only using landscape photos in my gallery of course!
Thanks!

The same problem here. I've noticed it just yesterday, but my Safari rendering is affected the same way.
I don't think it has anything to do with the recent updates. I reinstalled my MacOS X Leopard day ago and all the images (jpg, gif) have been somehow in lower quality ever since that moment. Even before I installed all new updates today.
The strangest think is, that it wasn't like this before the reinstallation. I used the same media, and I have, indeed, the same machine.
I'm hopeless. Have you already found some solution? Or anybody? Would be great...
Martin

Why is "zoomed out" image low quality?

It seems whenever the display zoom is less than 100%, CS3 uses some kind of "Pixel Resize" for display which makes for low quality output to look at.
Is there any way to tell CS3 to a simple bilinear filter when displaying less than 100%?
This would make for much less artifacts/jaggedness and I'm sure the speed impact would not even be noticeable.
Thank you,
LTG
[link deleted by forum host]

>Should a pixel editor, at a non-100% zoom level, smooth things over to make them look good, so you might pass on viewing at 100%, falsely thinking the image is fine?
again, what if you want an overall view of your image, not just a 2"x4" secion of it? shouldn't you have that option via a toggle?
>Or should it use something similar to pixels from the image that might clue you in to a need to zoom to 100% to see if editing is needed? I vote for the latter, which Photoshop delivers.
it uses NOTHING similar to the image! it's nearest neighbor guesses are way off. I'd rather see the title bar go red as an indicator and see a closer representation of what the image is supposed to look like.
so that's 3 excuses now. 1) it's so you know what to go back and edit. no. becuase ANYTHING VIEWED AT A NON-100% ZOOM LEVEL IS INACURATE! 2) it's to protect you from saving when the image isn't really ready to be saved? no. becuase ANYTHING VIEWED AT A NON-100% ZOOM LEVEL IS INACURATE! 3) it should show you crap because then you know you need to go back and look at 100%. NO! because maybe you produced crap to begin with! :)
I hear what you're saying mike, and it's the closest to a reasonable explination in this thread, but wouldn't it be nice to allow the USER to choose what they see?

Why is it that when I connect my iPhone 5S to my Windows Vista computer, the photos made with my iPhone are all of very low quality and most of them are turned upside down?

Why is it that when I connect my iPhone 5S to my Windows Vista computer, the photos made with my iPhone are all of very low quality and most of them are turned upside down?
On another note, the iPhone tells me that it's ''busy'' when opening a photo on the computer.
(I tried restarting my PC, connecting via another USB port, importing using PhotoStream, etc...)

Are you using the front or rear camera? When you say they are low quality, are you referring to file/pixel size, or how the picture looks? As far as upside down, how are you holding the phone? Older versions of Windows have issues reading the Metadata from the pictures and will not display the same.

Problems with "save for web" app low quality messed up images

Please help I have never had a problem with the "save for web" application before (over three years) I am currently running A.I. cs3 on windows vista. in the past whenever I save anything this way the images were always clean. as of yesterday everything I try to save through the save for web app the images are very low quality all the vector has jagged edges, it is very low rez looking and the file sizes are very small, half the size they normaly would be. What did I do to change the settings or better yet how can I get it back to the way it was.

Thank you for your help I moved the folder but it still did not fix this problem. it is also not just the jpg option under the save for web app but all the setting ie. gif, png, ect. ect. Also the the files sizes are much less, example I exported a design as a jpg with the quality setting about 6 the file size was 374kb when I exported the same design through the save for web app the file size was only 45 kb on the quilty setting of 100. further more in the preview screen of "save for web" the original images as well as the optimized both look messed up. The "save for web" app has always worked for me in the past never a problem and I use this app alot so it is very important.

Prior to importing photo's should the thumbnails be of a low quality such that they are blurry?

Prior to importing photo's should the thumbnails be of a low quality such that they are blurry?
I have recently started to use lightroom and when selecting a folder to import from my hard drive the thumbnails are of (in my opinion) very low quality. Once they are imported they are fine, is this correct?

The import dialog is there to help you locate And identify the images that you want to import. They are not high quality previews. You shouldn't consider using the import dialog to determine the quality of any image. Use it to identify your images and get them imported. Then let Lightroom generate its own previews.

Import image with 72 DPI in adode AIR application? which will not reduce quality of image?

impoart image with 72 DPI in adode AIR application? right now in Windows applicaion, i am importing image with 96 DPI.
In Our Application,we want that image which we will importing, it won't be low quality.It will be best Quality image.How can we achive this in our Application.
Please suggest some solution which will be great for me
Thanks,
Sunil

Hi Paul and aktell,
         My application having import image for use in Photo Album so when we import file in Adobe AIR application
           we had code for create three folder 1) Low Resolution - This folder image used in Thumbnail view(imaze size 300 X 150)
            2) Mid Resolution - This folder image used in slideshow and it's image size is 1000 X 600
            3)High Resolution - This folder image used in report generation and its image size is original as user import from original source.
     My main issue is make only one folder which having best quality image ,without pixalated when we used in big container which having 1200 X1200 size and showing image with best quality and also it will not big size so if user import 500 hunderd images which cannot degrade performance of application.
Thanks
Sunil

Mac OSX, 10.7.5, LR 5.6 After creating a new folder in the Destination section and importing images, the new folder name appears as 2010, no matter what name I give it. Why is it doing this?

Mac OSX, 10.7.5, LR 5.6 After creating a new folder in the Destination section and importing images, the new folder name appears as 2010, no matter what name I give it. Why is it doing this?

I am experiencing Mavericks failing to copy subdirectories from usb sticks, I am backing up game saves from a console. Both sticks I use are fine, same permissions of course since the console wrote the files. Sometimes it copies, sometimes it doesn't. It seems to be related to the mounting process.
Thank God Apple hasn't (yet) broken bash.

After importing images from my card using LR 5.4, the GPS data does not show in the metadata panel. However, when I look at the imported images using Bridge, the GPS data is visible. Anybody know why LR is not seeing the GPS data? Camera is Canon 6D.

After importing images from my card using LR 5.4, the GPS data does not show in the metadata panel. However, when I look at the imported images using Bridge, the GPS data is visible. Anybody know why LR is not seeing the GPS data? Camera is Canon 6D.

Ok, the issue seem to be solved. The problem was this:
The many hundred files (raw and xmp per image) have been downloaded by ftp in no specific order. Means - a couple of files in the download queue - both raw and xmps. Most of the time, the small xmp files have been finished loading first and hence the "last change date" of these xmp files was OLDER than the "last change date" of the raw file - Lightroom then seem to ignore the existence of the xmp file and does not read it during import.(a minute is enough to run into the problem)
By simply using the ftp client in a way that all large raw files get downloaded first followed by the xmp files, we achieved that all "last changed dates" of the xmp files are NEWER than the related raw files. (at least not older)
And then LR is reading them and all metadata information has been set / read correctly.
So this is solved.

Incorrect image size and low quality file (Photoshop CC trial ver. on Macbook Pro Retina)

At first, I set 500x500 size
but in workplace, it show smaller than 500x500 (maybe 250x250?)
I check on "image > image size" it still show me 500x500 pixels
Save for web
After that, i got a 500x500 file but It resize from smaller to 500x500 , so... i got a low quality file.
what's wrong?
(sorry for bad english skill but i really want your help)
Ps. it also incorrect when i set resolution as 300dpi

Pixel is not a measurement unit of length per se.
If a screen has more pixels per unit of length an image (when displayed as one image pixel per one screen pixel) would appear smaller than on a screen with lower resolution.
To make sure could you please post an image that is 500px x 500px (according to Image > Image Size) but seems to be too small to you?

Importing images: why low quality?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for