Low image quality on Android using CameraRoll.addBitmapData

When using CameraRoll.addBitmapData on Android the resulting .jpg's quality is quite low in what looks like 50% jpg compression. In iOS the quality is much better. How do I reduce the compression on Android and increase the image quality? I don't quite understand why the compression is so high and why there isn't a method argument to adjust it.
Is there a work-around?
My app is an art app that users typically export imagery from to use in other apps or share. When the quality is so low, the additional compression in another app makes it even worse.
Any help is apprecaited it. Thanks in advance.

As DPI, or PPI, are meaningless in Video, one should concentrate on the pixel x pixel dimensions. Also, with the exception of PrPro CS5 & 5.5, with CUDA/MPE acceleration, Scaling of stills in an image editing program, like Photoshop, will yield better quality. This ARTICLE goes into more detail, and also gives tips on doing batch Scaling of entire folders of still images for Video use.
Good luck,
Hunt

Similar Messages

When using Lightroom Book module for Blurb book making, why do I keep getting a low image quality message if it's supposedly accessing my large raw files in my library?

When using Lightroom Book module for Blurb book making, why do I keep getting a low image quality message if it's supposedly accessing my large raw files in my library?

I think I've solved my problem with a Google Search. I came across a free slide show generator
(contributions requested) that shows much higher quality slide shows than either iPhoto or Aperture 3.
You click on a folder of jpegs and it almost immediately generates thumbnails and within a few seconds
I can be viewing a full screen, tack sharp, slideshow of all of the files in the folder. Much sharper than
I'm used to seeing.
I think I'll keep the Aperture 3 and use if for the purpose it's intended for in the future. I'll also redo the
image preview files to the small size it started with and then I'll copy all of the files I'm interested in from
iPhoto into a separate folder on another disk. I'll use Aperture to catalog and to perform image manipulations
on but I won't try to use it as an iPhoto replacement. I don't think I'll be using iPhoto much as an image
viewer in the future either after I finish moving my favorite pictures to the Phoenix Slides folder.
The name of the free program is Phoenix Slides. It's free to download and try, free to keep (though I
think you'd want to pay the small amount requested) and fast. My pictures have never looked so good
before.
http://blyt.net/phxslides/
Message was edited by: Jimbo2001

Low image quality in pics

Hi: I have a ipad 2 and when taking are blurry photos in low image quality. I have to do something to improve the image quality?
I wait your comments...Thanks.

Two main points:
1. Use good lighting.
2. Remember the photo is actually taken when you release the shutter ("take photo") button. Make sure you do not move the iPad when you release the button.

Image quality poor when using "fit in window" view

Hello,
i´m getting familiar with PS CS3 Demo and what buffles me is the poor quality of the downsized view of large images. I loaded a 8 MP JPEG image from a digital camera and it looks good in 100%, but when i choose to view the whole image to fit the window (33,33% in my case), the resulting "downsampled" image is very jaggy and pixelated. I use a freeware image viewer called Xnview that gives me a far superior view when viewing large images downsized - i can even choose to select a "HQ" mode so those images get resampled to look better. It it normal that PS does not offer such a thing (or did i not see it?) and delivers such poor visual quality or is there something wrong with my PC?
Thanks for your help.

Though 6.735, 12.5, 25 and 50% views usually are OK too. "Image quality" is great, though sometimes deceivingly so. I guess I don't understand sampling enough to tell you why 33% looks bad (rounding errors, I suppose). But 66% makes sense. You're trying to stuff 3 pixels into the space of 2.
Dave, what are the advantages to these nearest neighbor views instead of bicubic (or even bi-linear). Just speed?
J

IMovie 08 imports AVCHD 60i = lower image quality!

The Sony SR11 AVCHD 60i videos play great with Sony player under BootCamp/XP, but iMovie 08 noticeably lowered the image quality after importing.
You can clearly see the difference: http://www.alyudesign.com/images/photo/sr11-sonyvsimovie.jpg
Is there a setting to improve the import quality?

It is of course difficult to tell but I see no difference in quality. What I do see is that one has been either de-interlaced (or displays only one field) whereas the other is in its original interlaced format.

Low image quality when working

When I am working in Photoshop and zoom out on the image it gets really noisy at quality gets quite low but when you zoom in enough to work it smooths its out get back's to normal quality. I was looking at preferences settings to find the reason but nothing really worked.

Photoshop Zooming is done for performance speed not done by using slow best good interpolation. The only time your viewing you images actual pixels is when the zoom level is 100% actual pixels. Everything else you see is a quick scaling not the best image posible.

Low image quality on idvd slide show DVD

Hi, I am trying to create a DVD that will play wildlife images. I have the images (In high ressolution, edited at photoshop CS2) and an audio file (Wildlife sounds)
I went to IDVD, choosed a theme, added an image as the entrance, add a slide show, added the images to the slide show, added the sound to the slide show and exported.
My settings in idvd are set to best quality.
The resulting DVD presents very low quality, saturation has decreased immensly, sharpness is gone. Audio VERY loud.
Is this the best quality iDVD can provide? Shall I use FCP (I wish to avoid it since I will like to make new versions of the cd as long as new images arrive, iDVD, if it provides good quality, will make life much easier.
By the way, I tried exporting a slide show from iPHOTO to iDVD but the resulting quality is extremely poor. I also tried to prepare the slide shows on iMOVIE but the results I get are not good either...
Is there anything I ma doing wrong? Should I change the settings somewhere womehow? or Should I forget about iDVD?
Hope to receive an answer soon. Thanks for your time. Cheers.
Jorge

See Preparing images for DVD slideshows at http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?path=iDVD/6.0/en/17.html
I have the images (In high ressolution ...
Basically, that's an overkill. At this point (pre-HD capable burners) we are limited to the less than 640x480 pixel resolution of the NTSC system (or 768x576 pixel resolution of PAL).
You slide show should look 'fairly good' on a TV set or on your computer monitor viewed at 640x480.
Sorry.

Low image quality, strange playing behavior of Encore CS5-authored DVD

Hello Forum.
looks like I'm becoming a frequent visitor here! Could do with a little more help.
A no-menu DVD I tired to make yesterday is shown plays in rather low quality. Also, it starts from about a minute into the movie, even though no chapters have been set (I have to rewind to see the beginning), and for the first split second it shows something that looks like 1 or 2 frames of 3/4 video that immediately stretches out to something that looks like 16/9 with dark left and right margins of about 7 pixels.
My workflow was this:
I exported the untranscoded footage into Encore, set up the First play to the Timeline and End action to Stop, tried to render but the render option was grayed-out, previewed the DVD in Encore (the preview looked fine) and then clicked Build.
My questions are:
1. How to make it work and --
2. What can I do for the maximum high quality of the DVD in Encore? (My client told me he saw someone making a 20 min DVD in full HD quality. Anyone knows how this can be done?)

Always feel free to drop by.
First, there are ways to Burn HD onto a DVD disc, but obviously the Duration will be greatly limited, due to the size of the destination disc. Not sure how they might, or might not, apply to Encore, but here is one ARTICLE on Muvipix, and here is an ARTICLE from the PrE forum on similar. Here is an ARTICLE from Elements Village, but I think it is basically a re-cap of material in the other two.
Now, to your DVD Project. Are you using ADL (Adobe Dynamic Link), or are you doing your Export from PrPro, and then Importing into En? If the latter, what are your Export settings?
Can you post a screen-cap of your En Timeline, just in case there's something there?
You might want to also post to the Adobe Encore Forum, as there are some users, who do not spend much time here.
What you describe is odd to me. I have not encountered such, nor have I read of it.
Good luck,
Hunt

Elements 8 Low image quality on import

Hello,
I am using Premiere Elements 8, and importing large 300dpi images that once imported and scaled, look blurred and really badly compressed. Is there something I am missing?
Thanks

As DPI, or PPI, are meaningless in Video, one should concentrate on the pixel x pixel dimensions. Also, with the exception of PrPro CS5 & 5.5, with CUDA/MPE acceleration, Scaling of stills in an image editing program, like Photoshop, will yield better quality. This ARTICLE goes into more detail, and also gives tips on doing batch Scaling of entire folders of still images for Video use.
Good luck,
Hunt

Low image quality check?

I have a lengthy catalog layout. Can InDesign be told to do some kind of a check to tell me if any of my art is low res without me having to go through and check each piece?

You can create a preset in preflight to look for images below your chosen resolution.

Low image quality(need Immediate help)

i have an image that i have scaled using an getScaleInstance method, but the iage has got distorted. The image is a Jpanel having labels and text fields. but the momemt i scale it .. the pixel kind of overlap and hence the image gets distorted.
have arelease this friday , so need the solution asap..
Thanks
Arpita

getScaledInstance isn't very good at magnifying images. The following code assumes you want an image compatible with your monitor...
import java.awt.*;
import java.awt.geom.*;
import java.awt.image.*;
import java.io.*;
import java.net.*;
import javax.imageio.*;
import javax.swing.*;
public class Kit {
    public static GraphicsConfiguration getDefaultConfiguration() {
        GraphicsEnvironment ge = GraphicsEnvironment.getLocalGraphicsEnvironment();
        GraphicsDevice gd = ge.getDefaultScreenDevice();
        return gd.getDefaultConfiguration();
    public static BufferedImage getScaledInstance(BufferedImage image, double scalingFactor,
        GraphicsConfiguration gc) {
            if (gc == null)
                gc = getDefaultConfiguration();
            int transparency = image.getColorModel().getTransparency();
            int w = (int)Math.floor(scalingFactor * image.getWidth());
            int h = (int)Math.floor(scalingFactor * image.getHeight());
            BufferedImage result = gc.createCompatibleImage(w, h, transparency);
            Graphics2D g2 = result.createGraphics();
            g2.setRenderingHint(RenderingHints.KEY_INTERPOLATION,
                RenderingHints.VALUE_INTERPOLATION_BICUBIC);
            AffineTransform xform = AffineTransform.getScaleInstance(scalingFactor, scalingFactor);
            g2.drawRenderedImage(image, xform);
            g2.dispose();
            return result;
    //demo main
    public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
        String url = "http://forum.java.sun.com/im/logo_java_grey.gif";
        BufferedImage image = ImageIO.read(new URL(url));
        BufferedImage result = getScaledInstance(image, 3.5, null);
        JFrame f = new JFrame("X");
        f.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
        f.getContentPane().add(new JLabel(new ImageIcon(result)));
        f.pack();
        f.setLocationRelativeTo(null);
        f.setVisible(true);
}

Low Image Quality in .swf

My images look great at 100%, even 150%, when working with them in .fla. When I export to .swf, however, it goes to hell. Are there preferences I'm missing somewhere to rectify this?
Attached are the two images, working .fla and the exported .swf.

it looks like you're scaling your image. to do that and enable flash to anti-alias your image, enable the forceSmoothing property of your movieclip.
if your image is not a movieclip, convert it to one.

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.

Image quality using iMovie 08 vs Final Cut Pro

I read in November's Macworld that if I use a tapeless camcorder, "you won't get the best image quality if you use iMovie '08 because the software converts each movie clip to smaller, more manageable size. To get the highest quality you'll need to be running Final Cut Pro on a Mac Pro with at least 2GB of RAM." Do you all agree with this? And if so, please consider the following. I used a mini DV camcorder to transfer all my tapes to my computer and to an external hard drive. Have I already lost that image quality in doing so using iMovie? If so, can Final Cut Pro import from iMovie and improve that quality by decompressing or will I need to retransfer the tapes using Final Cut Pro or will the difference be too negligible to be noticed and not to bother. Thanks, SWestD

I read in November's Macworld that if I use a tapeless camcorder, "you won't get the best image quality if you use iMovie '08 because the software converts each movie clip to smaller, more manageable size. To get the highest quality you'll need to be running Final Cut Pro on a Mac Pro with at least 2GB of RAM." Do you all agree with this?
It depends on the format. In general, the consumer tapeless cameras shoot some highly compressed variant of the mpeg2 or mpeg4 format (delivery formats). These formats are not designed to be edited but rather to be displayed directly from the camera to the TV. In order to edit the material, you must first convert the files from their delivery format to something editiable. This conversion usually results in LARGER not smaller files. There is the potential for some minimal alteration of the image in the transcoding process. This is the trade-off for shooting with such a compressed format.
And if so, please consider the following. I used a mini DV camcorder to transfer all my tapes to my computer and to an external hard drive. Have I already lost that image quality in doing so using iMovie?
No, capturing DV material from tapes using iMovie is a direct digital transfer. DV/NTSC or DV/PAL video as captured from tape is the muxed (mixed audio and video) DV stream. It is an exact replica of what is on the tape.
If so, can Final Cut Pro import from iMovie and improve that quality by decompressing or will I need to retransfer the tapes using Final Cut Pro or will the difference be too negligible to be noticed and not to bother.
FCE and FCP capture material from tapes slightly differently than iMovie. While iMovie brings the material from the tape unaltered, FCE/FCP uses Quicktime during capture to pull the audio and video into separate streams with in the resulting file. By having the audio demuxed, the programs are able to edit multiple video streams simultaneously while iMovie is limited on one at a time. The video quality is not altered in this demuxing process.
If you choose to shoot with a tapeless camera and edit the material in FCE or FCP, FCP has a wider range of formats that can be handled by the program, but in no way will it deal with them all. Many still need to be converted into an edit friendly format before you bring them into the program.
x

Very Poor Image Quality In Viewer, JPEG Artifacts

I upgraded to Aperture 3 some time ago, and purchased a new Mac Pro specifically for this application. I am an amature/ sometime professional photographer and I have been using Aperture since Version 1. This weekend I finally had some time to sit down with Aperture 3 for some serious work with my scanned film images. These are large TIF masters scanned in with my Nikon CoolScan 9000. Some are medium format black & white Tri-X Pan images, others are 35mm, also black & white Tri-X Pan. Everything scanned in on the Nikon is at the maximum resolution for the master, on the theory that I can always bump it down later if that's necessary.
I am noticing vastly lower image quality in the viewer then with Aperture 2. Specifically, I am seeing massive JPEG artifacts in the viewer image then I have ever seen before. The images also render darker in the viewer then before. These artifacts do not appear when I export my images (say as JPEGS for posting to a web page), or when I print them. The quality of the exported and print images seem just fine and the exported JPEGS are completely free of the artifacts I am seeing in the viewer.
I have tried rebuilding the previews several times, experimenting with different quality settings. I have experimented with different proof profile settings. My printer is an Epson Stylus Photo R1800 and I have tried various paper settings for it as well as other proof profile settings such as the Adobe and Apple RGB settings and the generic grey profiles. Every time I change a setting I have forced a rebuild of the previews to no detectable effect. Nothing I do seems to have any effect whatsoever on the image quality in the viewer which remains relentlessly the same as it always was.
This poor viewer image quality is making it very difficult to work in Aperture 3. I suspect there is a setting somewhere like an easter egg in this new Aperture I haven't found yet but it is becoming very frustraiting and I could use a pointer because, again, nothing I have tried has changed the image quality in the viewer in any way I can detect and the photos look perfectly awful there...darker and loaded with JPEG artifacts. Things export and print just fine, but I need to see what I am going to get in the viewer or I can't do my work.

I interpret this as ... Eventually you should be looking at the Master with the Version changes applied. I'm assuming at this point, you aren't looking at the Preview. Since you don't need Previews to view and edit your images.
Yeah...that's sort of what I gleaned from that text. I was experimenting with the preview settings because I couldn't see any other way to fix the problem. What I'm hearing now is that the problem has no fix. If you scan in black & white film negatives (or anything else that's monochrome I suppose) with the color space set as gray scale you are asking for trouble. The sense I get from the text Gomez Addams referred me to is the behavior in that case is unpredictable, and furthermore film photographers aren't the customer base Apple is trying to cultivate with this product.
Aperture is designed to work with images from digital cameras which use an RGB color space...
Okay...fine. I have several digital cameras I occasionally use for professional work and I am here to tell you Aperture is an absolute blessing for that work. I do shoots every now and then for a local community newspaper and I would not want to live without this product. I remember back when I was a teenager in the 70s being up all night in the darkroom to get an assignment I'd had to cover right before deadline, and then go to my day job the next morning without any sleep. This is much better. And even with the personal art photography it is good to be able to just scan things in and make adjustments in the computer. You can do so much more. I would not want to go back.
But I reckon I need to find something I can rely on for my film work, or at least my black & white film work because as I read this Apple is not supporting film photography with this product and black & white film photography in particular and some of us still use film. No...scanning in my Tri-X negatives in the CoolScan as color produces weird results and anyway Photoshop and GIMP for goodness sakes seem to handle grayscale files just fine. Plus, I've already got thousands of those negatives scanned, I am not rescanning all that in RGB just to satisfy Aperture. The color slide film scans don't seem to be a problem, but that's now. I think I'm being told not to count on That always being the case either.
Aperture is designed to work with images from digital cameras...
Okay...fine...film is old technology after all, Nikon isn't even making their film scanners anymore...check the prices on the few still new-in-the-box ones left out there. My CoolScan 9000 is selling for twice on the second-hand market what I paid for it new and new it wasn't cheap. And yet it's not economically viable for Nikon to continue making them. Film is dying. But I still like working with film and film cameras and I reckon I'll keep doing that until I can't get any more of it and my stash of Tri-X Pan bulk rolls runs out.
Thank you all very much for your help. I think I see what I need to do now.

Low image quality on Android using CameraRoll.addBitmapData

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for