Preview Quality Setting--is low good enough?

I tried importing a set of images at different preview quality settings: 10 jpegs, 27MB total, 1440 pixels standard preview size. At low quality, standard previews took 1.8MB, adding 1:1 previews increased it to 7.6 MB. Medium quality was 2.9 and 12.8MB, while high was 6.2 and 30.2MB! Doing side-by-side comparisons on-screen, I can see absolutely no difference between low and high-quality previews, either standard or 1:1. Is there any reason not to use the low-quality setting and save a bunch of storage space?

Fred,
This is interesting.
For the standard preview, I definitely see a difference in quality between Low, Medium, and High... the High setting being the only acceptable one for me.
However, when I have Previews set to Low, and the standard preview looks terrible, once I render the 1:1 preview (keeping the Previews setting to Low), the image looks fine.
There could be two possible explanations:
1.) The 'Previews' setting of Low, Medium, & High *does not* apply to 1:1 previews.
--or--
2.) Since my image is a 20MP image (huge), even rendering a 'low-quality' 1:1 preview is all right, because by the time you zoom out to fit-to-screen, the resizing/downsampling makes the preview look acceptable.
Anyone care to chime in on which of the above 2 scenarios is more likely? Or if there is a 3rd that I am missing?
Thanks,
Rishi

Similar Messages

Need to know how to perm. put quality setting to low for flashplayer

hi everyone first of all im not tech savy.
so if its obvious please dont be harsh about it.The problem
is I just cant find a way to put the quality settings permanently
to low. Everytime im on the internet the settings are always
automatically on high for every banner ad and even games.
It eats up alot of my download limit (which is only 2gig per
month)
can someone please help me with this problem, as i would like
to permanently put the settings to low, and not have to change it
manually everytime i go to a new page.
Thanks in advance

I've been posting with the same or similar question.
Since Adobe seems to be ignoring it, my solution is to
use Firefox and the Flashblock plugin.
It gives you full control over which Flash object gets
loaded.

Library. Image Preview Quality & weird behaviour.

Hi. I'll try to explain this the best I can.
I never noticed this with Lightroom 2.4 ... I don't know if this has always happend but went unnoticed or is just happening after Lightroom 3 was installed.
You browse the library, the thumbnails, as usual and the first time you click a thumbnail you get a full screen preview, wich quality I suppose is controlled by the 'standard preview quality' setting.
Once in full screen, click and you get the 1:1 preview (or any other zoom factor, but I chose 1:1). This one is generated previously or as needed.
I have the standard preview setting at maximum size, maximum quality.
When I click on a thumbnail to open the full screen preview I get this preview (just cropped and zoomed part to explain what I'm seeing) :
Notice the jagged lines everywhere ? It's noticiable at normal full screen as somewhat deformed noses, eyes, etc. Here I enlarged it to make it even more evident.
Well ... then I click to get 1:1 zoom, wich prompts lightroom to generate a 1:1 preview. Once done, I click back to the normal full screen preview. Now, this is the image I see :
See the change ? Now is softer, there's no jagged lines. No deformed eyes, just a good an clean image.
Well ... If I close the full screen preview and then I open it again, the image I get is not this second softer version already generated by lightroom after the 1:1 preview ... no, I get the first picture again, the jagged one.
Even more, If when I'm in thumbnails mode I click an image to get the full screen preview, and then browse the next images in this full screen mode... every image is jagged like this ... BUT, If I first click to enter the 1:1 preview and click back to standard preview ... then ALL the remaining images show the softer version, not the jagged one.
This only happens in library module, not in the develop module.
Was this behaviour always present ? Is this a bug ? Is it by design ?
(I hope I've explained it well enough, it's confusing and english, as you might have noticed by now is not my best language.)
Any question, help or comment is appreciated.

I know and hate this bug since version 1.0. It's still there in LR3. And I taught myself how to avoid it.
You run into this bug when you switch from Grid to Loupe and back by double-clicking the mouse. To avoid it, you should either:
Use the keyboard shortcuts instead of mouse (Enter, Esc and Z);
or, in Loupe mode, to switch to Grid, double-click the gray area around the photograph instead of actual image area.
Steps to reproduce the bug:
Scenario 1:
1. Go to grid view.
2. Double-click a thumbnail to go to Loupe Fit.
    The image is smooth.
3. Double-click on image (not gray area) to go back to Grid.
4. Double-click a thumbnail to go to Loupe Fit again.
    The image is jagged.
5. Zoom to 1:1 and back to Fit.
    The image is smooth.
Scenario 2:
1. Go to grid view.
2. Double-click a thumbnail to go to Loupe Fit.
    The image is smooth.
3. Double-click on gray area surrounding the image (not the actual image area) to go back to Grid.
4. Double-clcik a thumbnail to go to Loupe Fit again.
    The image is smooth.
5. Zoom to 1:1 and back to Fit.
    The image is smooth.

Standard Preview Size/Preview Quality

This may be a silly question, but in Library mode, under Edit>Catalogue Settings>File Handling, you have options under Preview Cache for 'Standard Preview Size' (1024/1440/1680/2048/2880 pixels) and Preview Quality (High/Medium/Low)... but what do these settings actually do; I've tried changing them & not noticed and difference??

Les_Cornwell wrote:
Thanks again Rob
You bet .
Les_Cornwell wrote:
I've tried all the different size options, namely 1024 through to 2880 & low/Medium/high and none make any obvious difference at all.
So are previews only created as required when you view a picture in full screen mode or does LR create a preview for all your files?
Every image you look at in Library module comes from the (library) previews, there are up to 8 possible jpegs:
* a tiny thumbnail in root-pixels.db
* up to 7 jpegs ranging from small to 1:1 in the "preview pyramid" (each smaller is half the dimensions of it's bigger sibling).
Try this with a 10 photo test catalog:
If you have a big monitor and set standard preview size to 1024, then (with Lr closed) delete all previews, then restart Lr and wait for all the "..." indicators to be extinguished (indicating standard previews have been built), then step from photo to photo in loupe view with all panels collapsed (loupe view "real-estate" maximized), you should see "loading" indicator, since it needs a bigger preview than you've got built. What it will do then is build 1:1 previews and all the smaller ones along with it, which is suboptimal from a performance point of view. If you try and zoom in to 1:1 after the "loading", there will be no additional loading, since 1:1 previews were already built.
Then, repeat the test with preview size at max - no loading indicators, right? (when stepping in loupe view after standard previews have finished being built, I mean). Except now if you try to zoom in there will be "loading", since 1:1 preview were not required to display the loupe view, they will need to be built for the zoomed (1:1) view.
The only difference between big enough and too big will be an ever-so-slightly greater lag when stepping in the loupe view and no 1:1 preview exists (when preview is too big I mean), since it's loading a bigger standard preview than is actually needed. Reminder: if preview is not big enough, there will be an ever-so-slightly bigger lag when stepping in loupe view too (e.g. vs. just big enough), since it's using the 1:1 preview instead of standard (which wasn't big enough). So, tester beware... (somewhat counter-intuitively, in some cases, it will be faster loading a preview when settings are, in general, too big, because it can get away with loading the next size down, which is an even better fit, e.g. if image is cropped just so - all of these little nuances make it especially tricky to test & evaluate, so consider doing initial tests using uniform-size uncropped images, to reduce the number of variables - it's confusing enough as it is ;-}).
Note: as previously mentioned, there is considerable complexity (and bugs) in the preview system, and I may not have described it perfectly, so it wouldn't surprise me if your results were not exactly like that, but I just went and retested on my system, and what happened is exactly as I described above (win7/64), as I read it anyway...
Regarding quality, you should see difference in some photos not others, but ONLY if it didn't resort to the 1:1 preview which may be higher quality than the standard and is independent of the standard quality setting. (I think somebody may have stated that you'd need to zoom in to see differences in standard preview quality settings, but that is wrong - the only way to see differences in standard preview quality settings is if you are in fact viewing standard previews, which you aren't when zoomed in to 1:1, and anyway it can be ellusive - see paragraphs above...).
PS - If you want to compare jpeg quality of standard previews, one way is to export them using PreviewExporter. Again, it's tricky, since you need to assure you aren't exporting a scaled down version of the 1:1 instead of a true standard preview. After exporting you can compare outside Lightroom, so you don't have the "preview of a preview" issue going... I use Beyond Compare by Scooter Software for doing objective comparison of like-sized jpegs, but you can compare subjectively using any ol' viewer, e.g. as built into OS.
Too much?
UPDATE:
Les_Cornwell wrote:
does LR create a preview for all your files?
No - they are created on an as-needed basis (thus the reason we hear many complaints about how stale or non-existent previews should be built in the background, to minimize "loading" in library module, e.g. after making dev changes to a large bunch), but note: standard previews may be considered "needed" when thumbnail is in view in grid or filmstrip (but not considered needed if thumbnail is off-screen, even if existing in filmstrip and/or grid).
R
Message was UPDATED by: Rob Cole

'Maximum' Quality Setting for Previews

Dear Adobe,
Aside from 'Low', 'Medium', and 'High' settings for standard-size previews, please add a 'Maximum' quality setting (equivalent to 10-12 quality setting for JPEGs in Photoshop).
As standard previews are generated for imported images or for new edits on images already in Lightroom, sometimes low quality JPEG previews are generated. These previews exhibit color banding & macroblocking artifacts typical of JPEG files (especially in dark areas). Since these previews are used in the Library, Slideshow, Print, and Web modules, it's pretty darn annoying & distracting to stare at low-quality renditions of our images. Switch to Develop module, and a fresh new image is rendered on screen; therefore, these JPEG preview artifacts are not visible in the 'Develop' module.
Two fixes to this problem:
1.) Add a 'Maximum' quality setting for previews that Lightroom generates
2.) Fix it the Aperture, Bridge, iPhoto, 'every-other-software', and your own 'Develop' module way: display the precached preview first, while rending a fresh view of the image in the background... display that when it's ready.
Here's a forum where I've discussed this previously:
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.3bc33a73
Here are examples of the low-quality previews generated by Lightroom (when 1680 'High' setting is used for previews):
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/iWeb/Homepage/Macroblocking.jpg
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/iWeb/Homepage/Library.jpg
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/iWeb/Homepage/Library_vs_Develop.jpg
And if you are using a well calibrated monitor, then look at the macroblocking in the black wool coat in this image (please use a color managed viewer, else the coat will just look black and you won't see the blocking):
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/iWeb/Homepage/Lightroom_JPEGblocking.jpg
We photographers have discerning eyes. It's painful to see this terrible renditions of our precious images... and to have to switch over to the 'Develop' module *just* to get a high-quality rendition of our image? And meanwhile watch slideshows with low-quality versions (previews) of our images?
Sounds pretty unacceptable to me.

So, I'm pretty much convinced now that the problem with low-quality LR previews seems to be mostly isolated to the previews that LR generates after you make edits in the 'Develop' module.
Upon first import, this image looked fine in the 'Library' & 'Slideshow' modules. After making some edits (color, tone, etc.) in the 'Develop' module, I ended up getting this hideous preview in the 'Library' & 'Slideshow' modules:
http://web.mac.com/rishisanyal/Lightroom/07-0310_BandingBlocking.jpg
You people with LCDs will be able to see the JPEG artifacts better than those with CRTs, since LCDs tend to be sharper.
So, the obvious question is this:
Does LR, when *re-generating* previews for edited images, ignore the quality-setting for JPEG previews (which I have set to 'high')??

Exporting photos from Lightroom that are good enough quality for a photography website.

I am doing a website for a photographer client that need to showcase their images in a rotating gallery that will be about 1/2 the page so pretty big. She gave me all the photos in FULL size which meant that they were excellent quality and looked amazing on my computer at home as I have fast internet and they all loaded up in seconds. Only problem, when I tried it on a different internet source that wasn’t as speedy, they took so long to load that the next one would start, hence no images ever being visible. This is not good as not everyone will have as fast internet as me and it’s pointless if no one can see her work.
She then exported them for web, using the normal settings that she usually would, leaving them around 200-600KB which loads up nice and quickly, but the quality just don’t do the photo’s justice AT ALL!
I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions of the setting to use to export them from lightroom so that the quality is still next to perfect, but they are small enough so that they load up in a reasonable time on the web.
Each photo displays for 5 full seconds before alternating.
Thank you in advance and if you have any further suggestions, I would love to hear them.

You need to use export settings similar to this:
Quality setting should be at least 60, but you can sometimes get away with less. (smaller file size)
But if you need to export a lot of images, do them all at 60, and re-export as necessary. If you for instance see blockiness in a clear blue sky, increase quality until it goes away.
Color space must be set to sRGB.
Set the required size in pixels, using Long edge is quite convenient. Whatever you enter in the resolution box doesn't matter - web browser ignore ppi.
Experiment with Screen sharpening to find the setting that works best. Standard usually works OK, but it depends on the sharpness of the original.
Set Metadata to Copyright Only, this keeps file size down.

After creating a new slideshow I export it with the setting HD 1080p it is then saved as a .mov i then create a dvd in idvd and the quality is not as good as the original photo's when viewed on the monitor or a TV, am i doing something wrong?

After creating a new slideshow I export it with the setting HD 1080p it is then saved as a .mov i then create a dvd in idvd and the quality is not as good as the original photo's when viewed on the monitor or a TV, am i doing something wrong?

DVD's are only 640 x 480 (interlaced), so yes, the quality is not nearly as good. You should probably create your .mov in DV format to best match the DVD format

Questions on preview quality and where Aperture uses them

I have been reading Apple's Aperture articles about preview quality and how Aperture shares images with the outside world. I had always assumed that the full quality image in Aperture was used for printing, exporting and sharing, but it seems that, at least for sharing, it is the preview that Aperture creates that is shared.
I have just increased the quality of the previews that Aperture generates from 5 to 9 and forced Aperture to re-render all previews. It seems to me that the images on screen and in slide shows and other iLife documents, are now much clearer and brighter (the downside of this is that my Aperture library file has grown by 4 gigabytes).
This leads me to ask four questions about Aperture and preview use (if I may?).
Is a jpeg on a high setting (9) visibly better than one on a medium setting (5), or am I being led to see what I expect to see?
Apart from editing, slideshows and iLife and iWork documents, in what situations does Aperture use previews where high or low quality might make a difference?
Does Aperture use previews to compile photo books? If so, does the quality of the preview affect the quality of the final printed book?
Is it possible to set Aperture to produce high quality previews for images above a certain star rating and low quality previews for the rest?
Thanks for any answers you may have.
Alasdair

Previews are used within Aperture to quickly show an image in the main viewer before the master has been fully loaded, they are also used to see the referenced masters even if the external location is not available at that moment (not adjustments can be done then, but at least you can see the image)
Previews are used outside Aperture to share the images with adjustments without exporting every image. It comes in handy that you can drag an image from Aperture's browser to another app or the desktop (what you get there is the preview). iMovie or other iApps use previews, the bigger size and quality the better quality you'll get.
Once you set up the size and quality of the previews in Aperture's Preferences the previews are created with those settings. I guess you could lower the settings, in the browser select the images you don't need big previews, ctrl+click and 'update preview' to force create low res previews for those. After that you can put the settings back. But if you do any change to those images the previews will be updated. Certainly I don't see the point of having different previews, do some test find the settings that work best for you and keep it like that.
Turn automatic previews off and create manually the previews you need, I have a smart album with images rated 3 or more stars and I use it to select and create previews manually to those images.

Is my laptop good enough for adobe premiere cs6?

I wish to learn video editing, especially adobe premiere. I have copy of cs6 and noticed that my graphic card does not appear in the Adobe list so wanted to know what you think about my laptop before considering if I have to buy another one. My dell laptop is a core i7, 8gb ram. 2.5ghz with Intel hd 4000 graphic card.
Does this suffice for pro stuff? Is this good enough to learn to professional level or should I deep in to my savings and spend cash to buy a new lap top.
Thanks

Premier Pro is a professional level program with serious ability to handle pro levels of work, including handling many advanced video codecs.   As Bill has mentioned, simpler codecs like AVCHD at 1080P CAN be handled on a newer I7 laptop with a few upgrades...OTHER , more demanding codecs at higher resolutions may require more "horsepower" and hardware, usually found in a desktop computer. So, much depends on the TYPE of material you are planning to edit and the COMPLEXITY of your timelines and workflow...how many layers, how many effects , etc. There is much to learn, before buying any hardware, right here on this forum and over at the PPBM7 website. Other sites can confuse newbies with bad and erroneous information. Contributors here like Eric Bowen and Bill Gehrke have provided very valuable and correct information regarding appropriate hardware for PPro. You can learn a LOT by reading the results they have posted in testing various hardware configurations with PPro.
    Bill and I both have had success using a newer gaming laptop from Asus for editing 1080p material....the G750JW. That model is a little older now,but, well worth it at the time I bought it last summer refurbished for $850, ( normally $1,300). I had to add system memory...the original 8GB was FAR too little....up to 24GB, which works well. The laptop has 2 internal hard drive bays....which is important. I placed a Crucial M500 SATA III SSD in each bay to provide good performance. The original single drive that was supplied was USELESS....it was a slow 5400rpm HDD not capable of use for video editing...you MUST have at least two separate drives at a minimum to run PPro....OS,programs and Windows page file on one drive only....all the rest, ( video files ,media, previews , and cache files), on the second drive. Even 7200rpm HDDs have trouble keeping up with the demand of multi-track editing....SSDs provide WAY better performance and are worth the price difference., if you can afford it.
     If you MUST use a laptop and cannot consider a desktop, consider the following :
1. The current version of Adobe CC 2014 PPro is FAR better in performance while editing...MANY important updates have been made....CS 6 is getting a little old, and out of date...better to use the current version for MANY reasons.
2. The laptop will ALWAYS need to be plugged in while editing...PPro will be throttled if you try and use it on battery, no matter HOW you set the power options.
3. A good starting point for a laptop would be to get at LEAST what Bill and I have,or, BETTER.   That means a Windows machine, running Windows 8.1, having an Intel 4700HQ i7 CPU, or, better. System memory, ( including your own upgrade , if necessary) of at least 24 GB....preferably 32GB. An NVidia discreet graphics card, ( NO AMD ), the 765M, or, better. Drive system....this is IMPORTANT....this is the one area where many users have a "bottleneck". Your "C" drive should be a fast SATA III SSD with the correct controller and type of flash memory for handling video. Only the Crucial M550,or, the Samsung Pro series are recommended....the Crucial is cheaper and only slightly behind in performance. Either one BLOWS AWAY a conventional HDD.....transferring data read and write at almost 600MB/sec. vs. 130MB/sec. using the best HDD. Your second internal drive should be ANOTHER of the recommended SSDs. You COULD use a larger capacity 7200rpm HDD,but, its slow performance can slow things way down. This means having a high speed external port is also valuable...Thunderbolt is better than USB 3, in that regard. External drives can be used to backup your "D" drive and other tasks. Finally, a 1080p screen is a MUST to see the whole user interface of PPro....17.3" is better than the smaller displays, which are hard to see. You can ALWAYS hook up an external display, like I do, to GREATLY improve the editing experience .
I hope all this helps !!!...good luck !!!

Recently bought pro retina 15" with a super drive. But when I played a dvd the quality wasn't very good, any suggestions?

Recently bought pro retina 15" with a super drive. But when I played a dvd the quality wasn't very good, any suggestions?

There is a good chance that the DVD is OK and the machine is OK since a DVD's resolution is set for a television and not for a computer with a resolution 4 times that of the tele (at least).
What are you using to play DVD?
What is the DVD and what does it say on the cover about resolution or aspect ratio?
Just because you have a retina Mac doesn't mean you will get an excellent picture from low resolution media, if you are using DVD player use the menu option for 'Actual Size' this will play it at the resolution for the DVD, any larger then it will start to pixelate.

Is Pages Good Enough For Professional Printing?

I'm looking to do an Large Format Brochure (11" x 17") single fold and I've been using Pages for the mock up and layout. I was thinking that I would need someone to recreate the design in Quark, or Pagemaker, but now I'm wondering if I can do it all in Pages.
The printer that I plan on using is PSPrint (http://www.psprint.com/) and according to their offset printing specs and template, I just have to provide them with a 300dpi PDF. From what I've tested, exporting to PDF with quality set at "Best" I get a 300dpi file.
I haven't tested my output with photographs yet since we haven't purchased the final images and are using comps, but am I wrong in thinking that Pages is good enough for this project?
Template: http://www.psprint.com/DOWNLOAD/templates/brochures/brochurehalffold_11x17front.pdf
Thanks in advance!

There is no way to save out of Pages to pdf without flattening the transparency.
Proposition: In any save path, transparency is flattened in saving.
Test of proposition: Apple Pages '08 and Apple Mac OS X 10.4.11 as platform.
1. Launch system software and application software.
2. Insert first composition frame, select Apple Hoefler antiqua at 24 US pt, enter 'Type', leave default colour, leave default opacity.
3. Insert second composition frame, select Apple Hoefler antiqua at 24 US pt, enter 'Transparency', change default colour to rubrication red, change opacity to 50%.
4. Select e.g. File > Print > PDF > Save as PDF, name file 'Test', and select folder.
5. Launch Acrobat Professional 6 (first version with ISO 15930 PDF/X-3 verification), check the PDF version (: 1.4), check at high magnification (: no rasterisation), check that the source character string can be synthesised (: it can).
As posted previously, if transparency is applied, PDF 1.4 is automatically configured unless the path is ISO 15930 PDF/X-3 that does not support transparency (PDF 1.3 has an opaque imaging model, not a transparency imaging model). This is a simplistic test, but it is nonetheless a test.
Because Apple Quartz has applied transparency since 2000, and because there the matrix of system versions and application versions is somewhat monstrous, the notion of testing is somewhat notional .
/hh

I am trying to download lion with the thumb drive how do i back up my files is time machine good enough or must i transfer everything to my hard drive

I am trying to download lion with the thumb drive how do i back up my files is time machine good enough or must i transfer everything to my hard drive

A erase of the drive or boot partition is not always necessary.
Flashing question mark at boot could be a easy fix, sometimes it's the firmware that simply forgot what bootable volume to boot from.
Try holding the Option key down while booting the machine, a choice of bootable options appears, select your OS X and boot up.
When you get in, head to System Preferences > Startup disk and set it again new. This will tell the firmware what to boot from. Test it to see.
Now if you don't have a selection of bootable options, it could be that the drive is dead, or OS X is erased or corrupted so it can't boot.
You'll have to run through this list of fixes to see what's going on, if you need a hardware fix or what, I've also included links if you can't fix it and need to recover your data etc.
(If it's not remmebering your boot selection then also run through the list to reset things.)
Step by Step to fix your Mac

How to edit and make a high quality swf a low quality one

How to edit and make a high quality swf a low quality one. how do you do this in adobe flash cs5? The file i edited is entirely too large

click file/publish settings/html and use the quality settings dropdown.
if that doesn't lead to satisfactory file size, you may need to check the properties of each bitmap in the library to see if it's set to over-ride the global settings.

Creating Pdf in Photoshop CS6 - blurry at maximum quality setting

Hi,
I just tried to create Pdf.
I used high quality jpegs and chose a 100% quality setting and at 300 dpi.
I also chose the same pixel dimensions as the original documents.
But the outcome is blurry - as if the original had been highly compressed. The sum of the sizes of all files is about 40% larger than the final pdf file.
How can I get rid of this compression and create a pdf document whose pages are as sharp and high quality as the original?

> pdf inflated the orginal file size by the factor 10
I should have warned you about that, Uncheck "Preserve Photoshop editing capabilities"
this extra step should look pretty good and make the doc even smaller:
Do not Downsample
Compression: JPG
Image Quality: High or Max

Is the MacBook Pro 13 inch good enough?

Is the non retina MacBook Pro 13 core i5 with 4g of ram good enough for nonprofessional video editing making apps surfing the web watching videos ? Or can I get a MacBook Air 13 inch ? is these two good enough for what I want ? And what is the difference between them and the MacBook Pro 13 inch core i7 with 8g of ram ? Is it a big difference between them ? Which one of these three you advice me to go with ?

That will work fine. I would eventually stick 8G of RAM in it though. I have 8G in mine and have run low and started paging out already. Safari and Flash are big RAM hogs.
17" 2.2GHz i7 Quad-Core MacBook Pro  8G RAM  750G HD + OCZ Vertex 3 SSD Boot HD 
Got problems with your Apple iDevice-like iPhone, iPad or iPod touch? Try Troubleshooting 101

Preview Quality Setting--is low good enough?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for