Output profile for the web...

Just curious, which output profiles do you use with Aperture? I've loved Aperture, despite it's GA bugs, and it has saved me a loads of time.
One area that has posed a challenge is the profile to use when exporting to jpg. With Photoshop, I could use SRGB and the browser rendering in MS Internet Explorer and Firefox was fairly close. With Aperture, the rendering in Safari is nearly identical to Aperture for me. That's fine when I'm browsing, but most of my audience to my web proofing are not Mac users.
How do you get around this? My output thus far has lacked "pop" in IE & Firefox, but I'm pleased with the output in Safari.

By and large, the internet isn’t color managed. At least our Windows friends don’t have anything like color management. This is the primary reason we send files to the web in sRGB. It’s a best guess/one size fits all color space for windows users with un-color managed browsers.
Safari and IE on the Mac are working correctly in that they can use your display profile and an embedded profile in web graphics to preview the files correctly (as you’d see in say Photoshop and Aperture). But few people want to embed a profile (it adds all of only 4K to the files but that adds up) and again, since so many users are working with browsers that are not ICC aware, the current answer is just output the files in sRGB and pop them untagged on the web.
One problem I find with Safari (well most if not all Apple applications like Preview, Safari etc) is their assumption for untagged files (those without an embedded profile). ICC aware applications have to make some assumption about the color space. On these Mac applications, they assume your display profile which I think is silly. Using sRGB makes more sense.

Similar Messages

OUTPUT PNG W/ Alpha for the web?

Hello to everyone.
I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this...
I need to output my file as a PNG with an ALPHA Channel for the web. First, I created an alpha for my image, and then I tried to simply use the "save as" function and select the PNG format, but the ALPHA selection is grayed out. I've also tried "the save for web function" and selected transparency, but when I reopen the file the alpha channel has dissappeared. I know that it is possible to save an alpha channel to a PNG, but I can't seem to do it with Photoshop... Can anyone help?
Thanks in advance.
Bryce

Hello Zeno Bokor
Thanks for your reply.
In fact, my client, who is using the images for a web game that they are developing, requested that the files have an Alpha channel. They have explained that the alpha channel helps the video program understand what areas are transparent.
I wish that it was just a case of transparency... It would be hell of a lot easier.
Any ideas?
Thanks again.
bgub.

Disappearing color profile when saved for the Web

Hello.
I have a problem with the “Save for the Web” results using Photoshop CS6 running on Win 7 x64.
My photos are already in 8 bits and in sRGB and when I save for the Web I check the option “embed color profile”, uncheck “convert to sRGB”, metadata to “copyright and contact info”.
When I open the resulting photos in Photoshop, everything is fine as it recognizes the embedded color profile. Same thing when I open these files in Firefox, Safari or Chrome: the colors are correct.
Now, when I right-click on a file in the Win Explorer and look its properties, the line about the color profile is blank, as if there wasn't any. This doesn't bother me but the problem appears on my Website created with Joomla and using for the display a module, Responsive Image Gallery, which creates resized copies of the photos. At this point the copies have completely lost their color profile. I entered in contact with the module's support and they assured me that it preserves the embedded profile, so I come here to gather some information about how this “Save for the Web” embeds the color profile because may be I just didn't understand how it does and if it's different from the “Save as” way.
The fact I can't see the profile through the Win Explorer makes me think Joomla's module doesn't either.

Incredible how much gballard's site is famous! Lol. I use it for a while now and checked again right now with the three Web browsers and everything is all right.
As indicated in my first post, when saving for the Web I checked the “embed color profile” option. I already resized the file and converted it in sRGB first in Photoshop.
Yes it's pretty confusing to see some software not able to see the color profile when the file is saved with that option.
To illustrate, here are three screenshots from Windows' file browser => right-ckick on the file => properties => details:
Opening that “saved for the Web” file in PS, it's ok, the CP is recognized.
Opening it directly (from the file browser => “open with”) in Web browsers: ok in Firefox, Safari and Chrome (CP recognized in all).
Copying that file in my working site on localhost (no modification), integer it in Joomla's module gallery (which is CP aware) and then opening my site on localhost with Web browsers: ok in Firefox (because it considers a non-tagged file by default as beeing sRGB), NOT OK in Safari neither in Chrome.
Now, if I do the same with the “Save as” version of the file with embedded sRGB CP:
PS: ok
Opened directly in Web browsers: ok in the three cases
Opened in Web browsers through my Joomla site on localhost: OK IN ALL THREE BROWSERS
Good point gator_soup: I'll post a bug report. I'm new here on the forum and thought Adobe's staff would post here.

What processes are included in 'save for the web'

When I save a photo using the Photoshop CS3 'save for the web' command, I resize the photo to, for example, 800 pixels on the long side. It comes back the correct size but sometimes the colors look different (a little red usually). Is this because I was editing the original photo in RGB? Should I convert to profile, sRGB before I save for the Web? Or does Photoshop do this automatically? OR, should I convert to sRGB and then do color adjustments for the web?
Sorry, I'm a little confused about this...
Thanks,
Jody

Photoshop is color managed. However, the web is not, so when you save to web, you lose your color management. If you want to see what is going to happen after SFW, you should set the color to sRGB, as you guessed.
However, that will only set the way the color looks on your monitor. It could vary wildly on anyone else's monitor.

Save for the web colors

I was having trouble with image colors when I used 'save for the web' and I found a couple of solutions in tech notes regarding embedded color profiles but there is some thing I just don't understand.
It says:
"To ensure that colors are consistent in Photoshop, ImageReady and the Save for the Web dialog box, use an embedded color profile for display in each, or preview the image in Photoshop using the monitors RGB color space. Note that if you use an embedded color profile for display, colors may appear incorrectly if you view the image in an application that cannot read color profiles."
Can somebody give me the lowdown on what exactly a color profile is (what it does, when you should embed one etc) and some examples of the kind of application that can't read them i.e. if I send the photos via e-mail can the profile be read? put them on a web page?
Thanks for any illumination!
j.

A profile is a file that decribes to applications that can read them the color and tonal characteristics of a particular device. A profile can also be a mathematical description of a particular RGB or CMYK Lab color space. You've probably seen RGB working spaces in Photoshop referred to in terms like sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB, etc. Any application that is color managed and can read and use profiles needs a minimum of two profile to to the job - a source profile and a destination profile. When you're looking at images on your computer monitor, the source is your RGB working space and the destination is your specific monitor. Photoshop uses both the working space profile and the monitor profile to display your image correctly. Most other applications in Windows do not read profile and have to assume either "Monitor RGB" or sRGB as the source for the file. If your file is not one of those, then false asumptioins are made and the image does not appear correctly. Some web browsers like Firefox 3 and Apple Safari do read profiles but not necessarily by default. You have to turn the option in FF. Some email readers are color managed, others not.
Profiles can be and usually are embedded in the document when you save it. Unless you have a good reason for not embedding a profile, it's almost always a good idea. It adds 4K to the file size and will let someone down the line who is using a color managed application see the file how you intended it. You have no control over the others, but that's life online. Currentlyl the best strategy is convert files destined for the web to sRGB and embed the profiles. That might change in the future, but it's a good place to be right now.

AdobePRO bad for the web?

Ive been using AdobeRGB as my working color profile for a long time. I didnt notice that the default working space for Lightrooms RAW conversions was AdobePRO. Consequently Ive got a bunch of files now with the PRO color space. I didnt notice any difference between the two spaces on my PC they look identical.
BUT, on uploading a file to onemodelplace.com (a modeling portfolio site) I noticed the AdobePRO images had the color washed out not completely, but about 50% of where it was supposed to be. Uploading the same image converted as AdobeRGB looks fine.
Whats going on here is there a problem at onemodelplace or are AdobePRO files useless for the web?

When you create a Lightroom Web Gallery the images are automatically converted to sRGB!
When/If you export images you can select your colour space.
Note that sRGB is an ideal, not all monitors are capable of displaying sRGB. Not all monitors are colour managed and even better only 2 browsers support colour management, Safari in IE for Mac.
Richard Earney
http://inside-lightroom

Recomended configurations for creating video for the web

I'm working on a project creating video segments for the web (no plans for broadcast of DVD) and I'm looking for opinions on the most efficient way to use FCP to do this. We are shooting with an HD camera with a green screen and composting a couple of additional layers of Motion graphics and we found that the render times were really long. I'm looking for ways to mitigate this, on thing we did was switch from shooting in 1080p to 720p. We also tried shooting at 24fps instead of the broadcast 60fps and that cut our render time by a good percentage. Since the final product is going to be 640 by 360 at 15fps it seems like a good trade off but are there any down sides I'm not thinking of.
I was also wondering if there might be an advantage to working at the size of the final product, if the FCP sequence were 640 by 360 would there be any advantages in terms of render times and what might the disadvantages would be.
This is my first semi-professional project, just been a hobbyist up until now so any advice is appreciated.

MoSaT wrote:
We are shooting with an HD camera with a green screen and composting a couple of additional layers of Motion graphics and we found that the render times were really long. I'm looking for ways to mitigate this, on thing we did was switch from shooting in 1080p to 720p. We also tried shooting at 24fps instead of the broadcast 60fps and that cut our render time by a good percentage.
those simple steps reduced the number of pixels in each frame from about a million to 750,00, about 25%; and you reduced the number of frames from 30 or 60 to 24 or 48. So, yeah, your rendering times are going down. If your Motion project has ten HD layers you're saving tons of processing.
MoSaT wrote:
This is my first semi-professional project, just been a hobbyist up until now so any advice is appreciated.
Since the final product is going to be 640 by 360 at 15fps it seems like a good trade off but are there any down sides I'm not thinking of.
Absolutely. But you engaged the project without knowing how you were going to accomplish anything; implies your plans for improving workflow will be similarly incomplete. We all got by with NTSC and plan ol' DV for decades. The web is a low end distribution system, not a theatrical viewing experience. You can force your viewers to download a huge file and watch it on their TVs or you can open it up in weensy teeny window on their iPhones.
MoSaT wrote:
I was also wondering if there might be an advantage to working at the size of the final product, if the FCP sequence were 640 by 360 would there be any advantages in terms of render times and what might the disadvantages would be.
Purists will be correct in telling you better source footage results in better uploads. I will tell you that's true but it's academic. Your realworld needs are based on your web upload, not your plans to archive high def footage for future exploitation.
Here's what I'd do: Work backwards. Figure out what your upload needs are--exactly. Research Compressor and other compression systems to determine how you are going to process your project to get the target output. Now decide what format that software wants to process to create the best results. then figure out how you want to provide that input for the compression application. then figure out what the tradeoffs are for your original footage in terms of your camera resources, your skills with the camera, and your mistaken impression that effects and chromakey should be fast.
bogiesan

Is there a way to stop colors flattening when encoding for the web and DVD

Hi. I am in post prod on my first feature film, which has some great horror dream sequences, lit red and green in the Mario Bava tradition. They really do look stunning in the original footage, with highly saturated crisp colors (We had a really great cinematographer) But when I try to create clips for the web, the colors flatten a lot. They look better on my i-phone than my Lcd computer monitor. doing DVD outputs also looses something, but less so. It depends on the playback equip. My plasma TV and upscaling dvd player make them look fairly good. The footage is progressive scan 25 frames per sec HD. (16:9 cropped to 2:35:1) Does anyone know the optimum settings for web encoding have just used 310x710 pixels using H264 compressor at 3000 kbts per sec

Hi
YEs you can read the ALE model data.
    CALL FUNCTION 'OWN_LOGICAL_SYSTEM_GET'
      IMPORTING
        own_logical_system             = sending_system
      EXCEPTIONS
        own_logical_system_not_defined = 01.
    SELECT   * FROM tbd05 INTO TABLE i_tbd05
    WHERE    sndsystem = sending_system
    AND      mestyp     = message_type.
Regards,
Vijay V

"could not get an output file for the document (error RWI 00314)"

Hi
We are getting the following error when running the Webi Reports "could not get an output file for the document (error RWI 00314)". The issue seems to be related to Tomcat Memory Heap size, our Tomcat Java heap Size is 1024MB. We were able to resolve the issue by restarting the Tomcat. We cannot restart the Tomcat in Prod if this is happening frequently.
Can some one please suggest any other solution other than restarting the Tomcat frequently, our platform is BOBJ XI 3.1 SP3 with FP 3.1 our Wndows OS is 32 Bit.
Thank's for your help

Hi Sreeram,
Earlier i also faced same kind of problem.
To solve this kind of problems you need to shutdown the server.
second thing is when patches missed that time also you will get this kind of problem.
check j2ee connection is it properly working or not?
Regards,
samar reddy.

HDV Aspect Ratio and Exporting For the Web

INTRODUCTION
I am trying to export an HDV video for the first time and have managed to confuse myself. I want to upload it to blip.tv and they transcoded videos into Flash with 4:3 aspect ratio. But more than that, I want to understand how this all works so I don't have to guess about the settings that will give me what I want.
BACKGROUND DATA
4/3 is 1.333...
16/9 is 1.777...
1440/1080 is 1.333... (if the pixels are square)
1920/1080 is 1.777... (if the pixels are square)
In FCP my clip format says:
Frame Size: 1440 x 1080
Pixel Aspect: HD (1440 x 1080) (Does this mean the pixels are 1.333... times wider than it is high?)
EXPORT USING QUICKTIME CONVERSION
When I go to export this clip using Quicktime Conversion under the Options... Size... dialog and look at the Dimensions dropdown, (I assume this is the dimensions of the exported video. Is that correct?)
Some of the settings are (the settings are in quotes, my notes are in parentheses.):
"HD 1440 x 1080 16:9" (if pixels are square this is 4/3)
"HD 1920 X 1080 16:9" (if pixels are square this is 16/9)
So both of these settings claim to be 16:9 but they both can't be true unless they have different pixel aspect ratios (which I find hard to believe). This makes me think I don't really know what they mean when they notate something as 16:9. Can anyone give a definition that will help me here?
EXPORTING FOR THE WEB
Using FCS2, what settings should I use to export this clip undistorted for the web (with letterbox if needed)?
Thanks for the help,
Rob:-]

What I find with HDV 16x9 1440x1080 footage, is that when you output for the web you have to hard code the size you want the result to be. 320x180 or 640x360 for example scale things nicely. If you want bigger, just do the math.
I don't know why but whenever I select a predefined output size, it always screws it up (I don't work with 4:3 ever, so I'm speaking only of 16x9). So I always enter the size I want.
And as far as Compressor 3, I really can't get that to set the size I want correctly either. Mostly its due to me being lazy and not wanting to spend a year reading the Compressor manual. A package that should basically have the easiest interface known to man is now so complicated that unless I have to hand-holding tutorial, or get to drag/drop one of their presets, I end up screwing things up with it. Not to mention that you get to wait for hours just to see how you screwed up the settings of your output.

How to use the Output clause for the updated statment

How to use the output clause for the below update stament,
DECLARE @MyTableVar table(
sname int NOT NULL)
update A set stat ='USED'
from (select top 1 * from #A
where stat='AVAILABLE' order by sno)A
Output inserted.sname
INTO @MyTableVar;
SELECT sname
FROM @MyTableVar;
Here am getting one error incorrect syntax near Output
i want to return the updated value from output clause

see
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sqltips/archive/2005/06/13/output-clause.aspx
Please Mark This As Answer if it solved your issue
Please Vote This As Helpful if it helps to solve your issue
Visakh
My Wiki User Page
My MSDN Page
My Personal Blog
My Facebook Page

The save for the web function has stopped working in my copy of photoshop elements 12. I get this message, " The operation could not be completed. The system cannot find the path specified" Resetting preferences did not fix.

The save for the web function has stopped working in my copy of photoshop elements 12. I get this message, “ The operation could not be completed. The system cannot find the path specified” Resetting preferences did not fix.

my os is windows 7. elements 12 worked fine for many months then save for the web stopped working

Windows cannot load the user's profile but has logged you on with the default profile for the system.

My Windows 7 crashed a couple days ago after a windows update, I got this message.
Windows cannot find the local profile and is logging you on with a temporary profile. Changes you make to this profile will be lost when you log off.
I restarted the machine and got this message
Windows was unable to load the registry. This problem is often caused by insufficient memory or insufficient security rights.
DETAIL - The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process. for C:\Users\TEMP\ntuser.dat
I checked the event Log I found these .
Windows cannot load the user's profile but has logged you on with the default profile for the system.
DETAIL - Only part of a ReadProcessMemory or WriteProcessMemory request was completed.
Windows has backed up this user profile. Windows will automatically try to use the backup profile the next time this user logs on.
Windows cannot load the locally stored profile. Possible causes of this error include insufficient security rights or a corrupt local profile.
DETAIL - The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process.
This is the first error in the event viewer after a successful logon
The description for Event ID 34 from source ccSvcHst cannot be found. Either the component that raises this event is not installed on your local computer or the installation is corrupted. You can install or repair the component on the local computer.
If the event originated on another computer, the display information had to be saved with the event.
ccSetMgr
Windows cannot load the user's profile but has logged you on with the default profile for the system.
DETAIL - Access is denied.
Looking at the Logs all I can tell is that after the Desktop Window Manager started if caused this error.
The winlogon notification subscriber <SessionEnv> was unavailable to handle a notification event.
then this one
The Desktop Window Manager has exited with code (0x40010004)
Then this before it shutdown.
The User Profile Service has stopped.
I started up the PC and the first message I got was
How can I get access to my user profile? do I need to createa new Administrator account? Please help
The EventSystem sub system is suppressing duplicate event log entries for a duration of 86400 seconds. The suppression timeout can be controlled by a REG_DWORD value named SuppressDuplicateDuration under the following registry key: HKLM\Software\Microsoft\EventSystem\EventLog.

hi do the following
1. In Search programs and files (Windows 7) area, type in regedit, and press Enter.
2. If prompted click yes,
3. expand the following HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\ProfileList
4. click the sid that related to your admin profile (if you not sure, click each sid and in turn look to the right hand side of registry editor it will show who that sid is related to one of the registry files should hae in description localhost\admin or
something similair)
5. right click the sid and press delete.
6. restart your machine and log back on with the admin account, this will then rebuild the admin profile... dont worry when it loads and none of your personal settings are saved or files or folders... go to c:\users
in here you will see two folders for the admin account, one will be just admin and the other most likely admin.localhost
i cant remember which one is which but just check both, one will still have all your files and folders in it.
i suggest making a backup of your data before doing this incase something does go wrong, but ive had this happen many times in a domain enviorment and has worked for me everytime.

HD video compressed for the web

I was doing some testing trying to figure out the best way to compress the HD video I get from the Sony XDCAM HD for the web (streaming). I shoot in HD (1080/30P) because it's needed for our videos. The web streaming is secondary.
I would prefer to make the web videos .flv because it works best and most easily cross-platform. In the real world, the majority of users have Windows PCs, which made me hesitant to use h.264 (.m4v) because it probably would require the average user to download things they may not wan to. Nonetheless, it has to be viewable on all computers in all browers.
So, I took three 10 second clips of steady camera video with audio from the camera that I used in all tests. I will refer to them by clip number...
Clip 1: 30P 16:9 High quality, 10sec=45mb
Clip 2: 30P 16:9 Low Quality, 10sec=24mb
Clip 3: 60i 16:9 High Quality, 10sec=45mb
First I tested making FLV is Adobe CS3 Encoder using the High Quality (700) setting.
Test 1 used size 848x480 (16:9)
Clip 1: 1.3mb
Clip 2: 1.1mb
Clip 3: 1.2mb
Comments: Looked very crisp, audio was clean, slightly darker image than original on default settings
Test 2 used size 480x270 (16:9)
Clip 1: 1.2mb
Clip 2: 1.1mb
Clip 3: 1.1mb
Comments: Looked very crisp, audio was clean, slightly darker image than original on default settings
Next, I tested making .m4v using the h.264 iPod settings in Compressor.
Test 1 used size 640x370.
Clip 1: 240kb
Clip 2: 1440kb
Clip 3: 204kb
Comments: Image wasn't quite as clean as the Flash files, but still good. Much lighter/brighter than the Flash files also. Low Quality HD video had high file size... why? I don't know, but I don't shoot on LQ for things anyway.
Test 2 used size 320x180.
Clip 1: 160kb
Clip 2: 865kb
Clip 3: 865kb
Comments: Image wasn't quite as clean as the Flash files, but still good. Much lighter/brighter than the Flash files also. Low Quality HD video had high file size... also the 60i file...why? I don't know.
In conclusion, I'm lucky that I shoot 30P since it worked well in all areas. The h264 codec provides a much smaller file size than Flash, with a good image. Amazing considering we started with a 45MB clip. What are the standards for aspect ratios for putting 16:9 video on the web? I haven't heard much set in stone like you have for 4:3 video. Nonetheless, the 640x360 or 480x270 seem to be a nice size for most uses.
I have heard that in Flash 9 you can chance the m4v extension to flv and it will work. IF that is true, that would be great because now my concern is that a base Windows PC cannot play these .m4v images without plugins/codecs. I suppose right now its a tradeoff between smaller file size/less compatibility with h264 or larger file size, great compatibility with Flash.
Any comments or suggestions to help out would be great. I typed this fast so forgive me if I left out any important info.

Hi APPLE27:
One comment from your post that immediately caught my attention was this, "Nonetheless, it has to be viewable on all computers in all browsers."
Unfortunately, it is unrealistic to expect one digital video file to be viewable on "all computers in all browsers" as there are simply too may variations in both hardware and software.
A common approach when offering digital video is to provide two formats to choose from and then within each of those two formats a few versions of the video for different bandwidths.
For example, a web site might offer Video for Windows and QuickTime. For each of these, there would be a low bandwidth Video for Windows file and QuickTime file and a high bandwidth Video for Windows file and QuickTime file (four files total). Of course, there's also Flash Video, Real Video, MPEG1, and so on.
For better or worse, YouTube.com has allowed video content creators the realistic expectation of creating a digital video file that is viewable on "most computers". But, the video is unavoidably tied to that web site.
When it comes to online distribution of video, it's still very open ended.
Also, computers are not all that's out there. Mobile devices are a huge market and you'd be hard pressed to create a single digital video file that will play on all mobile devices (iPhone, iPod Touch, Palm Treo, Sony PSP, etc.) either from local storage or from a mobile browser.
QuickTime offers a solution for creating a referencing movie - one file that links to other digital video files, but it too is imperfect at best when it comes to reaching the broadest audience possible.
With my few comments here, I'm just scratching the surface. But, it all starts where you are right now: caring about the image quality when exporting from your edited master.
-Warren

Exporting FCP 16:9 to QT for the web in 16:9?

Hello everyone,
I recently began doing my projects in 16:9 mode. I shoot them with my GL2's in 16:9, then capture to FCP as usual. FCP then automatically recognizes the 16:9 footage and adjusts everything perfectly for me. I figured out how to get the footage to DVDSP by 'forcing letterbox'. This plays the true 16:9 footage on a widescreen TV perfectly.
Now, I've come to another bridge that I can't seem to cross... that is... exporting the video to QT for the web in 16:9. I did a lot of searching here and all of the topics related to this did not help me at all. So, what I'm going to do is explain what I used to do when I shot in 4:3 mode:
1. In FCP... File>Export>QT Conversion
2. Format: QT Movie> Options
3. Settings> Sorenson Video 3
4. Frame Rate>15
5. Key Frames: Every 150 frames
6. Compressor> Medium
7. Data Rate: Automatic
8. OK
9. Sound>Settings>Mpeg-4 Audio, 16bit, Stereo
10. OK
11. Prepare for Internet Streaming> Fast Start
12. OK
13. SAVE
This usually turns a full sized 5 minute clip into a nice little presentation for the web no larger than 35 or so MB's. You can see a boat load of files like that on my website at (www.buerhausdesign.com).
Now, what I want to do is get a similar sized video for the web, only in 16:9 as I'm now shooting and editing in 16:9.
Does anyone have step-by-step instructions on how to do this? I know it's possible as I see movie trailors in 16:9 all the time in QT.
Any help would be appreciated:)
Matt

Nope, tried all of that. It stretches the image way beyond 16:9. Currently, if I export as a 4:3 file, the widescreen displays correctly, but I get two black bars at the top and bottom of the frame. Manually sizing to a 16:9 size, to say 720x404, stretches everything... including the unwanted black bars.
When I export to DVDSP, the black bars go away when I 'force letterbox'. There's gotta be a way to get it to work in QT.

Output profile for the web...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for