Jagged Edges Question

When I view a Pal DV or HDV clip in Quicktime Player, hard edges tend to look jagged, but when viewed in FCP6 it looks fine. I was wondering the reason for this and if there is a solution. I would like to be able to export an edited sequence in full quality and be able to view it in QT player without the jagged edges. Thanks in advance for any thoughts.
John

Similar Messages

How do I get rid of jagged edges in Photoshop?

Can someone tell me how to get rid of jagged edges in Photoshop? I've tried using the refine tool and checking the anti-aliasing/smooth option, but neither appears to work. Here is the problem. I use Photoshop to create the images for heat transfers that I press on to T Shirts. In transparent mode, I cannot see the edges, nor can I see them once the transfer has been printed, but when I press the image on to a T-shirt the edges are extremely jagged. Also, when I add a solid blue background in Photoshop, I can see the edges. I am using the TW Cen MT Condensed Extra Bold font (140.13 pt).
Additional Questions:
Are there fonts that inherently behave this way when stretched?
Are there fonts that hold up more consistently when stretched?
Will rasterizing the image resolve this problem, or at least give me a higher quality image when stretched?
Is there a way of using inches instead of points for font size and if so, where do I change it?
Is there anyone out there who uses Photoshop to create text and images for T-Shirts? If you have the answer to any of my questions, please respond ASAP. It is extremely important that I be able to get consistent results clean, smooth images that transfer well onto fabric. I am attaching my text image on transparent background, as wells as a solid blue background. You may have to zoom in on the gold and black image to see the jagged edges on the fabric.

You have AA set to None in the Options bar is my guess. Use whatever option looks best, but never use None.

Saving Shapes to PNG Causes Jagged Edges

Hello,
I use a Mac and I have Illustrator CS6 and I've noticed something strange. I create shapes using the pentool. When I save the shape to a PNG with a transparent background, it looks smooth, however when I import and resize the shape it pixelates and it has jagged edges. I've attached a screenshot so you can see what I mean.
I'm wondering if it's a setting or something that I don't have turned on (or off). Or perhaps it's something else. I'm curious why this is happening. I’ve turned on the Anit-aliased Artwork and changed the ppi to 300…but to no avail.
Any help would be appreciated…but I’m new to Illustrator and have no idea, so please use detailed and basic instructions that a noob can understand.
Thanks in advance.

peta2005 wrote:
however when I import and resize the shape it pixelates and it has jagged edges.
You answered your own question. A png is a raster image therefore resizing the image will pixelate it.

How can I get rid of "Jagged Edges" in FCP from .psd/.tif/.tga text files?

Hi guys,
I posted this once before but don't know if anyone looked at it or not.
I am getting "Jagged Edges" in .psd/ .jpg/ .tif/ .tga text files
when I edit them in FCP5.1.4.
What is going wrong?
It is getting very frustrating for me at this point.
Can someone help me out please?
Thanks,
Zia

The usual questions...
Have the clips you're looking at been "fully" rendered?
Are you looking at the computer monitor or an external broadcast monitor?
You can't judge what you've got unless you look at FCP output on a broadcast monitor.
rh

Jagged edges on photos.

Hello.
I got a huge problem when trying to incorporate pics in PSE12.
I have downsized all pics to 2000X1500 using PS.
My problem is that the photos comes out with jagged edges and really bad quality.
I have tried all sorts of things. Saving it to PC helped a little but still jagged edges and overall really bad quality.
Tried different sizes, still same.
Even tried downsizing to 720 and burn to disc, playback on ps4. Still same.
The quality of video is fine and looks alot better then Pictures. I can just pause the video and it looks
crisper with no jagged edges.
I have never experienced this Before with older versions of PSE.
And No! This is not a resolution issue. I know they wont look as crisp as original
photos but they should be on par with videoquality and as of now they are not.

Vinjack
Just what program are you working with - Photoshop Elements 12 or Premiere Elements 12. The "PSE" abbreviation is typically used with Photoshop Elements.
In order for us to help you, please clarify your posting. If this is a Photoshop Elements question, you have posted in the wrong forum. You want the Adobe Photoshop Elements Forum (photo editing) and not where you are now the Adobe Premiere Elements Forum (video editing). It is your mention of "Timeline" incorporated in the "PSE" description that is confusing. By any chance are you working in the Elements Organizer Slideshow Editor of a Photoshop Elements program? Do you have any version of Premiere Elements at all?
Looking forward to your follow up.
Thanks.
ATR

How can I get rid of "Jagged Edges" on the text in .jpg/.psd file in FCP?

Hi guys,
I am running FCP5.1 and I have a still image (.jpg) of a consumer product with the name of the product and the description on it.
When I view it in the viewer or canvas, I see jagged edges around the name, description and the product.
Even when I use the FCP text tool, I still see it.
I even see jagged edges when I import a .psd file (photoshop doument) with text on it into FCP.
It is getting very frustrating for me at this point.
Can someone help me out please?
Thanks,
Zia

No need to double-post... most questions are answered pretty quickly...

Shape jagged edges issue?

I'm creating objects in illustrator (CMYK, 300dpi) for print purposes and the thing that bothers me is the jagged edges with a light pink color between the fill and stroke of the shape (see image) at any zoom level.
This shape, created in Illustrator, is being imported into a Photoshop collage at the same resolution on a dark grey background, where the jagged edges become even more striking.
Will this look as it should when it comes out of printing house? I know there's a difference between shape handling in Ai and Ps because of the different output media for each another...but still the screen appearance is disturbing.

function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
I'm creating objects in illustrator (CMYK, 300dpi) for print purposes and the thing that bothers me is the jagged edges with a light pink color between the fill and stroke of the shape (see image) at any zoom level.
I'll assume your screenshot is from Illustrator, not from Photoshop after importing the AI elements. That is, I'll assume that both the red shape and the black shape are native to Illustrator, both are vector paths with ordinary fills applied (no raster-based effects), and you want to bring both of them into Photoshop. The undesirable "light pink" is what you're seeing in Illustrator.
First, understand that in Illustrator you are not creating pixels. You're creating paths. Paths are mathematically-defined curves. You apply fills, which are just another kind of command, not pixels. Now...as you work in Illustrator, Illustrator has to display what you are creating on your monitor as pixels, even though what it's creating are not pixels. In other words, it's "printing" the mathematical shapes to your monitor. Your monitor is acting as the "printer." The monitor has pixels, but your objects (the paths) don't.
By default, Illustrator "prints" to your monitor using an algorithm called anti-aliasing, which is just a routine that disguises the inhernent jaggedness of the large, crude monitor pixels in order to make the on-screen appearance smoother.
You can turn that anti-aliasing behavior off in Illustrator's preferences. Turn it off and you'll see the edge between the black and red objects become more jagged, but the pink goes away. The degree of jaggedness will stay the same regardless of zoom, because the jaggedness you're seeing is the physical jaggedness of the pixels of the output device (your monitor).
Well, the same principle applies to anti-aliasing. You say the undesirable light pink along the edges occurs "at any zoom". (Again, I'll assume you're doing the zooming in Illustrator, not Photoshop.) So if you have antialiasing turned on, and if you zoom in alot, you still see the unwanted pink edge. But now ask yourself: Does the pink edge actually grow larger as I zoom in? If it doesn't, it's not "real"; it's just the result of the anti-aliasing routine that Illustrator is using when it "prints" to your monitor.
Further, you already know that you have not created any pink objects, right? So the unwanted pink edge is just an anti-aliasing artifact when viewing the artwork in Illustrator on your monitor. That is, since you haven't created any pink objects, there won't be any pink objects when you save the Illustrator file.
Now...all the above applies while working in Illustrator. Read on...
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
This shape, created in Illustrator, is being imported into a Photoshop collage at the same resolution on a dark grey background, where the jagged edges become even more striking.
The artwork is "being imported" into Photoshop how? If you paste or import the vector artwork into Photoshop, it is going to be rasterized (converted to pixels). If you export the artwork from Illustrator to a raster image, it is going to be rasterized. Either way, somewhere along you are going to be presented an option to let you choose whether the imported or exported vector paths use anti-aliasing when that rasterization occurs. If you choose to apply anti-aliasing during the export or import, then yes those pink pixels are going to actually exist in the resulting raster image. However, the degree to which they are visible will depend on the size of the pixels relative to the scale at which they are printed.
So again, ask yourself the same question, but this time, in the context of Photoshop: When I zoom in alot (in Photoshop), does the unwanted pink edge grow larger? If it does, it's real pixels, and yes, it will print. But again, how visible it will be in print depends on printing scale.
Understand also: Such edges are not necessarily undesirable. In raster imaging, one often goes to great lengths to add such "edges" between adjacent pixels of different color. That's essentially what sharpening does. Sharpening actually alters the colors of adjacent differently-colored pixels so as to increase their difference. In the case of any color against black (since black can't get darker), this would result in an "edge" of pixels that are lighter than the non-black color.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
Will this look as it should when it comes out of printing house?
That's where you have to define "as it should". When you rasterize the vector objects into another raster image in Photoshop, it all ultimately becomes one raster image. Zoom in and see if the pink pixels are actually there.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
I know there's a difference between shape handling in Ai and Ps because of the different output media for each another
That doesn't make sense. If this is something that you know, you need to find a better way to state it.
function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}
...but still the screen appearance is disturbing.
On-screen appearance is always disturbing. Anti-aliasing is just one flavor of disturbance. Color accuracy is another. The fact is, a monitor is a very very different kind of output device from a printing press, and the two are never going to look the same. That's why the answer to whether it prints "as it should" lies in the printed results, and that's where you have to look for the answer. But if you send a raster image to a printer, if the unwanted pink pixels are actually there in the image file, then yes, they will print. You can determine whether they actually exist in the final raster image by examining it in Photoshop.
JET

Jagged edges using DVCPRO 50

yeesh.
We are capturing footage that was shot at 24 fps, 16:9 anamorphic standard def on an SDX900 camera using on DVCpro tapes, off of an AJSD93 deck over firewire. We capture with the DVCPRO50-NTSC codec, and have tried both 23.98 and 24.
and we are PLAGUED with these frames with horrible jagged edges. This appears to be an interlace/field dominance problem, but uh it was shot progressive. Any of you masters got any ideas?
below is the example frame
Using a quicksilver g4 finalcut 5.04
Thank you so much!
Dillon
g4 desktop Mac OS X (10.3.9)

Please pardon the intrusion…
Hi, Randy!
Congratulations on advancing to Level 4!
At the Water Cooler in the Level 4 Lounge, we are throwing virtual confetti in celebration of your attainment of Level 4-dom. Would you care to join us at the Water Cooler?
On the Discussions Home Page, down at the bottom, you will, hopefully, soon find the Lounge link available to you. It should show up for you within the next 24 hours if all goes as it should, but they have been "experiencing some technical difficulties" sometimes resulting in long and unforeseen delays. Have faith, keep looking for the link on the Discussions Home Page, and we'll keep the party going until you get there.
Hope to see you soon!

Images imported from QT exported image sequence have jagged edges

Hi
I've come across something strange which I'd like to resolve.
I export an image sequence from QuickTime.
I then import this into Aperture.
But the images imported into Aperture now have jagged edges where there has been any movement in the original footage.
The images originally exported from QuickTime look absolutely fine when viewed with preview, they have the expected blurring on moving objects, but no jaggedness.
Now, a bit more detail.
The footage I'm exporting from was shot by me and came from a Final Cut Pro edit.
The codec in the QT movie is Apple Intermediate Codec and this is interlaced.
The jagged edges on movement look to me like the problem of interlaced not being converted to progressive.
However the exported images from QuickTime don't display this when viewed in Preview, it is only when viewed in Aperture that the jagged edges become apparent.
I have tried exporting from QuickTime to jpg, png and psd, but the problem is identical no matter which format I use.
I really want to now use Aperture to improve these exported images, but with this jagged edge problem I can't.

Hi JNorris--
Sounds like you need to apply the deinterlace filter (Effects tab: video filters: video: deinterlace) to the stills your exporting.
See if that makes a difference to start.
T.

Jagged Edges after rotating a stroked image

I've have this problem a lot but I guess I'm just now getting around to ask about it.
When I have a photo in cs2-cs3-cs4 etc and I rotate it at an angle I get fine jagged edges all along the sides. It's becomes very pronounced in a stroked image even when I I stroke the image after rotation. The problem is more obvious when the image is not at angles like 45 or 90 degrees but more visible at in between angles.
Any suggestions?

ryanroy.roy wrote:
I've have this problem a lot but I guess I'm just now getting around to ask about it.
When I have a photo in cs2-cs3-cs4 etc and I rotate it at an angle I get fine jagged edges all along the sides. It's becomes very pronounced in a stroked image even when I I stroke the image after rotation. The problem is more obvious when the image is not at angles like 45 or 90 degrees but more visible at in between angles.
Any suggestions?
What you are seeing is alaising, and it is inherent in raster graphics when the line to be shown is not parallel to the columns or rows of the image.It can be mitigated to some extent by antialaising, which softens the edges of the diagonal lines. When you select all of an image and stroke for a border, antialaising is used. With the polygonal lasso tool, you can turn antialaising on or off. Alaising is less apparent with very high resolution, but it can't be elilminated.
Here are triangular selections with antialaising turned on and off:

Jagged Edges on Images in Dreamweaver CS3

When placing an image with a transparent background in Dreamweaver CS3, I keep encountering ugly jagged
edges, whether I save the image as a .png or a .gif. I've tried everything I can think of to eliminate this problem,
and still the same results.
The only thing that has worked to eliminate the jagged white edge has been to place a background layer behind the image,
but that poses yet another problem because the hex colors in Photoshop and Dreamweaver will not match either.
Frazzled!! Somebody please help!

That's not a problem with DW. The jagged edge you see on your phone image is a jagged edge on your phone image!
I got a bit of a better result after about 5 minutes fumbling with the eraser in Photoshop:
http://www.martcol.co.uk/test/phone.html
It shouldn't take too much to get your original good enough to lose that jagged edge.
Martin

How do I remove white jagged edges after making image transparent?

How do I remove white jagged edges after making image transparent? Is there a feature to help out with this?

It's a file format limitation. GIF supports 1 bit of transparency. That is 2^1 (which equals 2 total) levels of transparency. This equates to either NO transparency at all, or specifying 1 single color of the 256 total possible values to being fully transparent.
This will leave a very ugly fringe around the edge no matter what; it will only not be visible in color that match or are close to the fringe color; and then, that's a perception issue.
Try creating an alpha channel and saving the image as a PNG. That supports 8 bits of transparency, which equals 2^8 or 256 total different levels of transparency. This will let your image have very smooth edges with no jagged transitions.

Jpg jagged edges

Hi,
I'm making a video from jpgs -- all were taken by a professional photographer, really big file sizes, so that they are down to about 26% to fill the screen. Problem is the jagged edges, particularly on straight lines -- and there are a lot of these because it's architectural photography.
Tried Gaussian Blur in FCP, but it softens the photos too much.
Any other ideas?
thanks,
Eve

Let's try this from the top.
Recognize that NOTHING on the TV will ever ever look as sharp and as detailed as the original images.
1. A pro photographer should be able to deliver files in TIF or PSD - lossless formats. JPG is a lossy format designed to compress images for transmission over the internet and display on computer monitors. It was intended to be used by people who care more about small file size than maintaining image fidelity.
2. Unless you are doing moves (pan/zoom) on the images, you should reduce their pixel count to something close to the codec size. For DV, the equivalent square pixel size is 720x540. Best to do this in Photoshop (or other image editing software) before importing into FCP as FCP does not have the most sophisticated scaling engine.
3. Deinterlacing still images makes no sense what so ever. Deinterlacing takes half the image and throws it away then adds back the missing lines of information interpolated from the remaining lines. Why would you do this on a still image?
4. Images with a great deal of contrast and or thin horizontal edge detail will benefit from a slight vertical gausian blur - .5. This will make the detail that exists on only one scan line (which may appear to vibrate) blend over two scan lines so the image will counterintuitively look sharper - or at least more stable. Setting the Field dominance to "none" will also help as it tells FCP to render by frame not by field.
5. Keep in mind the color space of the DVD is the same as DV - 4:1:1. Unless you are manipulating the images (color correcting, composting, overlay titling, etc) your images will not improve with ProRes or DV50 codecs and the editing file sizes will grow significantly. If you are engaging in those activities, you will see a benefit.
6. Unless you are planning to make some variant of an high definition DVD (currently Blu-ray), it doesn't make any sense to me to work in an HD format for editing then down convert to DV size for burning. Why not simply work at the size/aspect ratio of the final output?
7. As noted, you really MUST have a TV monitor connected to view the material as you edit/play it back. Otherwise, you will have no idea how your work will display without burning to disk.
Have fun.
x

Jagged Edges

Hello,
First of all, forgive me but I am a complete newbie who's new to the world of Final Cut and video editing.
Here's my problem: I captured a bunch of footage from a Sony consumer video camera. But when I look at it in quick time and on final cut, the footage has a lot of jagged edges, specifically when the camera moves.
Did I do something wrong when I captured the footage? Is there a way to clean this up?
I'm using FINAL CUT PRO 5.1.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.

You are in all likelyhood seeing interlacing which does not display correctly on computer monitors.
What format does the camera shoot? If you are unsure, post manufacturer and model information.
The next step is to make sure that FCP is set up correctly for the camera's format.
Even then, you will still see interlacing, it is a normal aspect of many video formats that are designed to be viewed on a television screen.

The end of jagged edges in iMovie using stills

It took an astonishing 14 months, but I have finally beaten the dreaded jagged edge quality issue in iMovie when using still photos. If you're reading this, you're a sufferer. How could the software be so bad as to ruin every picture you put in there? It's all about knowing the settings, and that can be difficult without some help.
It feels as though I've really gone through the mill with this programme, but here's your fix - or at least, a fix that worked for me.
Initially, I was using the first version of iMovie and the first version of OSX. In that environment I found the problem unsolvable. I didn't get anywhere until I upgraded to Panther (10.3.9) and iMovie HD 5.0.2. Here there are many more options and settings, but it is still a minefield. I tried almost every setting there is, and have the 'coasters' to prove it.
My fix is for widescreen. Choose HDV720P. Select your frame rate in the preferences box at 25 (which is PAL for use in the UK) And that's it. It produces a stable, high quality movie where all the effects available work perfectly - and no jagged edges!
If, as I do, you use Photo to Movie for more adventurous multiple pan and scans for sections of your movie, export from that software using 'higher quality' on rendering, select 16.9 widescreen, and DV stream PAL as your export format. This stops iMovie from trying to resample it, and very possibly giving a choppy or jerky movement to your imports. Using the above settings will give a perfect result, and you can freely use iMovie's transitions to join an imported item to footage created in iMovie.
I've now produced many very successful movies on these settings. It works for me, I really hope it works for you. iMovie can drive you up the wall when it doesn't give the results you know it can be capable of.
Quicksilver G4 Mac OS X (10.3.9)

Thanks for the idea, Steve. I like working with the HDV 720P high def projects for slideshows too. The quality is awfully nice to work with and it delivers projects that will work far better with tomorrow's hardware. Although we can't burn HD DVDs yet, hopefully that day will come soon, and the HDV slideshows we create today will look very good on the HDTVs we own tomorrow. They look good today, but they will look even better tomorrow.
It should be noted, however, that it's not necessary to create an HDV project to avoid the jaggies on still images. The cause of the jaggies in DV projects -- the type of projects we mostly make -- is well known and can be avoided. It doesn't require third-party software like Photo to Movie, but it does require avoiding a bug.
iMovie adds the jaggies after we press the Create iDVD Project button in the iDVD tab of iMovie. When that button is pressed, iMovie will ask permission to render any UN-rendered clips, including any unrendered KB images. If you grant permission to render, iMovie adds the jaggies while rendering those images.
If the clips have been previously rendered by Ken Burns, or if you refuse permission to render after pressing the button so iDVD renders them later, you don't get the jaggies.
I use Ken Burns to render images as they are imported, which it does with great quality. Once rendered, iMovie won't ask to render those images again. One reason I render with Ken Burns is so I can grant iMovie to render OTHER clips when it asks permission.
Ken Burns will render the image if the KB checkbox is turned ON when the image is imported. So turning on the checkbox avoids the bug.
If the checkbox isn't on when you import an image, you can select that KB clip in the timeline later, turn the checkbox ON, and Update the image.
Regrettably, once iMovie has added jaggies to clips they cannot be repaired. It's necessary to re-import the image and discard the flawed clip.
Karl

Jagged Edges Question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for