Jaggies and artefacts

Having seemingly resloved my issues regarding contrast I find I have another problem with quite obvious jaggies and shimmering which is more obvious on my Mac than on my LCD tv although I suspect being so close to the screen would have something to do with that.I thought that HD would eliminate all that but its very evident. Jaggies - the outline of objects look like a stairway and the shimmering is most evident on brightly lit objects. Anyone got any suggestions please?

Hi Angloargie,
Video playback on your Mac will never look the same as it will on a proper TV. If you're uncertain about the quality, then take a look at the footage on your TV screen, as this is what the final, shiny version of your movie will most look like.
If you're working with DV then iMovie will not (as far as i'm aware) seriously reduce the quality of the picture.
I'd burn a DVD of the footage, try it on your TV, and you should notice those lines disappear somewhat.
If you're a real film-making nut then you can hook up a proper TV to your editing studio to fully judge the final quality, but for home movies it's best just to trust that everything should come out looking better than it did on the Mac.
Good luck and i hope i was some help,
PJ

Similar Messages

Fix for Jaggies and Ripples in Ken Burns Photos?

I thought using the Ken Burns effect to render your photos was supposed to be a cure for the jaggies, but I still notice a lot of jaggies and ripples during photo panning and zooming in the finished DVD. Is there a fix for this? Am I overlooking something?
BTW- As recommended, I don't let iMovieHD do the rendering of everything else. I drag the project to iDVD and let it do the job.
One other observation- iMovie08 seems to do a MUCH better job with the Ken Burns effect. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie doesn't seem to be as crisp, and the transitions, effects, etc, in iMovie 08 are more limited. (plus I hate the user interface).

oregonpete wrote:
BTW- As recommended, I don't let iMovieHD do the rendering of everything else. I drag the project to iDVD and let it do the job.
I keep seeing this suggested in thread after thread. However, I'm still a little confused by it. I'm assuming that this suggestion refers to not exporting out or sending to iDVD when FINISHED with iMovie Project.
Because doesn't iMovie do some "rendering" while you're working in it? It "renders" transitions, effects, etc.
I'm assuming that it's just a difference in the context and time of the "rendering" that makes it different, but using the same term confuses me.
If someone could clarify this or explain it in more depth, I would be grateful.

New Mac Pro/ Final Cut X User--Jaggies and Low Res Playback

Good morning,
New Macx Pro with Cinema display and Final Cut X (demo) user. Working with P2 footage and noticed jagged egdes in upon playback. In other words, the footages appears as low res. I have the program monitor is set to full res and "fit". I am also testing Premier on my Mac (I've used Premier for years on a PC) and noticed a similar issue, but the jaggies aren't quite as bad.
This issue has me worried. Any insight would be appreciated.
Thanks,
GL

Okay, problem solved...whew! It turns out the playback setting in preferences was indeed set to "better..." and not high. Well, that deserves a...duh!!!
Thank you for the recommendation.
I also fixed the Premier issue. I had to specify custom presets for the project.
Regards,
GL

"jaggies" and "stair-stepping"

what are the possibilities that this problem could stem from?
-matthew

well, i'm near the end of this project. its still jagged in quicktime (though when i click "highest quality" its somewhat better) and its jagged on dvd. when i view the dvd on my tv since its an ntsc monitor.
i played around w/ "reverse telecine" in cinema tools and seems to really clean it up. would i have to make 2 versions then(one at 24fps and one at 30fps)?
most festival projectors wouldn't be considered "ntsc monitors", right? so my project would likely look real jagged on the big screen?

DVD playback is poor on quality Sony and Panasonic players-jagged horizontals are particularly noticeable. Top quality Verbatim DVD-R discs used. Ideas please?

I'm new to Mac and have not regretted the move from the "other side" until now. I produce many DVDs of slideshows and movies which are frequently shown at public venues or are given to friends and organisations so quality is very important. So far all attempts at producing a DVD free of "jaggies" and other artefacts have failed, the results not being acceptable even when viewed on 22 inch LCD TVs.
The projects have been created using iMovie which produces excellent quality Quicktime files perfectly watchable on large HD screens or projectors fed from a notebook (and a windows one at that!)
I have burned the DVDs on the iMac internal Optiarc drive and an external LG one with the same poor results.
No similar problems experienced over many years of using Adobe Premiere, Cyberlink and WNsoft software. In fact many audiences have commented on the near broadcast quality of the productions.
Am I preparing the files wrongly in iDVD or do I have to seek out alternative authoring/burning software (not so easy with Mac of course) ? I have Final Cut Express 4 on the Mac also but wanted to cut my teeth on iMovie first.
Any help will be most welcome.
Stuart

Hi
Still one has to know that DVDs can only be SD-video (it's a standard) any program used.
But You can get a better result by using iMovie HD6 or FinalCut any version as they can deliver intrelaced video over to iDVD (or Roxio Toast™ or DVD-Studio Pro) - this will not discard every second line as iMovie'08 or 09 or 11 does.
You might also try to use FotoMagico™ to make SlideShows as this also results in as high quality possibly.
If You need even better then consider
• Blu-Ray (Roxio Toast™ Pro bundle incl. BD-component) - Short BD movies on standard DVD disks (BUT neeed Blu-ray player to be viewed (no not on any standard Mac either))
• Save to Memory stick and Playback on PlayStation 3
Yours Bengt W

Still photos in PRE 12 and output to HD DVD for TV

Hi,
I was using Final Cut Express 4 HD on my old iMac but bought a new late 2013 iMac and learned that FCE will not run on Mavericks (and if you install it you will destroy your OS X plugin manager without any chance to repair it)!
Ok FC Pro X is far way to expensive for me right now, as I just use the app to build nicer photo slide shows. iMove has just a single track and therefore I'm already on the limits. Ok this is where PRE 12 comes into the game and so far I love what I see in the editor. But when it comes to exporting and sharing my work for Full HD TV I'm more than disappointed.
Here is what I use. I exported all my images with 1920x1080 pixels as JPG, max quality with 72dpi and they are looking great on my iMac.
When I import the stills into PRE they are OK when I see them in the editor. I switched off the still optimization feature and set the highest quality to render the preview.
When looking at the clip on my iMac in the editor is ok so far, but at full screen the images are unsharp, blurry and have ghosting and artefacts. Well I could live with that when it would only be the preview but exporting the video a DVD with Full HD the result is as the preview, images are unsharp, blurry showing artefacts and ghosting. And I can't make it better by manipulating the settiings in the DVD dialog. Maybe I'm doing it wrong!?
The only way to make my photos in the video looking tack sharp and brilliant as they are is when I use MPEG format with Full HD settings and look at the video with quick time.
Why don't I get the same result when burning the video on DVD? Any hints?
In regards to the DVD quality I had no problems with FCE 4 HD! And the images (still photos) are the same footage I used to compare the output!
Secondly I just use the PRE 12 trial version, hope that this is not the reason? The annoying "always on" banner saying that it is a trial version is already something I dislike, but what I experience and makes it even worse is that PRE 12 is crashing again and again on different steps I take, sometimes when I change a setting, sometimes when I scrub, sometimes when selecting a fade, sometimes when importing footage and other step....
With all this the disappointing quality on DVD's and the many crashes I can't find a lot of arguments right now to make the trial a full version?!
Cheers and many thanks for help!
Happy New Year!
Yogie

Yogi
First, I want you to assure that you are not bothered by pile ups of preview files, conformed audio, and conformed video files. If these files are in the default location, please check wherever they may be in Premiere Elements 12 Mac (I am strictly an Elements Windows user)....
Adobe Premiere Elements Preview Files Folder....preview files
Media Cache Folder (cfa and pek files)....conformed audio
Media Cache (.mcdb files)....conformed video
Check Edit Menu/Preferences/Scratch Disks to assure that all the scratch disk categories are directed to a hard drive save location with adequate free space to accept them.
Now for the project itself...set the Premiere Elements 12 project preset manually, using
File Menu/New/Project
PAL
DSLR
1080p
DSLR 1080p25
Before you close out of there, make sure that you have a check mark next to "Force Selected Project Setting on This Project". Then, when you enter the Premiere Elements workspace, import your source media into the project with Add Media/Files and Folders/Project Assets.
Render the Timeline and then decide if the image quality is impoved. You might explore applying a very small Sharpen effect to the images. Have the others taken you through the drill of evaluating your computer video card and its driver version?
ATR
Let us determine what we have at this stage and then we can decide if any improvement on the path to PAL DVD-VIDEO Widescreen on DVD disc.
Thank you.
ATR

Combining 1080i and 1080p HDV footage on single timeline, for SD output?

Hi All
Help! I'm a cameraperson/director who was has just shot a largeish doccie project on a Sony HVR-V1E. My technical background is in stills, so I hope you'll forgive some ignorance here.
BACKGROUND: The vast majority of the footage was shot HDV using the 25fps prog scan mode on the camera. I really don't like interlace jaggies and I was advised that this was the obvious way of getting away from them, and made for very useable footage when output as standard def interlaced PAL. However, some footage for the project was also shot on a small Sony HDR-HC9 (PAL) camera. The HC9 has no progressive scan mode, i.e. this footage is 1080i50.
The primary broadcaster for this doccie requires delivery on Beta SP, standard def PAL. Because of the 16:9 aspect ratio of the HDV format, the film will be delivered letterboxed, black above and below.
THE MAIN QUESTION: We'll be editing in FCP 6.0 . My editor is more of an Avid person, and is concerned that without proper setup we'l end up with issues later on when we downsize to SD, especially because we'll be combining prog-scanned footage with interlace-scanned footage. We need to know whether to set the sequence presets as HDV 1080i50 or HDV 1080p25.
We're planning to edit as an HDV project and downscale to SD using Compressor. I know this downscaling is likely to take a long time, however we've been advised that editing in HDV is less intensive than going the ProRes route, and the quality of the Compressor downscale is better than that of the other 'within FCP' options.
I've been advised to set the sequence preset to i50, but I'm not sure if Compressor has a harder time resizing interlaced footage than progressive footage. Common sense tell me it'll be easier to resize a progressive frame and then split it into two interlaced fields without artifacts, than resizing and regenerating interlaced fields from 1080 down to PAL dimensions. However, if the sequence preset is p25, will FCP deal with the bits of i50 footage in the project OK?
Also, I've been told but cannot confirm that the Sony HVR-V1E camera scans progressively in 25fps prog scan mode, but encodes each progressively-scanned image as two interlaced fields on the tape, i.e. as 1080i50 images. Is this true? If so, it would surely mean that the sequence preset should be 1080i50 with progressive-scanned imagery emanating from this model of camera.
I hope this makes sense!
Regards
Adam Welz, Cape Town

Hi,
FCP is open format timeline based, so it will transcode the footage according to the first clip on the timeline. so it will not be a problem for two different formats. i've used DVCAM, HDV formats together it has done for me nicely.
but check the result before proceding further ahed in edit in both preset format.
and using Compressor is not a good idea for broadcast I believe, it is ok if there is no other option is with you. It is better to do it with the hardware rather than software.
I use realtime Blackmagic hardware for down converting HD to SD with letterbox directly to tape.

Is it possible to burn a SD DVD correctly from an Encore CS6 Blu-ray project and content?

Hi all,
I shot and edited AVCHD 1080i30 (60i) square pixel video from a Sony NXCAM HXR-NX5U camcorder in Premiere CS6. I then exported the 1920x1080 edited mpeg2 blu-ray m2v file for import into Encore Cs6. Burning a blu-ray disc in Encore CS6 from this mpeg2 bluray m2v file is no problem and look great even with the default settings.
However, I also want to burn a standard DVD using the same HD Encore CS6 project without having to go back to Premiere CS6 and output a 710x480 mpeg-dvd file. I thought i could simply select the dvd format under the build tab in Encore thinking Encore would handle all the necessary conversions to burn a 720x480 DVD but the menus look jaggy and the video does not play smoothly.
Is it possible to burn a standard DVD correctly from an Encore CS6 HD project and content, or is it better to have Premiere CS6 output a 720x480 mpeg-dvd file and create a new standard 720x480 dvd Encore project instead?
Acording to Encore Help, it says "You can build the same project to DVD and Blu‑ray formats no matter which format you select in the New Project or Project Settings dialog box. Encore makes the appropriate adjustments to transcode the elements to the correct format.", but i'm not convinced Encore is doing things correctly.
Thanks.

Jim,
I tried a variation on your suggestion.
I exported a new m2v file using the mpeg-dvd from Premiere CS6 as you suggested with "Use Maximum Render Quality" checked to get better scaling from HD to SD. I imported it into my Blu-ray EncoreCS6 project by using the "Replace Asset" option and changed the "Project Settings" authoring Mode to "DVD" leaving the HD menu's "Aspect Ratio" at 16:9. I then built the disc using the "Build" tab DVD format and output settings.
It worked!
The jaggies are gone (except for some motion jaggies) and the DVD plays well.
I suppose I could have done something similar within Encore but I'll test that some other time.

Lightroom 2 Print Jaggies

Hello All,
Working away with Lightroom 2 and everything seemed to be working fine until I made my first set of 8 1/2" x 11" Prints. They seem way over sharpened and I am seeing jaggies. When I did my first set of prints, I forgot to let Photoshop determine colors and didn't have my paper profile selected. I corrected that, and started a reprint, and I am getting the same results. Could this be as simple as doing a reboot? Perhaps the corrected settings don't load unless you restart? Otherwise if this is not the problem, I am not sure what the problem is. I had been using Lightroom 2 Beta for printing and getting superb results. In the 2.0 Beta, I was selecting print sharp High and media type Matte. I am printing with the Epson 2200 and I am on a PC running XP. Anyone else having this problem? I wonder how significant the changes were in the printing module in the 2.0 beta versus the final version 2?
Thanks,
J. Paul

>Just wanted to say ditto.
My prints in LR2 look like they were up-rezd from a smaller file.
Just to make sure you know. There was a major bug in LR 2.0 that could result in very low-res output. They fixed this in 2.1 RC, so if you haven't tried that do it now. You do have to make sure however that you check the print resolution box and put an appropriate upres number in the field behind it as unchecking the box does not result in printing at the native resolution. Due to a remaining bug, you cannot print at native resolution in Lightroom 2.1 RC, so you should always upscale. Problematic in this is that due to a peculiarity in the scaling algorithm that Lightroom uses you can generate jaggies and halos on very high contrast edges that might look like loss of resolution.

ICHAT and other possibilities

Hi
I am a recently converted from PC to Mac Book Pro with no Windows installed. I was used to chat with MSN Messenger. Now I have this nice integrated webcam but can't use it (neither micro) with MSN. ICHAT seems useless for me because most of my contacts have PC and are with messenger. Is there a way to chat with them using my camera? I downloaded jagger and Psy and don't get to used this cam.
Thanks
HeleneG

Hi
For MSN look at aMSN(video but no audio) http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/14200
And Mercury(video but no audio) http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/14970
Your best betwen Mac and PC is Skype
Mac version http://www.skype.com/download/skype/macosx/index.html
PC version http://www.skype.com/download/skype/windows/helloagain.html
Tony

Difference betwwen phase linear eq and chan eq

they look excatly the same. do they behave differently?
thanks

I don't really have much technical knowledge.. have just picked up stuff along the way.
AFAIK:
when it comes to mastering, any kind of linear phase EQ is by far the choice most engineers would go for... this is because a mixed track is a very complex beast, with a lot of very precisely sculpted and placed elements within it.. well, in theory at least..
so, using an EQ that messes with phase risks to cause all sorts of unwanted shifting and artefacts all throughout the mix when all you are trying to do is EQ it. this manifests as blurring of stereo placement, and even things like transients and punch being affected badly. so linear phase is by far the choice for mastering cos it does not do this at all.
when it comes to EQing individual sounds.. really, it's anyone's call. you should learn the sound of your EQs by imprinting their signature in your brain. treat yourself like an impulse response analyser, and learn the character of every EQ you have.
sometimes, I even go for the fat EQ because I am looking for its particular kind of notchiness on a certain sound. other times, I'll go for a UAD cambridge because I like the way it helps reveal grain and harmonics without being brittle. also, right now I'm really liking the URS EQs.
linear phase or otherwise, when you are equalising individual sounds in your mix, it's really about finding the frequency scuplting tool(s) that give the nuances you are after. if a certain EQ does it with a touch of pleasant personality that works, then great. if it unfocuses and disturbs your sound in unwanted ways, try something else.
generally speaking though, linear phase EQs are a cleaner sounding EQ, which is useful when that is what you are after.

Multi-rendition folios and 108ppi resolution

Experimentation with multi-rendition PDF folios is throwing out some interesting things. I am in a sharing mood.
- A standard iPad 2 folio rendition resamples images to 72ppi. An iPad 3 folio rendition resamples image to 144ppi. A multi-rendition folio resamples images to 108ppi. As a result, images in a multi-rendition folio look worse on an iPad 3 than those in an iPad 3-specific folio. Sure, if the original images are not very good, readers won't notice any difference, but for top-quality photography, the jaggies and jpegging noise are noticeably harsher.
- All raster MSOs in a multi-rendition folio will be resampled to 108ppi. If those MSOs contain text, that text will appear fuzzy/jaggy on an iPad 3 even without zooming in. MSOs must therefore be set to Vector format to preserve the text... but remember that any text incorporated into a raster graphic will still be resampled to 108ppi, then fuzzed up onthe fly to 144ppi on the iPad 3 screen. So if someone is supplying you with logotypes, for example, insist on vector illustration files.
Clearly, the 108ppi resolution of multi-rendition PDF folios is a compromise. I'd be a little happier with this resolution compromise if it was possible to adjust JPEG compression settings for the images.
Ali

Hi Bob
I've just created a large report and did what you suggested, duplicate the image, and turn it into an mso and then added the HD folder. Nothing looked different, so I tested on of the images in the HD folder by adding the word HD, tested on iPad 3 and it didnt pick it up. I've made sure the file names are exactly the same. The files are tiff's.
Have I missed something? all my SD assets are in a Links folder, with all the other assets, and then I created the folder "HD" with the hi-res images in there, and thats it. The 1024x768 folio is linked to all the normal images, but retina version is not picking up the images from HD folder
Anything obvious missing? oh and I'm on release 23
Cheers
Alistair

MSI radeon R9 290X gaming artefacts

Hello,
I've bought an Radeon MSI R9 290X twin frozr gaming
Artefacts (little squares) when video memory reach 1900 or 2000Mb in game then game freeze
Artefacts comes when video memory reach 2500 Mb when opening a lot of google chrome windows or IE for example.
GPU stress test pass OK, leo demo from amd for example.
games like tomb raider work ok (not use a lot of video memory)
PC memory verified with memtest booted on usb stick, no error.
config:
Power supply corsair AX850
Main board MSI Z87 G45 gaming bios V1.9
core i7 4770
16Gb RAM DDR3 gskill 800MHz
Windows 8.1 64 bits
I don't know if it is a hardware issue, bios or driver issue
Here the S/N of graphic card
S/N: 602-V308-01SB1402009172
bios here :
dl.free.fr/uuJ8K6BX1
Thank you for help

Hi,
Thank you for your answer.
I use 4 * 4 GB memory (G.Skill XL Series RipJaws X Series 8 Go (kit 2x 4 Go) DDR3-SDRAM PC3-12800 - F3-12800CL9D-4GBXL)
timings are set to auto in the moterboard bios.
I also formated hard disk and install VGA drivers.
So, i've just tried unigine valley, its work fine, Video memory isn't higher than 1400 Mb.
I've open several google chrome in order to use more video memory and artefacts comes again...
I will investigate in motherboard ram timings

Display issues, system failures, lock ups- oh my!

Hi all,
For the last few months I've begun to experience significant issues with my Macbook Pro. I got it back in early 2006, so I believe it's one of the original models. Specs below:
Model Name: MacBook Pro 15"
Model Identifier: MacBookPro1,1
Processor Name: Intel Core Duo
Processor Speed: 1.83 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 2 MB
Memory: 2 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz
Boot ROM Version: MBP11.0055.B08
SMC Version (system): 1.2f10
Graphics...
ATI Radeon X1600:
Chipset Model: ATY,RadeonX1600
Type: Display
Bus: PCIe
PCIe Lane Width: x16
VRAM (Total): 128 MB
Vendor: ATI (0x1002)
Device ID: 0x71c5
Revision ID: 0x0000
EFI Driver Version: 01.00.068
Displays:
BenQ E2200HD:
Resolution: 1920 x 1080 @ 60 Hz
Depth: 32-Bit Color
Core Image: Hardware Accelerated
Main Display: Yes
Mirror: Off
Online: Yes
Quartz Extreme: Supported
Rotation: Supported
Current Software info:
System Version: Mac OS X 10.5.7 (9J61)
Kernel Version: Darwin 9.7.0
Boot Volume: Macintosh HD
Boot Mode: Normal
So, to explain my issues... I have experienced the following:
*Temporary lockups involving a "beach ball of death" spinning for maybe 5-10 seconds, then going back to normal.
*Much longer lockups with the spinny ball that can only be solved by the computer's lid being shut, waiting for sleep, and then re-opening it.
*Lockups you simply don't recover from- the screen getting "messy" with artefacts and scrambled images, bits of random colours, and no movement at all. These I have to restart the laptop physically to recover from.
As time has gone on in the past few months, these are getting worse and worse. I thought it was overheating, but the temperatures seem okay and I have a laptop cooling pad for it. Then there's the completely random screen tearing and artefacts that seem to be happening; Safari, iTunes, Football Manager 2008, Firefox, Seashore... all these apps that I use on a consistent basis appear to discolour, tear, introduce horizontal lines across the screen, and just generally completely @#$% up the look of the desktop. What's going on there? :S It almost seems like it could be a graphics card issue, but that's why I'm asking here I suppose.
The issues are getting more frequent, and it's a bit disappointing because, while I imagined that I would get a new laptop one day, I was under the impression macs had a good staying power and I could at least keep it working as a backup at home or give it to my brother. Now it appears that this one might have a terminal problem, be out of warranty, and thus most expensive to fix. Or is it?
Anyone have an idea what I might be experiencing here?

A failing hard drive can cause all sorts of problems by operating erratically. Your first priority should be to be sure you have a good backup of your data on an external drive, just in case the drive fails completely. Otherwise data recovery could be very expensive.
You might try booting from your install disc to the Apple Hardware test. This will take the hard drive out of the equation, and you can see if the video problems persist, even when booted from a disc. Run the extended version of the Apple Hardware test and see if you get any error codes. If so, post back with them.
While booted from the install disc, you can also navigate to Disk Utility from the menu bar, select your drive, and see if you can repair it. Since it is failing physically, repairing the software part will not actually fix it, but it might make it work better temporarily.
Replacing your hard drive is worth doing if there are no other serious problems with your Mac. You can upgrade to a faster and bigger drive--up to 500 GB's if you like. However, you do want to be sure that you don't have any logic board problems first.
One thing you could consider doing is getting an external drive, preferably FireWire, and installing the OS on it with your installation discs. Then you could boot from the external and see how the display behaves when booted from a new drive. That would give you a good idea of how your Mac would run if you replaced the drive.
Normally I would suggest making a bootable clone of your internal drive using a cloning utility like Super Duper or Carbon Copy Cloner:
http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html
http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html
Either one can be downloaded and run for free. If you want to free up the more useful features of Super Duper, you can register a copy for about US $28. CCC is donation ware.
You could still use one of these to make a clone of your internal drive as a back up, but keep in mind there may be some corruption from the failing hard drive which would just get cloned. But these utilities are great for backing up a good drive.
Good luck!

Referenced Images Say They are Referenced But Are Not.

Is anyone having the following problem? I have about 4500 images that were Imported into Aperture as Referenced. Have been working with them over the past month. Tried making a Web Journal recently and after exporting the pages, many of the images did not show up in the web pages although the caption did. I went back to my Album and went through the images. The ones that didn't show up in the web pages were very strange looking within the Album. As a thumbnail they looked fine but when I put the loupe on them at 100% it was obvious that they were some sort of small jpeg or something due to lots of jaggies and poor quality. Even though the Reference icon was supposedly fine, telling me it was online since it did not have a yellow warning label, for some reason Aperture was not accessing the original RAW file.
I now have hundreds of images I have to try and find in the Album that say they are referenced but really are not.
Prior to this web journal problem showing up Aperture had been showing me many of these files were not online even though the drive was definitely hooked to the computer and I was able to go to the same images via the Finder and actually see that they were there. One minute the overall project registered images offline, I would click on an Album and they would register as Online. Then switch back to the Project and amazingly they register as online. Back down to the Album and it tells me they are off line. Back and forth from project to album and a different icon 50% of the time. I knew something was up.
I eventually tracked down many of the images that said they were online but by reviewing them it was obvious they were not due to the jaggies I mentioned above. When I would find one like this I went to Manage Referenced Photos and reconnected the image even though it's telling me it is already connected. After doing this to many of the images I reproduced the web pages and they then showed up. I nearly had all the images showing up except for one that I must have missed in reconnecting so I went back to do just that. As I scrolled through the Album and the Web Journal, many of the thumbnails would turn gray and then finally an image would show up. This happened to dozens of images. I found the one that had not shown up in the last export of the web pages, reconnected it (even though it said it was connected) and then exported the web pages again. Unfortunately I was back to square one. Once again dozens of images were now not showing up in the export of the web pages again.
I just can't believe how buggy 1.5.2 seems to be. I thought maybe it was something to do with Repairing Permissions so I went and did all of that. Still no luck! Anyone else experience anything like this? I'm about ready to give up on this software.

Victor,
Yes larger hard drives will help but the day they are large enough to fit in a laptop with a professional photographers entire collection is a long way off and may never happen. There is no reason why Referenced files needs to be so difficult. Two quality programs that handled it with ease was RAW Shooter (now gone having been bought by Adobe) and Photo Mechanic which is superb for some tasks. For Aperture to have this many issues with referencing images is unacceptable and the market place will bear this out. I've quite using the program all together and have gone back to Photo Mechanic combined with IView and Photoshop. There's still room for an Aperture like product but Apple better get moving to make it work better. Microsoft just announced some of the upcoming IView capabilities that will be available next year. Adobe has CS3 and Lightrooom and I'm guessing Photo Mechanic isn't resting on it's heels. I really, really wanted to like Aperture and I worked with it day in and day out for nearly two months. As time went on the Referenced files just kept getting more and more unstable and I lost a ton of work due to it no longer being able to see some of those files.
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)
MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Jaggies and artefacts

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for