Method better quality of image ?

Hello I would like to know which is best the method to obtain best quality while leaving in dvd to import it in final cut hd, to make an assembly and to record it in a video format.
Me did J use handbrake to convert my file dvd (video ts) into mp4 for L to import in final cut, then I export it in quiktime and there quality is not very good?
Thank you for your assistance

Handbrake only converts to MPEG4 and, as stated, you don't want to work in that format
Use MPEG Streamclip to convert to DV. Its free but you have to buy the MPEG playback component from Apple
Or you could buy DVxDVD
Or, if you have a DV cam, hook up a DVD player to the cam and the cam to the Mac via Firewire and capture using Easty Setup DV Converter and Capture Now

Similar Messages

How to i resize a larger 72ppi image to better quality smaller image but for correct size to paste into flyer

Hi, I am trying to resize a larger 16cm wide image saved at 72dpi to a smaller better quality 5cm wide image for invites for an art exhibition I am having. I figure there must be lots of information in the pic given that it is large, I just want to condense it into a smaller image. If I adjust the size to 5 cm wide it changes the dpi to 230 which would be better for printing (the 72 dpi is way too grainy). However when I paste it into the flyer I am making in photoshop it pastes as a massive picture. I then tried to drag the corners in to make it the right size and it became even grainier than a 5cm wide 72dpi image. I hope that makes sense to someone. So basically I need a 5cm wide document size that I can put in my small flyer that is the best quality I can make it! Thanks in advance!

Up-sampling from 72ppi to 300-600ppi can result in blurry images. It's always best to start with a good quality, high resolution image if you can. Go to Image > Image Size. When up-sampling, use Bicubic Smoother setting. When down-sampling, use Bicubic Sharper. See screenshot.
Nancy O.

Better Quality Still Images

When I place a still image into Final Cut Pro the image quality goes down dramatically. To the point where some of the faces on the pictures are unrecognizable. Does anyone know how to solve this issue so that the image quality stays the same? Just to let you know...the quality is still low even after I render it.

Search around a little there is a lot of info on this subject. Here's a start for 'ya.
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=574657

Which yields better quality images?

Which yields better quality images?
If I "send" my slideshow from iPhoto to iDVD? Or if I start in iDVD and import a slideshow from iPhoto?

That’s the same thing.
The problem is that iPhoto needs to make a movie of the slideshow to export. This inevitably involves compression. Then, when iDVD prepares the movie for burning, it also compresses. Many folks find the quality drop off too great when the material is doubly compressd.
One solution is to create the Slideshow in iDVD, though that has limitations too - no Ken Burns effect, fo instance. But there’s only one layer of compression.
Another way is to create the Movie in +as high a quality as possible+. Some ways to do this: Export the slideshow from iPhoto using the new high quality options. Alternatively, use another app that has more export options - PhotoToMovie, Final Cut Express, perhaps even iMovie HD - to get a high quality movie, and so minimise the impact of the compression.
Regards
TD

Quality of image

im searching for help!
i draw a mandelbrot fractal into some image files, that works great, but how can i get a better quality??
this is my code for the drawing, can someone help me, to get it?
please!!
this is my colormodel and my offpaint method!
// fill the colour table with silly color gradients
for (int index = 0; index < NUM_COLORS; ++index)
blue [index] = (byte) (64 + index % 64 * 3);
green[index] = (byte) ( 32 + index % 32 * 6);
red [index] = (byte) ( 252 - index % 64 * 4);
// add black to the table and create the colour model
blue[NUM_COLORS] = green[NUM_COLORS] = red[NUM_COLORS] = 0;
color_table = new IndexColorModel(8, NUM_COLORS + 1, blue, green, red);
public void offpaint (){
System.out.println("Ich war im offpaint()");
int width = w;//getWidth(); // component width
int height = h;//getHeight(); // component height
if (image == null || image.getWidth() != width ||
image.getHeight() != height)
byte pixels[] = new byte[width * height];
DataBufferByte buffer; // byte array buffer
WritableRaster raster; // image raster
int x, y; // pixel position
for (x = 0; x < width; ++x) // fill byte array
for (y = 0; y < height; ++y)
pixels[(height - 1 ... .....);
// use the byte array to fill the PackedRaster and create the
// BufferedImage from the WritableRaster and the ColorModel.
buffer = new DataBufferByte(pixels, pixels.length);
raster = Raster.createPackedRaster(buffer, width, height, 8, null);
image = new BufferedImage(color_table, raster, false, null);
offscreenGraphics = image.getGraphics();
offscreenGraphics.drawImage(image, 0, 0, this); // finally: draw it
// write the offscreen image on disk
File output;
File = new File(".\\Image\\mandel_X"+start_x+"_Y_"+start_y+".png");
try {
ImageIO.write(image, "PNG", outputFile);
} catch (Exception e) {
System.err.println(e.getMessage());
}

What, exactly, are you trying to do?

Problems with quality of image since upgrading to Adobe Reader XI version11.0

Since installing the new update I seem to be having a problem scanning files to PDF - first the scan missed off the bottom over every page but after several hours of changing settings on the computer and on the scanner (and actually uninstalling all printer and adobe software and reinstalling it again), this now seems to be ok - but the quality of the PDF is quite poor.
I can't work out how to get a better quality and I am sure it is something to do with PDF / Adobe because when I scan the document and save it as word / TIFF / JPEG, the image is brilliant. I also can't seem to save any of the TIFF / JPEG files to PDF.
Any ideas? The above problem is happening on my MAC and on the integrated Windows 7 via VMFusion Ware.
Thanks

Good Day! I also noticed that after I installed the Adobe Reader XI Version 11.0.1 that the image quality is very poor unless you zoom in a lot. If I open the same PDF file with Adobe Acrobat Standard 9.0, the image quality is very good. There must be an issue with Reader XI Ver 11.0.1. Also, I have found that if I select text and copy it to the clipboard, an error message pops up. The text is, in fact, copied to the clipboard, so I don't know what the error is. The error box is created by Adobe, not Microsoft Windows.

Which yields a better quality slideshow?

Which yields better quality images?
If I "send" my slideshow from iPhoto to iDVD? Or if I start in iDVD and import a slideshow from iPhoto?

It's probably more a matter of personal preference than anything else. Allegedly, a track ripped at aac 128 sounds "better" than a 128 mp3. You should rip a track with which you are familiar in both formats (and perhaps at different bit rates) to see which you like the best.

Trying to get a high quality still image

Hi,
I am trying to get a high quality still image from a 16mm film I completed years ago. I have had it transfered to digital format and brought it in to Final Cut Pro Studio 2. The distributor (Canyon Cinema) wants a high resolution image for the website. 600-dpi or better. When I create a still it comes out 72. How can I increase the resolution of the image for distribution on their website? Thanks to anyone who get guide me to the 21st century...

DPI is essentially meaningless in the video world. DPI is a measurement for the print world only.
But since video resolution equates roughly to 72 DPI, that's the best you'll get. Best to go back to the original film and pull a still from there.
Or you could try one of those resolution enhancing plugins for Photoshop like Genuine Fractals.
-DH

Is m4v better quality than a remuxed MKV file via Subler?

I'm slowly building my home media server and putting my Blu-Ray's onto it. I normally do a Handbrake conversion for ATV3, so the MKV files end up being significantly smaller m4v's and the quality is outstanding. But I recently learned about the quick remux method using Subler, which quickly converts the MKV container into an m4v container without any quality loss and while keeping the same size file. But I noticed that, say, a 29GB MKV file is a much poorer softer picture on my plasma TV than the same movie that's only a 9GB MKV file (remuxed to m4v with subler for streaming over ATV3). I'm running a 300mbps cable modem so the streaming shouldn't be a problem over my home wifi. But I also noticed that the smaller m4v's (say a 3.5GB file that comes from a 9GB MKV file via Handbrake) seem to be slightly better quality than the 9GB file that was remuxed. So it seems like the larger file should be even higher quality -- but I'm getting better results with a smaller file that's Handbrake'd from MKV to m4v.
Is there some sort of streaming setting on the ATV3 that needs to be set or adjusted that will allow the full gorgeous pic quality of a 29GB file to stream right through to it, and look better than the Handbrake'd m4v file? It feels like there's a bottleneck somewhere that's not letting all of the complete picture information through, and an intact, perfect 29GB file should look light years better than that 29GB file Handbrake'd down to 4GB. Trying to figure this out before I continue down this home media server path cuz it's a lot of work to do these Blu's one at a time.
Kirby

I have no experience of the remuxing you describe, but interesting observations.
There is nothing you can adjust on AppleTV - it will either play the encoded movie or it won't.
AppleTv's generally playback the h264 codec (in an m4v container) - there are many many versions/levels of this codec and each generation of AppleTv has been able to play slightly more sophisticated versions.
I suspect but cannot prove that the issue you notice is due to AppleTV attempting to support advanced h264 features but making compromises which affect playback quality - in other words it is cutting corners to playback advanced h264 profile features rather than refusing. Handbrake on the other hand has time at its disposal - it has been refined over many years by dedicated enthusiasts so if a simple remux is all that's required i'd be surprised they have not implemented that. Instead I suspect it more accurately processes enhanced h264 features before transcoding into a new smaller m4v file. Equally there might be settings in HB which artificially sharpen or otherwise alter the video which you prefer. I'd compare the BluRay tothe remuxed or HB versions to attempt to decide which was more faithful to the original but even then it would be dependent on the BluRay player's settings in some cases.

Should I Use An External Burner For Better Quality With Macbook Pro?

Hey I have a macbook pro and used IDVD to burn a movie but near the end it freezes and kinda skips a bit and I was wondering cause it takes two to three hours to burn will using an external burner be better quality?

will using an external burner be better quality?
Ext. Burners tolerate burning multiple copies with fewer read / write errors better than the stock internal S-Drive that come built into many mac laptops. Stock drives heat up faster than external burners do for the most part. So the answer is, it's very possible you will get slightly better results with an external burner as opposed to an internal laptop S-Drive when burning back to back copies.
I recommend using Verbatim Dvd-r media and burning from a disc image at 4x or slower for best results.

Tiff or JPEG better quality in iMovie?

Which format gives better quality in iMovie...TIFFs or JPEGs or does it not make a difference?

Thanks for learning, Sue!
QuickTime Pro image format imports are a different Apple than images used in DV editor such as iMovie.
Did you know, assuming you have a very fast Mac or PC, that you can import nearly every major image file format via QuickTime? How about 60 fps screen grabs in .pdf or .png or video formats?
You could, in elementary theory, assemble an HD image sequence?
QuickTime Pro has so much power and it is the basis for such "i"Apps as iMovie, iPhoto, iTunes, and the higher end "Pro" apps like Final Cut and Logic Pro.
Apps like Apple "Preview" (an image viewing application) are also built on the core foundation of QuickTime.
PC users still get "Picture Viewer" when they install QuickTime? It is Mac's Preview app now.
QuickTime.
It is so deep into the Mac OS it would be impossible to separate it from the OS.
QuickTime helped develop our Mac "eye candy" experience.
It also helped developers understand the rules. And game developers create such rich graphics.
Even HD TV owes a bit of gratitude to the software engineers behind it.

Exporting QT Conversion "Uncompressed 10-bit 4:2:2" Gives Better Quality?

A friend who does not believe that File>Export>QT Movie gives the best results has told me that she has experimented with "Uncompressed 8 and 10 bit", also H.264 and got better quality when viewed on her computer.
I don't think she has tried to view them on anything else as she is looking for ways to backup her material.
I can't believe it myself and feel that there may be something odd about the way she is viewing these on her computer.
Here is part of the email she sent me, so feel free to comment on any of the points:-
+While experimenting I've found that making uncompressed QT8 or QT10 bit files result in a much clearer image, fuller colour and better depth but also produce files that are 80Gb and100Gb respectively for an hour of film, much too large to store. Exporting a simple QTM file uses about 14Gb.+
+So I decided to export to tape and I'm happy with the quality on these. Then, for back-up, I thought I'd make QTM movies and also H264 (which is supposed to be the format with the longest life - viewed from this point in time) which are of course small files by comparison.+
+This I did and compared the quality using Quicktime playback. The H264 films were clearer and had better colour depth than the QTM films (not nearly as good at the 8 or 10bit ones though). But - the ratio is different! The H264 films appear narrower in the QuickTime Player window than the QTM files! A comparison of the file info shows the same dimensions - 720 x 576. (Original film is 720 x 576)+
I think her comment about the narrowness of the H.264 images will be connected with square and non-square pixels?

Your friend is talking about standard definition video. Yes, uncompressed will produce better results, but unless you have the hardware, like a very fast RAID, to support it, it pretty pointless, especially if you're going to recompress it.
H.264, while very good, will not produce better results. I have no idea where the view that this codec has the longest life has derived from. H.264 is a line of codecs that go back to H.262 and H.263. There is a successor to AVCHD called HEVC, which is H.265 I guess, and within a few years there may be an H.266.
H.264 may show better color for computer display, but the original format is DV PAL, which is designed, not for computer display at all, but specifically for television display.
Indeed the aperture needs to be adjusted on the images to make them match in aspect ratio.

FCE helps making better quality videos than imovie?

I have been using iMovie HD and it looks like its corrupted and cannot re-install it since I lost the disk image.
I am thinking of going to FCE over upgrading to iLife 09.
Does FCE helps making better quality videos than imovie?

Eswar M wrote:
... Does FCE helps making better quality videos than imovie?
if your source is miniDV/Standard - yes.
if your source is 720p or iFrame - no.
in terms of speed and simplicity - iM09 is 'better'.
in terms of options and feature - FCE is by far superior.
note: iM09 is no 'upgrade' of your version, but a from ground off new app.
another note: FCE has a very steem learning curve, but after managing that is a fantastic tool!

Exporting high quality still images?

Is it possible to export a high quality still image from video? I have used the export using qt conversion, exported it as a photoshop document and when I bring that doc into photoshop the image quality is poor at 300 dpi. It comes in at 10 inches X 6.67 inches at 72 dpi, but when I make it 300 dpi the image size is only 2.4 inches by 1.6 (this, of course, is when I turn off "resample image")
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Tim

Is it possible to export a high quality still image from video?< </div>
Yes and no. it is no better than your video camera shot it. Generally, for conventional DV, that's roughly 500x800 pixels at a shutter speed of 1/30th second. HD formats and special frame rates, of course, produce other still images.
720x486 at 72 DPI.< </div>
I beg to quibble, or at least to be a pedant. The 72dpi is an artificial construct imposed by Photoshop. There is no dpi or lpi in video. You only get the raw pixels. You can make the pixels bigger by scaling up or you can throw some away by scaling down but, without additional work like resampling or applying a tool like Genuine Fractals, you cannot get any more pixels.
bogiesan

Does Pro-Res codec yield better quality from AVCHD files than AIC?

Hi folks,
I use FCE4 and ingest AVCHD for editing. I'm wondering if, for example, I ingested with the Pro-Res codec (eg. such as when using Final Cut Pro or FCX), would that be a higher quality transcoder than the inherent Apple Intermediate Codec that is part of FCE4? In other words, if I upgraded my software, would I likely get better quality?
FYI: I shoot with a single chip AVCHD camcorder, in case that matters.
Thanks,
Vixter

If you are running Lion, then FCPX is the only way forward unless you go with a non-Apple editing suite. For what it's worth, I think FCPX has gotten a bum rap overall. It's quite powerful compared to the old FCE even with its current limitations. Apple will continue to improve the program over time, and no one should discount the foresight that Apple actually does have in its product lines. The FCPX user interface and the method of editing is quite different compared to FCE, and takes a lot of adjustment if you were familiar with FCE or FCP. For general purpose editing, even prosumer editing, FCPX is quite an application, even if it's not quite ready for broadcasters & professionally employed editors.
The best way to find out is to try it out - it's available as a free 30-day trial so you can see for yourself whether or not it works for you. You can read all about it elsewhere and of course people in these forums have their opinions one way or the other. As I long ago discovered about wine, there is no definitively good or bad wine ... just wine that we ourselves like because it satisfies our individual tastes and conditions. I don't concern myself with Robert Parker's opinions. In fact I think a lot of his 95+ rated wines stink! If you follow my drift ...

Method better quality of image ?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for