Pixel accuracy in AE CS6

Hi there,
is it possible that AE CS6 works less accurat than former version when it comes to tiny resolutions?
I'm designing on very small resolutions and right now i need a ramp over 14 pixels height. But i get only seven color shades instead of 14 needed.
Is this a known problem? Is there any solution or do i have to stick to older versions to get my jobs done?
Thanks for your experiences.
greetings,
monika

It has nothing to do with bit depth, i tested that already. The values are correct too.
Here are two screenshots, both on a 3200% zoom view:
First is in CS5:
an the other from CS6:

Similar Messages

Pixel Bender and Photoshop CS6

Will Pixel Bender run in Photoshop CS6?

battlepriest wrote:
Having to run two separate versions of Photoshop to be able to access tools that I need and want? Priceless.
It's not priceless.. it's precicely twice as much $$ !
battlepriest wrote
Man, the more I read about this, and Adobe's excuse for dropping it, the more I hate them as a company.
Nobody freaking ASKED ANY OF US if we wanted support for PB to continue. To say there wasn't interest in it is a flat out lie.
The I read their response here the more I despise them too for providing blanket responses to genuine customer questions and skirting the issue. Oh, and lying. Or at least, not being told the truth from Management as the real reason, even thoguh they probably know but aren't allowed top publicly say...
Adobe, in regards to the pixel bender issue, you have failed your customers. Period. Thanks for noticing (sarcasm).

Need help fixing a stuck pixel in Premiere Pro CS6

Editing on a MacPro, OSx.6, Premiere CS6, I have found a stuck pixel (red) on some of my footage. Tried removing with cc wire removal in AE, but that did not seem to want to work. Everytime we applied the wire filter to our comp, it turn the whole comp black. Does anyone know of another work around to fix a stuck pixel or another plug in to use?

I've got the same issue - when CC Wire Removal is applied the entire screen goes black. I tried it on two different systems running at significantly different specs - same result. There is another blog on here someplace with many people reporting the same issue. I'm curious as to why there isnt a fix for this already? I've got a video to deliver by tomorrow for an international construction giant and I can't remove a freaking dead pixel! I can't use the clone stamp as the pixel is right in the left corner of the mouth, so it's (depending on the frame) either just outside the mouth, in the mouth, on the tongue or on the tooth. Very frustrating (also admit that my limited AE ability restricts me to applying the CC wire removal fix).
I'm hoping I can render the footage in a different codec and maybe CC wire removal will cooperate...

Why is everything pixelated and blurry in CS6?

Hi,
A few months ago I installed the trial versions of Adobe Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop on my MacBookPro. After they expired I purchased the standard student edition and used the provided key number to unlock the full versions. However, everything (including the sample fonts list, icons and opening menu) are pixelated and blurry. As a design student, it is incredibly distracting to see font that isn't smooth like it should be on a retina display...
I've updated Indesign to version 8.0.1 but to no avail. What could be wrong and how might I solve this problem?
Thank you,
Cuong

@Tereyn "Since the originator has not stated that the software was tested on a non-retina display how can he/she or you be sure the display is the origin of the problem?"
Yes he does say that he is using a retina display.. Did you even read the post.
"As a design student, it is incredibly distracting to see font that isn't smooth like it should be on a retina display..."
If you have another problem why don't you create your own post?
It's still annoying for me that there isn't a retina fix yet and it's been a few years now. It's just a few menu icons. Fix the retina issue please!

Pixel accuracy - using ActionScript to snap to pixels?

Is it possible to use ActionScript to snap to pixels,
repositioning everything in ones Flash project to whole-number, or
integer positions and sizes? Flash's "Snap to Pixels" doesn't
really work, and despite making sure that everything I design (such
as shapes and texts) has integer positions and sizes to begin with,
they tend to end up at non-integer positions as time passes by. How
the hell? It's is annoying, inaccurate, blurry, and it compromises
my designs.
Is there a fix?
Many thanks for taking the time to read this!
Have a great day,
Kyrre

Is it possible to use ActionScript to snap to pixels,
repositioning everything in ones Flash project to whole-number, or
integer positions and sizes? Flash's "Snap to Pixels" doesn't
really work, and despite making sure that everything I design (such
as shapes and texts) has integer positions and sizes to begin with,
they tend to end up at non-integer positions as time passes by. How
the hell? It's is annoying, inaccurate, blurry, and it compromises
my designs.
Is there a fix?
Many thanks for taking the time to read this!
Have a great day,
Kyrre

Object automatically shifts a pixel on select Indesign CS6 8.0.1

Whenever I try to select an object, it automatically shifts. Usually straight up, sometimes to top left. Im on a macbook pro retina, brand new, used less than 2 weeks. Same thing happens using a magic mouse, and also when using a wired mouse. Thanks in advance!!!!

I don't know what it means, but the crashed thread is making the same call: 511 com.adobe.InDesign.Print 0x17bf6703 GetPlugIn + 497427 more than 500 times. Are you exporting to PDF, or printing?

CS6 Workspaces Pixelated

I purchased my MacBook Pro with Retina Display in Dec 2012 as well as the Creative Suite 6 Design Standard. I noticed straight away how pixelated the entire workspace for InDesign and Bridge appeared (all menus, palettes, page graphics, fonts, everything!). I spoke with an Adobe Support Specialist over the phone and was told to download an the newest trial version of each program because it contained an update needed to fix this retina display compatibility issue. Nothing has worked and, a year and a half later, I'm still searching for a solution. As a professional graphic designer, this has been a huge source of frustration! Please help!

It should have been done as soon as retina first came out. Pitiful...
Why? Your blame is misplaced. "Retina" is Apple's doing.
Companies like Adobe make business decisions based on "business case." There's no business case in adapting a product you no longer make to Apple's latest scam. If history is any indicator, no doubt there will be another one right behind it. Why would any company allow another to dictate its product cycles? Making InDesign CC Retina-compliant was a major undertaking that required re-coding from the ground up. Why would any company go backwards and completely remake an out-of-production product?
What you want is tantamount to demanding that Honda dismantles and rebuilds your 2008 Accord so that your new 20-inch wheels will fit.
And since it's another automotive analogy...
Why is everything pixelated and blurry in CS6?

How do I make a pixel stay a pixel?

It surprises me that after several thousand hours of using InDesign, I still don't know how to place an object and know what InDesign is doing. Amazing, really.
Playing around with CS6, I thought I'd jump into the Digital Publishing mode and see what goes. I really thought a pixel would have been a pixel, but nothing's ever easy in InDesign. I'd like my placed images to come in pixel-for-pixel. As it is, they come in with this formula:
Pixel Width (CS6) = Pixel Width (Image) * 72 / (Image DPI)
So a 989 crop from a slide scanned at 4000 dpi, comes in as a microscopic dot on the CS6 page, with a width of 989 * 72/4000 pixels. At least CS6 does the maths correctly and states the width as 17.802. But I would like the width to be 989 (as shown in the "W" box up top).
I'm not fussed about whether one image-pixel actually maps to one screen-pixel (that's probably beyond CS6), just a simple: if an image comes in as 989 pixels wide, then CS6 knows it is working with a 989-width image, and displays it as a decent-sized image and not a spec of dust.
What boxes do I have to tick to achieve that (other than typing in "400000/72 %" in the % box).

You are approching it from the wrong way, even though you say yourself that
> [a]t least CS6 does the maths correctly ..
What would you like, then? That ID does NOT take DPI in consideration?
There is no "box to tick" to work in pixels. InDesign is designed to work with physical dimensions (since it's meant for print output, NOT screen -- pixel-based). "The" pixel as a measurement unit does not exist.
To work with pixels and live all of the side effects of that (such as that your image "dimension" will be different on different monitors), you need to work in a pixel-based program, such as Photoshop.

CS6 Background Flashing

Backgound keeps flashing and pixelating whenever I use CS6 (Brand new copy of CS6 and brand new sony laptop using windows 8). Very annoying! Somebody please tell me how to prevent this before I go insane.

Good day!
Does turning off »Use Graphics Processor« in the Performance Preferences and restarting Photoshop have any bearing on the issue?
Regards,
Pfaffenbichler

Pixel Preview doesn't match exported PNG

I use Illustrator CS4 for icon design, so Pixel Preview is a pretty important feature for me. Unfortunately, I just found out (the hard way) that Pixel Preview isn't accurate - it doesn't show you exactly what you'll get when you export a PNG via Save for Web and Devices.
Here's an example from my current project that shows the problem (enlarged 4x):
A screen snap from AI with Pixel Preview off:
A screen snap from AI with Pixel Preview on:
The exported PNG file:
Look at the center of the second image: See that dark gray line bleeding from the light gray circle into the black area? Now look at the third image: The line isn't there.
(Please don't fixate on this one example. Since I noticed the problem, I've found inconsistencies all over the place. This one was just the easiest to see.)
If I can't count on the absolute, pixel-for-pixel accuracy of Pixel Preview, then this feature becomes worse than useless in my work, because it actually misleads me into making small tweaks that make the final output look worse.
If anyone knows of a workaround (or a setting that turns on "accurate mode"), I'd love to hear about it.

I can't state this definitively, but the inconsistency seems to happen with gradient fills. (The light gray semicircle in the example in my original post has a gradient fill with a pretty abrupt transition from light to dark.) Maybe the issue is specific to gradients?

AE CS6 is really Slow!

Hi,
So I have downloaded the CS6 suite to test before I sign up for the Creative Cloud.
I am finding AE CS6 to be slower than CS5.5, when I scrub through the time time line in CS5.5 I get an update in a pixelated preview but in CS6 all i get is the bounding boxes of the layers moving and ocasionally a really really pizelated preview which is usless. Adobe bosted that this iteration of AE to be faster than the previous, but I can't see it. All I am animating is basic 2D text!!!
Do I have to set up my Quadro 4000 or should it just work?
Thanks

Hi there,
I didn't do the jump yet, still running my CS5.5 (since am in the progress of some works and can't really do it right now) but it's a matter of days. Before start reading anything related to CS6 performances I got the feeling that those wouldn't have been the same. Adobe says there will be improvements, regardless of the machine you got, keeping in mind that of course some features described as depending to CUDA acceleration in their white papers won't work under non-Nvidia cards. Ok, I can deal whit it, ray tracing stuff is good although not essential to me, dealing those kinda thiings with my 3D package. However, certainly I wanna know if the update is gonna bog down my system.
In my thoughts, I guess some considerations need to be taken in account about global cache performance. Surfing around on the web I found this comment on a Prolost article, which you can read here: http://prolost.com/blog/2012/5/24/ray-tracing-in-after-effects-cs6.html
The comment in reply to the article says:
"Ok, a little cautionary tale about a new feature in CS6 - be careful where you put the Global Cache folder.
Adobe suggest putting it on a separate drive to your system for speed, but it's also worth doing that for safety...
I spent the weekend working in AE CS6, and the noticed that disk cache is large. 50 Gb on average during the time I was working. In an earlier post I said that CS6 seemed a little more crash prone than previous versions, and that also the crashes were harder than most - the app just vanished at times in front of my eyes with no warning.
Last night the drive that I was using as my cache became very corrupt - to the point that it couldn't be fixed with disk utility or Disk Warrior, and I had no choice but reformat it completely.
Luckily the workstation I was using has 3 internal drives and I'd taken Adobe's advice an allocated a spare one to be the new GC - so it was frustrating but not too big a deal.
However the point is, I did this for speed - I didn't think about what happens if you're regularly reading and writing 50Gb of data in single comp and crashes happen.
If the GC was your on system drive, and that drive wasn't fully backed up, this would be very bad indeed - you be looking a complete re-install of the OS and applications.
Its worth noting I'm really liking the global cache feature - it's big improvement. I'm also definitely not pointing the finger at Adobe for my disk dying. My directories could have had some problems already which I just exposed by continually swapping so much data so quickly. This is not the most scientific test - I could have been causing the crashes by using a drive with errors...
A 50Gb disk cache of small separate files is a lot of balls in the air for the hard drive. If you get crashes some of that data may get corrupted - which in turn may make crashing more likely. Your disk will then get chewed up fairly quickly, and you may not notice this. I didn't.
Lesson to self: Global cache should be on a drive that really doesn't contain anything else of value - FOR SPPED AND SYSTEM SAFETY. This drive should maybe be reformatted and verified regularly, so that it functions as Adobe intend it to.
Because it will be doing a lot of hard work for you."
I think it's a great advise that maybe not everyone have been following yet, so, hope this will be useful for someone of you having your system running unpredictably slow (and unaware of the dangers).

Aperture 2.x and Nikon D3 Pixel Size issues

I've noticed that Aperture 2.x does not use the correct pixel size for Nikon D3 images: they are read by Aperture as 4272x2828 instead of 4256x2832 as they should be. Exported images are similarly incorrect. (This also creates an awkward aspect ration of 151:100).
After the problems with Aperture displaying D2x files shot in High-Speed Crop mode I find this really irritating. Is Aperture slightly blowing up the image in the longer dimension to gain these extra pixels? It makes me wonder if Aperture/Apple can't get the basics like the size of the picture right what else might be getting misread/mishandled behind the scenes.

ts, i know this issue has been discussed many times on this forum, however it still is a problem. it might not be an issue if all you use is the file created by aperture, however if you are retouching the same image (or a series of images) converted by different applications, this becomes a serious issue.
also, in several previous threads you find statements such as "there is more to a raw file than nx or photoshop displays". this is true and false. if aperture would render more sensor pixels than capture or photoshop, the "cropped" image out of photoshop or capture would exactly (pin accurate) match at least parts of the "oversized" export from aperture. this is not the case.
for me, this issue (even though often discussed) is still not solved and seams to apply to raw from various cameras, nikon and canon. in my case, it applies to nikon D200, D300 and D3.
every time i have to create layered illustrations, retouching work, layer different exposures in photoshop (anything that requires several instances of the same image rendered by different applications), i can't use aperture adjusted images. in some cases, creating two version in aperture (then export and overlay in photoshop) can do the trick, in other cases you would like to use the advantages of different applications (nx for ca, aperture for global adjustments, psd for lens correction etc etc).
i understand, this might be a minor issue (if at all) for most, however if your core business is image retouching, and you deal with thousands of images from various photographers, pixel accuracy can become a serious issue (feel free to call it a BFD if you like).

PIXEL BENDER FOR ELEMENTS 10

I DOWNLOADED THE PIXEL BENDER FROM THE ADOBE WEBSITE BUT FOR THE LIFE OF ME CAN NOT FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET IT TO WORK WITH ELEMENTS 10. PIXEL BENDER DOES NOT SHOW UP IN THE "FILTER" TAB LIKE IS SAY IN THE INSTRUCTIONS. PLEASE HELP THIS IS DRIVING ME INSANE.
THANKS FOR ANY AND ALL HELP
LINDA

Pixel Bender has been discontinued by Adobe
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2012/07/changes-to-pixel-bender-support-2.html
However, I understand that it only worked with Photoshop CS4 and Photoshop CS5.
There's no Pixel Bender for Photoshop CS6 nor any version of Photoshop Elements.
Which instructions are you reading? Got a link?

Guideguide and PS CS6 false gutter width

Hi
I create a new project with this setting
canvas size width 1060 pixels / height 2000 pixels
image size width 1060 pixels / height 2000 pixels
the i install guideguide and i set the value find in the attach upload psd to create a vertical guides refer to 960 grid .
i import 960 raster grid in background to be sure than the vertical guide are ok
But there is a problem when i want to verify that the width of all gutters is 20 px manually , when i use the rectangular marquee tool ( that stick to the vertical line guide ) photoshop show me for gutter G1 and G10 the value 21 pixels width !!! In a way photoshop marquee tool don't succeed to begin drawing the rect selection using the vertical line create by guigeguide for some gutters /column ? !!
the first and last column width is also set to 61 rather than 60 px !!!.
Does the error come from photoshop , guiguide or windows 8 64 bit ?
Is there a setting to take care to have not this problem ?
regard's
http://cameronmcefee.com/
it really a shame that only video and image is the only file extension supported by this forum
i think i miss something :!!!
http://www.lh-consultant.net/adobe/guiguide960grid.psd

my default setting in ps was when post
Edit ->preference -> General->option->Snap vector tools and transforms to pixel grid [enable|check]
A) i change after post this setting preference for Gridline display every 1px (& 1 subdivision)
I don't know if doing this is the way to go !!
B) i don't see in ps preference a label call "align to pixel grid" !!
any clue ?
C) when re open the psd file and zoom /de zoom the width value is ok !
very strange , in the past after try to "reverse " css to photoshop i find that pixel perfect is a myth !!
perhaps the problem that occur here ll help to set ps for pixel perfect design !!
regard's
http://blogs.adobe.com/jkost/2012/05/align-to-pixel-grid-in-photoshop-cs6.html
it is a shame to not be able to edit old post content but only the last one !!

Can I translate a layer in fractions of a pixel?

I'm using a script to iron out slight variations of camera position in a sequence of time-lapse images (the camera movement is caused by daily expansion and contraction of the timber wall that the DSLR is bolted onto). I've motion-tracked the sequence in another program and produced a file of the translations to be applied to each image, expressed as a number of pixels in X and Y, in floating point numbers.
The script reads the file into an array, reads in each image, applies the translation (and a number of other transformations such as cropping and scaling) and writes the image out again.
The script works fine, except that Photoshop rounds the translation to the nearest whole pixel before applying it, which is simply not accurate enough to give a stable sequence. I've tested this in a separate script using a test image, and hard-wiring the translation values directly into the function call, and confirmed that it only seems possible to move a raster layer in Photoshop in whole pixels, regardless of whether snap-to-pixel is disabled, and regardless of the zoom level.
The workaround is obviously to scale the image up each time - say 5 or 10 times - apply a scaled translation - and then scale it down again - but I thought I'd see if I was being stupid and missing something trivial first!
P.S I've tried Auto-align, but with limited success - with changing shadows and sunlight, and moving branches etc, it often gets confused.

Just in case anyone else with a similar problem stumbles on this thread, here's what transpired:
After deciding on the scale-up/scale-down method to get 0.2 pixel accuracy on translation, I needed to rotate the images by small amounts to line everything up. That's when I found that the 'rotate' function in Photoshop has a similar problem - it only seems to work to one decimal place (for a layer) or two (for the whole image). On a 3000-pixel-wide image the rounding errors produce a jitter in the animated sequence. Of course with rotation, upscaling and downscaling don't help - an angle is an angle whatever size the image is. So, back to the drawing board....
I finally solved the issue by avoiding Photoshop altogether for this particular exercise. I wrote my own program (in VB.NET) to process the images - the .NET environment provides matrix functions to shift images by amounts down to .0000001 of a pixel (or whatever the smallest 32-bit floating point number is!) and to rotate and scale with the same accuracy. There's no need to upscale & downscale, so the program works fast - less than a second per frame to load, shift, rotate, crop, resize, rotate 180, and save. The results are indistinguishable in quality from those produced by the Photoshop script, and the time-lapse sequence is now rock-steady. Hooray!

Pixel accuracy in AE CS6

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for