Photobook image quality

I once had read here that there was a hack that could be done in iPhoto that would submit your Photobook in a way that resulted in better resolution and image quality once it was printed, that the default settings resulted in "ordinary" image quality, but there was a hack or something to specify printing at the highest quality possible. Does anyone recall such a thing? I'd like to order a Photobook but am worried about the quality of the photos once it is printed. Thanks.

I remember one iPhoto 6 hack, perhaps it's the one you are thinking of. Read Old Toad's post here: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=1250044 regards iPhoto 5) and a longer discussion re v6 here: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=2789704
I believe the conclusion to the second thread is that with iPhoto 6 the resolution is already set to 300 dpi. However, the low resolution warning only kicks in at below 180 dpi. So as long as your photos are 300 dpi or better (at the size at which they will be printed in the book) then you are getting the best possible resolution. Just don't rely on that warning symbol - check the photos yourself or hack the preference value for +BookWarningImage DPI+
BTW, I found that by searching the iPhoto 6 forum category for the terms "book warning resolution hack", limited to user "Old Toad" and date range "All".
Regards.

Similar Messages

Firefox mage quality and resolution was superb when I used XP and Vista. Now that I have Windows 7, however (with the Firefox 3.6.3 version), the image quality and resolution is poor. Please help me!

I am using the Firefox 3.6.3 version with my new Windows 7 operating system. When I used all the previous Firefox versions in my XP and Vista operating systems, image quality and resolution was excellent! However, now that I have upgraded to Windows 7 and Firefox 3.6.3, the image quality and resolution is poor (unacceptable for downloading purposes).
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== I first activated my new computer and installed the Firefox 3.6.3.

All my images are pixelated in firefox 3.6.3
http://www.dcgdcreative.com
Not only on my site but on most sites I view.
The issue is not solved by resetting the zoom text view (ctrl+0)
The issue is not resolved by starting in safemode with add-ons disabled
The problem seems to only affect .jpeg files and only on Windows 7 on my desktop; as I have viewed several sites using windows XP with my laptop, no issues.
I had the same issue with IE8 and was able to fix the problem with by setting up the compatibility view for all sites. Issue fixed no problems at all. But nothing similar for firefox?
Whats the deal?

I want to make a copy of slide show create from my own photographs and with a an audio track behind them. I have carefully followed the iDVD tutorials and burnt the result to a disc but image quality is very poor. What is wrong?

I want to make a DVD of a slide-show with an audio track behind the photographs. I have carefully followed the iDVD video tutorials but the result is far from satisfactory. The quality of the images on the resulting DVD are blurred and indistict although the original photographs are of a very high quality. Where am I going wrong? Would I have better results from a different program than the inbuilt iDVD and if so so what programs have others found to be better? I should be grateful for some expert guidance.

Hey Falcopebo,
Thanks for using Apple Support Communities.
Looks like you have image quality issues when using iDVD to burn.
iDVD 7.0: Burned DVD has interlacing, pixelation, or image quality issues
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4078
A standard DVD made by iDVD is made to the standard DVD resolution of 720 X 480, which is smaller than most HDTVs and monitors. When expanded to fit the entire screen or monitor, the image will distort slightly due to upscaling to fit the screen or monitor.
Have a nice day,
Mario

HT1338 What is the best online storage for photos. Specifically one that allows the original image quality to be downloaded should your hard storage goes belly up

What is the best online storage for photos. Specifically one that allows the original image quality to be downloaded should your hard storage goes belly up

I'd put them on an external hard drive(s) and burn them to a DVD as well (at least 2 - 3 copies on different drives/media); I prefer having control and a local solution instead of relying on a server and the possibility of someone (who shouldn't be) downloading my work.

NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?

Jeff,
I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again

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.

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?

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.

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

How can I lower the image quality on a streaming online video

Hi,
I have an old iMac G3 with 500 Mhz Power PC and 1 gig of RAM and running Tiger OS 10.4.11
I am trying to watch online streaming news through http://www.rentadrone.org but it is, of course, jerky playback.
My issue is that adobe flash will not let me change the quality of the video to low because the option is grayed out.
I know that this iMac was prior to videos becoming common online and I know that I have to sacrifice video quality.
I can play youtube videos well, as in not jerky, in the 240 image quality and wanted to be able to do this through
other websites with video. I have disabled Dashboard to gain CPU, tried to play the video through Realplayer and
changed my Display from millions of color to thousands but I haven't been able to stop the jerking on the video.
Is there a workaround or other solution?
Thank you in advance for any suggestions or help.

Each video website has its own controllers over how much choice you have over quality of streaming.
However, as you use Real Player, you could wait until the video finishes downloading, then click 'Download' in the RealPlayer Download Agent window and watch it offline, when it should play smoother.

Satellite S70-A-11H web camera image quality is not good

Hi,
Running windows 8.1 which came with the laptop.
New out of the box.
As per title.
I find the image quality of the camera image to be very grainy, poor color etc.
When I start the web camera using the search bar on the right, it starts using the Microsoft application, when you scroll down to settings all that is available under settings/options is Photo aspect ratio, Grid lines, Location info.
I have been in touch with Toshiba Tech support who advised to do a Laptop refresh, which I did.
This made no difference.
After which they asked me to find the Toshiba web camera application on the laptop, this should have been in the Program Files folder in the Toshiba folder.
This application does not exist on my laptop.
The tech checked the same model laptop that he had available, which I was told when he selected the web camera, it opened using the Toshiba Web camera application, not Microsoft.
I have looked at other Toshiba laptops with web cameras, and found the image quality to be better. Unable to get to settings as these laptops were on display and in demo mode, hence locked down to some extent.
I can't believe that a web camera in this day and age for this value of laptop to have such poor image quality. My digital camera from 10year ago has better image quality.
I have checked through the laptop, and I do not have this application installed.
I have checked for updated drivers and software for my laptop, and cannot find this application to be applicable for my laptop. Drivers etc appear to be up to date.
I would like to know, do other users of this S series have any issue of camera image quality.
When the camera is selected what application is being used, Toshiba or Microsoft.
Is Toshiba web camera application applicable to Windows 8.1, as I cannot see it listed for 8.1
Does this sound like a hardware fault or a application/software issue.
Any direction or help on this matter would be appreciated, as I am getting to the point of returning this laptop for a refund.
Thanks in advance.
D.
Yes, I have tried using the FORCE!

> The tech checked the same model laptop that he had available, which I was told when he selected the web camera, it opened using the Toshiba Web camera application, not Microsoft.
The Toshiba webcam application is available for Win 7 system but the Win 8 and Windows 8.1 system use the own Microsoft webcam application.
> I have looked at other Toshiba laptops with web cameras, and found the image quality to be better.
Different Toshiba notebooks are equipped with different webcams.
Satellite S70-A-11H was equipped with a *0.92 mega pixel webcam*
A Satellite A660 for example was equipped with an _1.3M mega pixel webcam_
So there is a difference in webcam resolution

Low File Size/Great Image Quality: H.264, AAC

1. I created a slideshow in iPhoto, exported it to a QT movie file. The properties of it is as follows:
Exibit A:
Dimensions: 720x480
Format: MPEG-4 Video, AAC, Stereo, 44.100kHz
FPS: 30
Data Rate: 7277.87 kbits/sec
Channel Count: 2
Duration: 02'46
Size: 143.58MB
2. I pulled a QT Movie file from the web with the following properties:
Exibit B:
Dimensions: 480x360
Format: AAC, H.264, Stereo (LR), 48.000kHz
FPS: 28.79
Channel Count: 2
Duration: 01'22
Data Rate: 868.14 kbits/sec
Size: 8.5MB
3. I tried to see if I could compress my movie and keep the quality as comparible to Exibit B. Here's what I ended up with:
Exibit C:
Dimensions: 720x480
Format: AAC, H.264, Stereo (LR), 44.100kHz
FPS: 30
Data Rate: 4826.73 kbits/sec
Channel Count: 2
Duration: 02'46
Size: 95.22MB
4. I tried again. This time creating the same dimension as Exibit B. Here what I got:
Exibit D:
Dimensions: 480x360
Format: AAC, H.264, Stereo (LR), 44.100 kHz
FPS: 30
Data Rate: 2577.17 kbits/sec
Channel Count: 2
Duration: 02'46
Size: 51MB
How can I create a very low size and image quality as Exibit B?
I have QTPro. Do I need something else?
Thanks.

Update:
Well playing all exibits on the Windows workstation worked just fine after the update. I now has QT7.
Next...I've exported Exibit A down to 8MB (Exitbit F)by recommendations from Capt. QTKirk. Here are the properties:
Exibit F:
Format: AAC, Stereo (LR), 32.000kHz, H.264, 720x480, Millions
FPS: 15
Data Size: 8.5MB
Data Rate: 429.79kbits/sec
Overall Quality:
Video: Fair at 720x480; much better at 486x324; overall choppy transitions as well
Audio: Fair -close to mono.
Anyone else have any suggestions?
How and what are others using to get the audio/video quality as crisp and sharp as what's shown in the QT Movie Trailer site?

Image quality issues - Sony Handycam (MPEG) to iMovie / iDVD

I have read through dozens of posts but the recommendations vary widely and am hoping I can get some guidance specific to my situation. The image quality I am getting from home movies I edit in iMovie11 and burn to DVD in iDVD are far inferior to the original material.
I have a Sony DCR-TRV17. This camera is a little over 10 years old. It is a miniDV with 500 lines resolution, 680K gross pixels and uses MPEG. While not HD, the image quality is exceptional. The DVDs I used to create using my Sony Viao likewise looked fantastic. But the results I get from iMovie and iDVD are on par with VHS -- very poor, especially in low-light.
I hope the issue is just the settings when I import, edit (iMovie) and share to iDVD. I generally use the default settings, and often alternate settings don't seem to be selectable. It also sounds from other posts like iMovie sacrifices quality for reduced file size and increased simplicity? I would appreciate help with the following:
1) Please list the settings I should be adjusting from default when I a) import, b) edit in iMovie11 and c) share to iDVD and burn -- and the recommended settings for each
2) Is there a process I should be trying? Should I be creating test DVDs using different settings at each stage and then reviewing various setting combinations to find the best one?
3) I will most probably buy an HD camcorder very soon, and plan to burn to Blue Rays. I have no problem with going ahead and buying Final Cut and an external drive to burn Blue Rays. Should I just go ahead and do it and get away from iMovie / iDVD entirely. Will Final Cut solve this issue for my old miniDVs without a whole lot of hair pulling? Or will I still have to tinker with a bunch of settings or convoluted processes to get it "right." I never had to tinker with settings on my Viao. Really expected Mac software to be more user friendly…
Thanks very much for any help or advice!

On Import you could try unchecking Optimize video and choose Full Size. Your disk space however will get eaten up incredibly quickly choosing these settings as each hour of video = 40GBytes of disk space. So be forewarned about how big those files will expand as they come off the MiniDV tapes.
Another thing you will immediately see a difference in is how you move files from iMovie to iDVD. Share to iDVD while named in an intuitive way, is NOT the best way to get good quality DVDs out of iMovie. Instead you want to Share to Media Browser. Choose the Large Size setting. Then quit iMovie. Open iDVD, click the Media button, the Movies button. Find your project listed under the iMovie star icon and drag it into the iDVD project. Burn the Disc and see if you get a higher quality disk by Sharing to Media Browser instead of Share to iDVD.
If you choose a Blu-Ray burner, also get a copy of Roxio Toast. The encoding to Blu-ray that Toast provides will be top notch and prevent you from making mistakes as the recordable Blu-ray disks are more expensive than DVDs. So every mistake will be expensive.

Image quality of HDTV vs. monitor

How does the image quality compare, of sending the output of a Powermac to an LCD HDTV with a VGA input, vs. getting a regular LCD monitor (with DVI input)?
I can get a 23" or greater HDTV for about the same price as the Apple 20" Cinema display. Unless the image quality would be significantly worse, this would seem to be the better option as I could also watch TV or hook up a video game console as well. I could kill two birds with one stone and get both a better TV and monitor than what I already have, with just one purchase.
Or a related question, if I were to get an adapter to output to S-Video or Component for use on my current SDTV, is the image quality acceptable? I've tried it in the past with my PC and I wasn't too impressed.
PowerMac G5 Dual 1.8 Mac OS X (10.4.5) 5G iPod 60GB

How does the image quality compare, of sending the
output of a Powermac to an LCD HDTV with a VGA input,
vs. getting a regular LCD monitor (with DVI input)?
It depends a lot on the HDTV. Some HDTV only display 780 lines which is not much for a modern computer. Other potential problems are overscan (menu bar and dock off the edge) and non-square pixels (distorted images). DVI will give a shaper picture but some HDTV DVI ports do not wok well with computers. Sometimes the manual for the HDTV will give useful information, sometimes you just have to try it and see how it looks.
I can get a 23" or greater HDTV for about the same
price as the Apple 20" Cinema display. Unless the
image quality would be significantly worse, this
would seem to be the better option as I could also
watch TV or hook up a video game console as well. I
could kill two birds with one stone and get both a
better TV and monitor than what I already have, with
just one purchase.
A better choice might be a non-Apple computer monitor with DVI and video or TV input. Some have a buit-in TV tuner and speakers.
Or a related question, if I were to get an adapter to
output to S-Video or Component for use on my current
SDTV, is the image quality acceptable? I've tried it
in the past with my PC and I wasn't too impressed.
With SDTV the best you can get is about 640 X 480 interlaced. This is not much, and fine detail will flicker due to the interlace.

I just set up a new computer running Windows 8.1. When I go to my icloud photostream, the pictures are in PNG format NOT JPG. When I open and upload photos from the photostream, the resolution is so low that the image quality is terrible. Help?!?

I just set up a new computer running Windows 8.1. When I go to my icloud photostream, the pictures are in PNG format NOT JPG. When I open and upload photos from the photostream, the resolution is so low that the image quality is terrible. Help?!?

Hey Sierra, You can do just what you have stated. My question, what is your "other"? If it is over 1.5 GB you most likely have corrupt files. Doing a Restore to New, Factory restore should correct it. Just make sure you make a full backup of all information on your iPod to your computer before you restore, so you don't lose your stuff, contacts, videos, pictures, non-iTunes music, etc, use the cable and connect with your computer. Then, via cable, connect to your computer, run the Restore to new, don't use your backup. Treat this iPod as if it was your first one ever. When restore is done, set up and add what info you wish to install on this iPod. The music apps etc you purchased should be on your computer, if not you should be able to retrieve purchased apps and music from iTunes. Any music, videos, apps not purchased from iTunes will be lost to you if you do not save them to your computer or the cloud first. When your done, make a current Backup and you should good to go. Hope this helps. Good luck. Cheers.

Photobook image quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for