Loss of display image quality when fit to screen

Hi everyone,
I've noticed that when I'm editing with PSE and have the view set so that the photo fits the screen (which means, it's very much zoomed out), the quality of the photo suffers. Almost like there's some pixelation, but not really. I apologize for the unclear explanation, I just don't know what the term is for this loss of quality when zoomed out a lot. I don't mean to disparage PSE, which is a great program, but I don't have this problem with another (free) program I also use. I'm just trying to find out if it's something in my display settings that I can change or some other way I can fix this. I often like to see the whole picture when editing but it's almost impossible to do editing when looking at the whole picture in PSE since it looks so off.
Thank you.

The image size are 1600x1200 or larger and should be adequate in size. Anyone know how to improve the quality of the stills? I feel it may have something to do with the program resizing/ downsizing the pics.
You are correct. This is a case of bigger not being better. I would suggest resizing in Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, or similar, to the Frame Size of your Project, or just slightly larger, if you need to pan on any, when they are zoomed out to full size.
This ARTICLE will give you some tips on resizing.
Good luck,
Hunt

Similar Messages

Adobe Premiere Elements 11 - HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?

I'm using Adobe Premiere Elements 11, on a Windows 8 PC and when I "render" still pictures, some videos and simple effects -- they lose quality and get grainy --
HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?

Molnar are you receiving that error during the download or install process? Also which operating system are you using?

Poor image quality when displaying OLE Word object in PDF

MS Word 2007 OLE object in Crystal Reports XII R2 designer...looks OK in designer. When we export to PDF, the image quality has been degraded significantly. Anybody had this issue before? tried replacing usp10.dll with one found in CommonFiles folder, that did not help.

Hi Mark,
See if this [kbase |http://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/com.sap.km.cm.docs/oss_notes_boj/sdn_oss_boj_bi/sap(bD1lbiZjPTAwMQ==)/bc/bsp/spn/scn_bosap/notes%7B6163636573733d36393736354636443646363436353344333933393338323636393736354637333631373036453646373436353733354636453735364436323635373233443330333033303331333233313333333633383336%7D.do] - SAP Note 1213686 - Certain objects do not appear clearly when exporting to PDF/RTF/Word formats - article resolves the issue. It's for CR 9 so you'll have to browse to the CR XI registry structure.
Otherwise try all of the patches for CR XI R2:
Keep your Keycode and then uninstall XI R2, unless you are on SP 4 then just apply SP 5 and 6:
https://smpdl.sap-ag.de/~sapidp/012002523100011802732008E/crxir2_sp4_full_build.exe
https://smpdl.sap-ag.de/~sapidp/012002523100013876392008E/crxir2win_sp5.exe
https://smpdl.sap-ag.de/~sapidp/012002523100015859952009E/crxir2win_sp6.exe
Thank you
Don

Trouble with the image quality when viewing under 100%. First time posting on the forum.

Hello everyone. I am sorry we have the get acquainted this way but I am having some issues and this is one of my last options of getting help.   Allow me to explain the problem.    When viewing a file under 100% zoom, everything looks jagged like the anti aliasing is missing. Once I zoom in to 100%, everything looks the way it should. The saved file ( jpeg format for instance) is okay. I can zoom out and it still looks true to the image. The problem is related to photoshop. I installed my latest GPU drivers twice just to be sure and it was not from that.   This problem started last night and I don`t quite know how to solve it. If I work on small resolution images, it isn`t such a bad problem because I will be working on 100% zoom, but I am working on high resolution images/ paintings. Somewhere around 8000x5000 pixels thus, working at 100% is not that doable. I attached an image that shows this issue. The one on the right is the zoomed out version and the one on the left is the zoomed in version. Yes, the noise is affected by this, badly, but this started last night. up until then everything looked good even with noise or an out of this world sharpness. I can`t imagine what I could have done to trigger this.
   This being said, I am at the mercy of the more knowledgeable folks from around here. I do hope I posted this question in the right section. This is my first post here so sorry if I messed something up.   Looking forward to your replies.

Here is a simplistic view that I feel may help you understand reality.
The only time you're looking at your image pixels in Photoshop is when you're zoomed in to 100%,   There your look at the actual image pixels Photoshop has for your image at your displays resolution.
At any other zoom level you are looking a scaled image that has more or less pixels than your actual image these too are displayed at your display resolution.
The scaling done by Photoshop is done for displaying your image is done for good performance not for the best image quality a quick interpolation.   Therefore at some zoom levels image quality looks poorer than at other zoom levels.
High resolution Display have now add a new wrinkle.   User interfaces were designed for displays with resolutions around 100 PPI elements like text, icon, and other things like checkboxes, buttons etc. were created so there size would be useable are this more or less fixed 100 PPI resolution.   While Photoshop was designed to scale your images so you can work well on it is was not designed with a scalable UI. Photoshop can not scale its user interface independently from its image display display window for you displays high resolution. Photoshop's Image display area has the same resolution as the rest of Photoshop User Interface. Just like there is only one resolution in all layers in a document. CC 2014 2xUI changes that. PS UI is scaled to 1/2 resolution the image Area is at the displays actual resolution.
Photoshop CC 2014 2x UI scales all of Photoshop User Interface including the image display to 200% which is 1/2 your display resolution effectively cutting you display pixel count to 1/4 its actual pixel count.   Your once again running on a low resolution display.     If your display has a native resolution 200 PPI you're running it at 100 ppi if your display has a 300 PPI resolution you're running it at 150ppi.    Which defeats the reason of having high resolution. Which is you would like to be able to edit your images at print resolution. Adobe cc2x UI scales the UI but not the image window soa inage is 216ppi on the Surface Pro 3 the UI is large and dpoes not fit. screen
To be able to edit your images at print resolution you need a display the has a print resolution and you need and application the can scale its image display and its UI independently.
Current there is no OS interface for having multiple resolutions areas on a display and applications like Photoshop can not scale UI and Image independently. OS and Photoshop can scale what is displayed. Adobe Photoshop executable is coded in a way that it tell Microsoft Windows OS that it will handle display scaling so it can using your displays native resolution. Currently Only Photoshop CC 2014 Provides you with the option of running you display at half resolution.
Windows can scale you display to many resolution and as several presets. like 100%, 125%, 150% and like Adobe 200% half resolution.    You can make a Windows Registry and add an External Photoshop Manifest file the tell's Microsoft Windows to handle display scaling. I have a Microsoft Surface Pro 3 m windows machine. Its LCD has a 216PPI resolution. Windows 8.1 had 4 preset for scaling its LCD.
Surface Pro 3 LCD Display 12" IPS display 3:2 aspect ratio 9.984603532054124" Wide, 6.656402354702749" High 216.3330765278394 PPI
Microsoft Preset Display scaling
100% 2160x1440   216 PPI
125% 1728x1152   173 PPI
150% 1440x960    144 PPI SP3 Default setting
200% 1080x720    108 PPI
Most user these days has 1024x768 or better displays and Web pages are often authored for 800x600 pixels pages. So the give you a better handle on Resolution and scaling I have edit a 800x600 document with 25x25 px grid one my Surface pro 3
using Windows 4 scaling presets and captured the 2160x1140 scaled screens Only at the 100% preset does the image window have a 216ppi Also note @ 2x UI Photoshop UI doe not fit on screen
Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 2xUI Scales the UI to a display 1/2 resolution but does not scale the Image area uses actual screen resolution. Photoshop Help system info show the screen i 1/2 resilution 1080x720 but scalet the imase to the real resolution 2160x1440. however the image window is the 216ppi the ui 108ppi via scaling

Poor image quality when publishing to .mac

This is very frustrating.
I buy a high resolution, high quality, royalty-free image. I resize it and crop it in my image editing program and save it as a maximum size .jpg.
I preview the image in Apple preview, and also drag the image into my web browser and it looks crisp and sharp.
I put the image on my iWeb page and publish to .mac. I check my site and the image looks horrible! It looks as though it got compressed again on the lowest setting.
Something very weird is happening to some people. I've read other discussion on this but they are all unresolved.
I'm a graphic designer and I've used dreamweaver and published to other servers. I know about image quality and optimization. I'm doing the same steps and procedures I've always done to optimize images and I've never had this problem except when I publish to .mac.
There is a very weird and serious issue going on and I hope someone can resolve this or has an answer.
Why would an image look crisp and sharp when I view it in my image editing program or in Apple preview, but when publish to .mac it gets re-compressed?
This may sound silly but do you think Apple is doing this randomly and automatically to users to save server space on .mac? Maybe they think people wont notice or care?
I am very upset and frustrated and I can't think of any other reason why this is happening.
Any advice is helpful. Thanks!

James,
Thank you very much for your help.
Here is what I did. I used Apple grab and took a screen shot of my iWeb page where the low res graphic was in position.
I used this as a "template" for cropping my original image in my image editing program to the exact size I needed.
I cropped my original image to the size of my "grab" template, deleted the template layer and saved the sharp image as a maximum file size .jpg and placed it into my iWeb page, with "use original size". It fit perfectly in my layout and looked sharp and crisp.
Now, I published my site and checked the image.
You were correct! The image came out crisp and sharp, no more quality loss.
To test your theory, I went back to iWeb and placed an iWeb mask around the same image and re-published it.
Sure enough! The same image that was once sharp had terrible image loss.
So I guess you're right, adding any effects to an image creates the image loss.
Well, this is a terrible shame because I really like some of the border effects. For example, in a photo gallery, you can use an effect such as a slight page curl with drop shadow that appears only for the thumbnail image but the when you click on the image full size, there is no page curl, just the pure image.
If I create this slight page curl effect and drop shadow in my image editing program, then both my thumbnail and full size image will have this effect.
Not only that, but in order to get the thumbnail image to lay over my background color, I would have to re-create the page curl effect and place it on a border of the same background color as my page layout. When someone clicks on my thumbnail they will now get the full size image with the page curl effect and a slight border of the page color.
Also creating this effect in my image editing program will make it more time consuming when I want to change layout styles, because when I create the page curl / drop shadow in my image editing program, I have to change the background color around each image to match the new background color I'm using for my page. Doing this for 20 images every time I want to change my design is allot of work.
If this is what I have to do, then I have no choice. But at least I would like my thumbnail to have the effect but NOT my full size image.
How do I do this so only my iWeb thumbnail image has this effect without iWeb forcing it to a PNG and loosing quality?
Thanks I appreciate you help!

Secondary Display image quality is poor (at 1:1) in Library module

I'm not a frequent user of the Secondary Display feature, so I can't say state whether this particular issue is new in 2.3RC or if it also was seen in a previous version. I submitted a bug report since I searched but did not find any previous mention of this sort of thing. Anyone else notice this?
Here's my problem: When I'm using LR's Develop module and activate the Secondary Display (SD) window, the SD images for all zoom ratios seem identical in quality (sharpness. color) to the images seen in the main screen--as expected. However when I switch over to Library module and use 1:1 zoom, the SD image becomes relatively degraded (i.e., quite blurry/pixelated) compared to the main window. When SD is set at the lower zoom ratios (still in Library module) its quality seems fine--i.e., more or less indistinguishable from the main screen. It's only when SD is used at 1:1 in the Library module that it appears "buggy".
I'm using a Mac Power PC G4, OSX 10.4.11.
Phil
P.S. I should mention that the image quality at 1:1 zoom in Library Module's Secondary Display is not only worse than the main Library screen, it's also significantly worse (less sharp) than seen in the Develop module--and that's certainly not unexpected.

>Gordon McKinney:What happens is the second display doesn't render a 1:1 for optimal sharpness.
For me it isn't just sharpness. I can make a change that is fairly radical and have it show up immediately in the main monitor--both in the navigation panel and in the main display panel. The image on the 2nd monitor remains unchanged.
If I then use the history panel to move back to the previous state and then re-select the final state the image on the secondary display
usually, not always gets updated. Sometimes it takes a 2nd or a third cycle from previous to latest history state. This 'missed update' in the 2nd monitor doesn't happen 100% of the time, but it does happen quite often.
LR 2.3RC, Vista Ultimate x64, 8GB DRAM, nVidia 9800 GTX+ with latest drivers.

How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6. (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
(1) (1) Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage. Then dragging the first one into the base document. It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image. Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
(2) (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
(3) (3) I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it. No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
(4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715 Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means. (Or even in a different program!). Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes. Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help. [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
Why this happens has to do with simple math.
inches x ppi = pixels
Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

How to get best image quality when inserting PDF into Word?

I am able to insert a PDF as an object into Word, but the image quality is slightly blurry. Is there anything I can adjust to improve image clarity in Word?

You can try to extract the images using Extract All Images or select the Settings on the save screen that you get when you save to a DOC, but I think the general result is that the image saves with the same resolution as contained in the PDF. It may be that you need to just adjust your screen in WORD. You might want to look at the image in WORD and see if it is being used at 100% or some other resolution. Bitmaps are not very forgiving if the resolution is changed for the document and does not like anything other than low number fractions of resolution display change.

Loss of PNG Image Quality

I'm trying to display a PNG as a title screen for a game. I'm quite the newb, as the image itself will attest.
Source: http://i30.tinypic.com/sfw96o.png
Screenshot result: http://i25.tinypic.com/29m2d6v.png
I've got all the RenderingHints turned to the quality settings, and use the following image loading/drawing code to put the freshly loaded image into a BufferedImage for later use:
g2.drawImage((new ImageIcon(getClass().getClassLoader().getResource("assets/title.png"))).getImage(),0,0,null);Any ideas? I'm hoping that this is something that people have seen before, but I'm happy to provide more code upon request.

>
Thanks for the reply again. Since Numain's example causes the same loss of color depth on my machine, I've just modified it:>Huh...
OK - I tried your source, and like Numain, failed to see the problem on my PC - the image appeared in the frame at the full color depth.
There were some slightly suspicious aspects to that source, so I have changed them, and made a few other changes to get more information. Run the source below and post back your results, but most importantly, does the problem still happen using this source?
Here are my results..
java.vm.version:      1.6.0-b105
java.vendor:      Sun Microsystems Inc.
os.name:      Windows XP
os.arch:      x86
os.version:      5.1
*** end system props
GraphicsEnvironment: sun.awt.Win32GraphicsEnvironment@9f671b
GraphicsDevice: Win32GraphicsDevice[screen=0]
GraphicsConfiguration: sun.awt.Win32GraphicsConfig@1b9240e
[dev=Win32GraphicsDevice[screen=0],pixfmt=0]
DisplayMode - bitdepth/WxH: 24/1024x768
ColorModel (screen): ColorModel: #pixelBits = 24 numComponents = 3
color space = java.awt.color.ICC_ColorSpace@ca0115
transparency = 1 has alpha = false isAlphaPre = false
*** end screen props
Read start:      Sat Mar 22 20:11:51 EST 2008
Read end:      Sat Mar 22 20:17:04 EST 2008
*** end image load
ColorModel: ColorModel: #pixelBits = 32 numComponents = 4
color space = java.awt.color.ICC_ColorSpace@ca0115
transparency = 3 has alpha = true isAlphaPre = false
true is Error? false
*** end cons..:      Sat Mar 22 20:17:04 EST 2008The code used.
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.image.*;
import javax.swing.*;
import javax.imageio.ImageIO;
import java.net.URL;
import java.util.Date;
public class PngQuality extends JPanel {
private BufferedImage image;
public PngQuality() throws Exception {
    URL imageUrl = new URL("http://i30.tinypic.com/sfw96o.png");
    GraphicsEnvironment ge = GraphicsEnvironment.
      getLocalGraphicsEnvironment();
    System.out.println( "GraphicsEnvironment: " + ge );
    GraphicsDevice gd = ge.getDefaultScreenDevice();
    System.out.println("GraphicsDevice: " + gd);
    GraphicsConfiguration gc = gd.getDefaultConfiguration();
    System.out.println("GraphicsConfiguration: " + gc);
    DisplayMode dm = gd.getDisplayMode();
    System.out.println("DisplayMode - bitdepth/WxH: " +
      dm.getBitDepth() + "/" +
      dm.getWidth() + "x" +
      dm.getHeight()
    ColorModel cmScreen = gc.getColorModel();
    System.out.println("ColorModel (screen): " + cmScreen);
    System.out.println("*** end screen props");
    // read the image..
    System.out.println("Read start: \t" + new Date() );
    image = ImageIO.read(imageUrl);
    System.out.println("Read end: \t" + new Date() );
    System.out.println("*** end image load");
    setPreferredSize(new Dimension(800, 600));
    MediaTracker tracker = new MediaTracker(this);
    tracker.addImage(image, 0);
    /* Thought it might be useful.. */
    String[] properties = image.getPropertyNames();
    if (properties!=null) {
      for (int ii=0; ii<properties.length; ii++) {
        System.out.println(
          properties[ii] +
          ": " +
          image.getProperty( properties[ii] )
    /* Check the color model.. */
    ColorModel cm = image.getColorModel();
    System.out.println("ColorModel: " + cm);
    // I get the impression that ImageIO.read blocks and
    // this is redundant, but keep for the moment.
    try {
      tracker.waitForAll();
    } catch(InterruptedException ie) {
      ie.printStackTrace();
    // Is there any error loading the image, in that VM?
    System.out.println("" + tracker.checkAll() +
      " is Error? " + tracker.isErrorAny()
    System.out.println("*** end cons..: \t" + new Date() );
protected void paintComponent(Graphics g) {
    // did you not read my advice about the ImageObserver?
    // What am I ..talkin' to myself here?
    g.drawImage(image, 0, 0, this);
public static void main(String[] args) {
    /* Get some basic info. */
    String[] sysProp = {
      "java.vm.version",
      "java.vendor",
      "os.name",
      "os.arch",
      "os.version"
    for (int ii=0; ii<sysProp.length; ii++) {
      System.out.println( sysProp[ii] +
        ": \t" +
        System.getProperty(sysProp[ii]) );
    System.out.println("*** end system props");
    // best to invoke a runnable to create the GUI
    Runnable r = new Runnable() {
      public void run() {
        JFrame f = new JFrame();
        f.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
        try {
          f.getContentPane().add(new PngQuality());
        } catch(Exception e) {
          f.getContentPane().add(
            new JLabel("See Stacktrace!"));
          e.printStackTrace();
        f.pack();
        f.setLocationRelativeTo(null);
        f.setVisible(true);
    EventQueue.invokeLater(r);
}Oh, and AFAIR is a less common variant of AFAIK. As Far As I Recall/As Far As I Remember.
My apologies for tossing about obscure abbreviations.
There was a thread on usenet I vaguely recall where some nonser wished to implement a JProgressBar for an image download. Everyone pointed out that images properly displayed within a Java based ImageObserver would provide a better (+ prettier and more relevant) download indicator. GIF images will (or at least, can) show 'low detail' before full download. JPEG will scan down from the top to the bottom of an image. Someone pointed out that PNG supports (I think it was) a number of different mechanisms for 'quick low-detail display'.
Oddly, this is one of the few instances I've seen where the (apparently) blocking behavior of the ImageIO.read() calls for a JPB/ProgressMonitorInputStream.
Edit 1:
ColorModel and GraphicsConfiguration info. line wrapped for better formatting.
P.S. Can you tell from my output, why I commented on the image size? ;-)
Edited by: AndrewThompson64 on Mar 22, 2008 9:46 AM

Poor Image Quality when Printing PDF from Office 07 using Acrobat 9 Pro Ext

Hi there,
Hoping to figure out why my images (jpegs, gifs, pngs, etc) seem to print in very poor quality when printing from Powerpoint and Word 2007?
When I actually print out the pdf onto paper, the images seem fine. The image quality is also good in Word and Excel
I did not have this problem using Office 2003 products.
Is this a common problem? I realize that the problem maybe Office related but any help or information appreciated.
Thanks

If the images' file format is PNG or TIFF you could play with the compression settings available in Acrobat's Preferences.
Edit > Preferences > select the Category "Convert to PDF".
In the"Converting To PDF" pane, select PNG or TIFF.
Then, click on the Edit Settings" button.
For either image format you could try one of the Lossless compression routines.
Be well...

Really bad image quality when burning

Hi, i am very new at this discussion thing and am a french speaker so hope i do this ansking question ok.
I'm having problems with image quality of my 1h46 min movie imported from imovie (initially from quicktime made from final cut pro). I am having pixelly images when camera is moving... Although have read some things about this on the forum none of the answers seem to resolve my problem.
I have selected best quality in my prefs but with no success. I figure it's a compression / codec problem but i do not have a clue about all this technical stuff. I don't know what next move i should make.
Thanks for any help...
V
I'm using iMac G5 divided my 250 GB in 2 disks wich has 31 Go of free space on my HD at the moment. Using iDVD and i Movie 6.0.2
Imac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.7) 2.1 GHz Power PC G5, mémoire 1.5 GO DDR2 SDram

Hi ! Thanx for responding...
In FCP i did choose export DV/NTSC and imported from camera with apple firewire NTSC (720x480). Should i have imported material in (640x480/30fps/interlaced...) ?
I have had this problem with smaller projects of 20 min of video also so i don't think it has to do with size... At the moment i am making a disc image of my dvd on my desktop hoping to burn through Toast. Otherwise i am also thinking about exporting movie from FCP to tape then importing back to iMov through camera...
I'm kind of desperate and don't really know what to do... I'm also gonna start reading compressor 2 and maybe forget about iDVD an d just burn it through toast. Wich is kind of dissapointing cause without interface, menu and all...
V

Has anyone had issues with poor image quality when using lightroom to process raw images from Canon 7dmk2

Hi everyone..
..I have been having image quality issues when using Lightroom to process raw files from a 7d mk2... They are all soft with poor clarity.....tonight in despair I tried processing them using canon's software and they are totally different..."much better"
anyone else had similar problems....Andy

I have a 7D2 and have not had what I interpret as poor image quality that has anything to do with the camera.
Can you post a screenshot of what you’re seeing and what specifically you don’t like? Maybe there is something you can do differently or at least there may be an explanation for what you’re seeing.
And if you have a raw image that you wouldn’t mind sharing in a public forum, upload to http://www.dropbox.com/ then post a public share link to it in a reply, here.
In other words post a screenshot of what you see in LR, another of what you see using DPP, and a link to the raw file you’re processing.

Really poor image quality when watching DVDs

Hi,
I was just wondering whether anybody else has experienced really poor image quality whilst watching DVDs on their MacBook? For me, the image is really grainy or blurry. I am pretty sure it cannot be the DVDs as this problem is happening with every film I watch!
Is this a common problem? What can be done (if anything) to resolve this?
Many thanks,
John

Hi John,
open system preference>display, and check if your color depth is in millions color.
try other dvd player like VLC for mac:
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-macosx.html
Good Luck.

Poor image quality when scanning coins with officejet pro 8600 plus

I recently upgraded my printer from an HP 2210 to and HP officejet pro 8600 plus. image quality on coin scans is terrible.
I have tried scanning both with the HP software and with windows 7 fax and scan software
I have saved images as BMP, JPG, PNG, and TIFF
I have used resolutions from 300 dpi to 1200 DPI
All give me similar unacceptable results.
Images are better when scanned flat on the scanner than when in slabbed holders, and from this I am guessing that the plastic is somehow interfering wiht the scan. Either that, or there is a very shallow depth of field so that even moving the coin a few mm away from the glass moves it out of focus. But even a raw coin placed directly on the glass has significantly worse image quality than the old 2100.
The first image is a coin scanned with the old 2100. The second has been scanned in a similar slab by the 8600

Hi terry_renee,
Welcome to the HP Forums! I am happy to help you with this scanning issue! I did a test with an HP Officejet 8600, at 1200 dpi, and no plastic covering. Just the quarter on the glass, and we cropped it to the quarter. This is the result.
I have a few questions for you:
What Operating System are you using for scanning? Windows or Mac? What version?
What scanning software are you using?
Are you scanning from the computer, or the printer's control panel?
Hope to hear back from you, and have a great day!
RnRMusicMan
I work on behalf of HP
Please click “Accept as Solution ” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
Click the “Kudos Thumbs Up" to say “Thanks” for helping!

Poor image quality when importing SWF

I maintain a site for a photographer and as he added more
images the SWF got to be very large, so I split up the site and
used a main page to import the smaller SWF files into a target.
However, I found that all my clean crisp images become dull when
imported but still look sharp in the SWF itself. I tied to find all
the JPEG settings and push them up but still with no luck. Does
anybody have any insight to why this is happening?

Hello micsaint111111111111,
The reason they look more blurry than in the original swf is
that you are
dealing with dual compression from the original swf AND the
swf you are loading
the images into.
The easiest/best way to import your jpgs would be using
LoadMovie to load
the actual jpg files. That keeps all the jpgs separate so
your swf file will
be tiny. Plus the quality will be the same as the original
jpg.
That said- have you gone into your swfs and changed the
default image quality
on each of the images to 90 or 100? You do that in your
library by right-clicking
on the actual images and then going to Properties and
unchecking "Use document
default quality". That is one issue that a lot of people seem
to miss and
it might help if you don't want to recode your Flash with the
LoadMovie method.
Jesse H.
Adobe Community Expert
My site:
http://www.jharding.com
Free Blog Radio:
http://www.tornadostream.com
> I maintain a site for a photographer and as he added
more images the
> SWF got to be very large, so I split up the site and
used a main page
> to import the smaller SWF files into a target. However,
I found that
> all my clean crisp images become dull when imported but
still look
> sharp in the SWF itself. I tied to find all the JPEG
settings and
> push them up but still with no luck. Does anybody have
any insight to
> why this is happening?
>

Loss of display image quality when fit to screen

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for