Preview quality

Hi,
Why the quality of view is so bad when opening pdf files with Preview in OS X Yosemite?

I can't comment on 720x480 pictures. But i just finished a video with at least 75 Jpegs 2272x1514 imported from iphoto.
The comments made when i showed the video were that it was impossible to distinguish the pictures from the video excepted that the pitures did not show any motion. (i disabled the ken burns effect this time because the video would have been zooming in every 5 seconds).
Keep in mind that if you are using a crt, your picture will always be a little darker and a little fuzzier than what will show on your finished video. I am not sure but i think LCD displays will give a closer match to what you will see during your show.

Similar Messages

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Preview Quality of Path Edges

    Is there a way I can improve the preview quality of path edges? From what I can tell, Illustrator is showing me underlying layers, even when it shouldn't.
    For instance, take the following simple drawing:
    Top Layer: Black Fill Square
    Middle Layer: Yellow Fill Square
    BACKGROUND: Black
    If the two squares are exactly the same size and have exactly the same X and Y coordinates, and I zoom out to 100%, I can see the edge of the yellow squares. I spend a great deal of time trying to zoom way in to make sure everything is as pixel perfect as can be (Ok, I know they are vectors). It doesn't matter which preview mode I am in.
    If it matters, my screen resolution is WUXGA (1920x1200) on Windows 7.

    That's what I figured since everything prints fine and if I zoom WAY in, it looks OK, but I was hoping there was a fix.

  • 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

  • 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

  • TS1424 i downloaded a song and it shows the time length all to be correct but while playing the song will only play for about 30 seconds then skip to the next song in my list (all lists) - in short i payed for a song that is only of a preview quality

    i downloaded a song and it shows the time length all to be correct but while playing the song will only play for about 30 seconds then skip to the next song in my list (all lists) - in short i payed for a song that is only of a preview quality
    Either this needs to get fixed or i will request my money back because i will not work for my money while other lie about what i spend it on.

    Try deleting the problematic tune (electing to remove original file if/when prompted) and then re-downloading the file from the iTunes store.
    You can re-download content purchased from the iTunes store (availability varies depending on location) using the purchased option from the Quick Links section in the top right corner of the iTunes homepage in your iTunes application on your computer.
    You can re-download content purchased from the iTunes store (availability varies depending on location) using the purchased option at the bottom of the screen of the iTunes app (or video app on your iOS device.
    If the problem re-occurs, select the content which is causing a problem and use the 'Report a problem' button in Your Purchase History using your computer.

  • Full-screen (spacebar) preview quality testing

    [For background story, please read http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1056763 but be warned, it's very l-o-n-g!]
    In brief: some people have noted that Bridge full-screen (spacebar) previews (FSPs) don't accurately reflect the sharpness of a photograph. Sometimes this can be explained by individual configuration problems, but it's clear that this is a common issue amongst people using Bridge to assess/score photograph sharpness, without having to build/examine 100% previews for every image.
    [It's worth noting that one common reason why FSPs aren't very sharp is because the Bridge advanced preference "Generate Monitor-Size Previews" hasn't been ticked, as this produces a higher resolution image cache.  Another cause of very fuzzy previews is random and unexplained, but can usually be solved by restarting Bridge and/or clearing the cache for the selection.]
    This discussion concerns the lack of sharpness seen only in FSPs.  It can be described as "a subtle but significant loss of detail and sharpness, similar to a slightly out of focus photograph"; imagine a photo with a little bit of blur filter, or a Photoshop PSD at a non-standard zoom setting.  This "softening" of the image is caused by Bridge asking the graphics processor to resize the image cache to fit the display.  If you select the Bridge advanced preference "Use Software Rendering", you can improve a poor FSP slightly, at the expense of speed, by bypassing the graphics processor.
    The test
    Visit this web page and download the last image ("2362x3543 pixel, 4.5 Mb") to your computer.
    Browse to this image in Bridge, and view it full-screen by pressing Spacebar.  Take a screen capture, and save it as a TIFF or PSD.
    Adjust your slideshow settings (Ctrl/Cmd-Shift-L), picking "Scaled to Fill", then click on "Play".  Save the screen capture, as above.
    You now have two screen captures: one FSP, and one cache JPEG reference shot.  Examine them side by side at 100%, or layer them in Photoshop and use the hide layer button to flick between images.  Pay particular attention to the two left-hand photos, the sharpness check text, and the converging lines.
    Make a note of your computer's operating system, graphics processor and driver version, as well as your largest display's pixel dimensions.
    Post this information below, together with high quality (10) JPEGs of both screen captures, labelled FSP and REF, and any observations, so we can all see.

    OK, it usually takes me a while to let the penny drop, especially when it comes to maths...
    I also am busy with the transition of my new Mac pro but with al this here are my results. I include several screenshots but due to upload limit of 2 MB per image in here I downsized the original screenshots a lot, but hopefully it will be clear.
    For full screen screenshots I have the asked FSP and REF but also the 100% preview in Bridge with space bar and click. Don't know what your file size is but using EOS 1Dx with 18 MP CR2 files (converted to DNG) it does take me about 1,5 - 2 seconds for both loupe and FSP to build a 100 % preview, and I seem to recall this was not very different behavior on my previous (6 year old) Mac Pro.
    You are right (of course... :-) ) regarding the difference between FSP and REF, when studying closely there is a significant detail difference between the FSP and the REF. However, only the 100 % preview matches the original jpeg. The FSP file is on closer look not so good with details but the REF file is only slightly better, both are not correct and therefor the 100 % is still needed.
    Here is the FSP screenshot:
    and here the REF screenshot:
    also the 100 % preview in full screen screenshot:
    and finally a composed file with details from original, 100 % REF and FSP:
    As said before, at first sight I can't spot significant difference between all options and the full screen (as the preview panel HQ preview) let's me spot the vast majority of unsharpness issues, hence my multiple rounds of sorting and incases of doubt the 100 % option.
    So while your theory is correct I'm afraid I  (still) doubt the usefulness of this all. If neither the FSP and the REF (although the latter does show a bit better result) can match the results of the original but the 100 % does it well I don't see an easy solution for improvement.
    I agree with the quality from the screenshots Curt provided, but Curt also uses the embedded thumbnail instead of HQ preview option. Depending on his needs and hard ware availability it would be nice to see new results with the HQ and monitor sized previews options enabled.
    regards
    Omke

  • Why is the preview-quality of my fotos different (worse) in the timeline compared to the original image?

    After importing fotos and videos into an new project for a film the quality of the original image in the preview of the timeline is terrible. When double-clicking in the picture however, the quality of the image is fine. This makes it impossible to use any effects (color, saturation, contrast) on the picture - as it doesn`t actually look like that...is there anything I can do?
    I`m attaching a screenshot of the image in timeline and the original.
    Thanks!
    Maike

    Hi A.T.,
    Thanks for the quick reply. Please see my answers below:
    I`m using a 15 " Macbook Pro with Retina and Adobe Elements Version 13.1 - German Version. I do not know, what eLive is - sorry.
    My video card/graphics card is absolutely up to date - the Macbook I`m using is only a year old.
    The original images are .jpeg.
    Dimensions: 4000 x 3000 px.
    To some of the pictures I have applied effects with Snapseed (App) or iPhoto-Editor. But not to all of them - and I do have this washed-out-effect on those as well.
    In Elements Organizer the thumbnails and the pictures are absolutely OK.
    I did try to correct the colours in Premiere Elements Editor with the color correction tools when I first discovered the washed-out-effect - but this is of course totally useless, as actually the original picture is OK - so I got back to the original.
    I did not consciously use any manual presets to match the properties of the source media. Or at least not as far as I remember. I did import the original fotos into the organizer, used the "video story" presets to arrange the pictures and then proceeded to the timeline where I first noticed the strange effect.
    I hope you can tackle the issue better with these questions answered?
    Thanks,
    Maike

  • Bridge Preview quality is not sharp and is blurred compared to PSE win

    I've been using a Mac for a couple of years but to date have been running PSE 4 on Windows but I migrated this to my Mac so have been running under VMWare Fusion.  This has been working great and allowed me to get up to speed with Macs gradually.
    Now that PSE 8 for Mac is out, I thought I'd give this a try and bite the bullet and swap over to running PSE on the Mac. So now I see that I need to use Adobe Bridge CS4 to manage my photos, keywords, collections etc, as see that there's no 'catalog' in the Bridge - no big deal.
    Previously I use 'PSE 4 Win' to run a full screen slide show and sometimes connect my Mac to my plasma TV via PC VGA connector.  I was always amazed at the quality of the photos on both Mac full screen and TV.
    Now I getting to know Bridge slowly and love the PSE 8 for Mac, however the Full Screen Preview (or Slideshow) quality initially looks acceptable but on closer inspection and directly comparing the rendering in 'PSE4 Win' with 'Bridge MAC' the latter is more blurred on the edges and the colors look more natural in the PSE4 Win.
    I have tried right clicking the photo and 'Purge cache for selection' and looked through Preferences and did try enabling software rendering, and re-started but no difference.  So now I love the new software but can't ignore the poor quality rendering.  PSE8 on the Mac the quality looks better than Brdige (although colors still not that natural), AFAIK know PSE8 Mac can't be used as a full screen slideshow (I can't even find a full screen option)
    I running a MacBook Pro new Aluminium for Nov 2008. So just to restate both apps are Mac and Windows are running on same Macbook.
    I have attached screen grabs from both (look at the edges of grass where it meets water)  - these are at fit to screen resolution (which is what I'd use for a slideshow or full screen peview).
    The photo is a JPEG 4.03 MB, 3840 x 2160 , res 72 ppi,  application: Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0.

    Thanks for the reply, setting 'monitor size previews' has helped a great deal with the sharpness (surprised this isn't the default!)
    Colours are still a little different - difficult to tell which is most realistic.
    I have attached a new full screen preview.
    As an aside, in desparation I did try out some of photo viewing software on Mac platform in comparison.  Adobe Lightroom 2, Aperture, and Picasa all render fairly simarily, however XNView renders very close to PSE4 on Windows platform - in terms of sharpness and colours.  I quite like the Bridge interface so I think, I'll stick with Bridge.

  • Full-screen preview quality is poor?

    Hello -
    I'm importing a VCR tape using an ADVC300 so I've got about the best quality import I could have into iMovie 09. But, when I preview full screen, it looks pretty horrible. Is the preview set to a lower quality than the DV file is if I'm exporting to DVD?
    Thanks -
    Alexa

    Hello -
    I'm importing a VCR tape using an ADVC300 so I've got about the best quality import I could have into iMovie 09. But, when I preview full screen, it looks pretty horrible. Is the preview set to a lower quality than the DV file is if I'm exporting to DVD?
    Thanks -
    Alexa

  • PDF Preview quality is horrible for iPhoto book!

    I created an 82 page iphoto book with several photos and some text and when I preview the order in PDF the quality is distored in various ways every time I try it! I even did a software update and reconfigured iphoto! And the problem then is that this PDF quality is what is meant to be your final product once it is ordered!

    Boot into Safe Mode and try again.
    Regards
    TD

  • After repairing my Library, photos are in "Preview" quality on my iPhone

    I have some crash of iPhoto since the 9.3...
    I repair the rights, the preview pictures and all other options of my library... and now it's better.
    But now when I make a synchro with iTunes... all my photos on the iPhone4S are in very low quality (like the preview picture I think).
    On the iPad, it's good I have no problem.

    I try to remove the iPod Photo Cache...
    The old makes more than 20Gb... and now only 40 Mb :/
    The .ithmb have a size of 0 byte.

  • Adjustments affecting playback preview quality?

    Hi,
    I'm probably doing soemthing wrong again.
    My video preview plays fine until I add any kind of adjustments to a clip, even as simple a vibrancy adjustmment. After I render then the preview gets very degraded and blocky.
    i just undid all of my adjustments to my movie and re-rendred and instead of it being a green line through every clip, half have no line. The ones with no line playpback fine, but the ones with green lines playback bad quality.
    Of course if I ad an adjustment to the clips that look fine,adn render, they get bad again.
    I know this only afects the preview (atleast i think it is, the output looks ok) but its  abit diffcult working with video and trying to make proper adjustments when its difficult to see what you are doing because the quality turns to mush.
    Still learning PE11, and i need to get this little project done in the next 2 weeks or so.
    I tried searching about this bit can't seem to find an answer
    Thanks
    Jim

    Yes its still doing it with a photo
    I loaded this into the same AVCHD 60 project...
    (photo shot with Canon 5D Mark III)
    Added vibrancy and some brightness, rendered and it changes it to this...
    There is a MUCH bigger drop off in quality however with the video than this...... but as you can see its still doing it.
    And  my computer should have no problems handling this video..... Quad 3.5GHz i7, 16GB, nVidia 670, PE11 running off SSD on Mac
    I also just  tested it on a 1080i 30 created project and it was much worse than the exmaple above.
    EDIT:
    Something else I think i should mention, I didn't think of this until now, but I'm not sure this should matter, but my mac is a hackintosh I build myself in December.  I've had absolutely zero isues with it or any conflicts with any other programs or software.  Unless there is some conflict with the video card and this software, but from my knowlsege that shouldn't happen.
    I have Win7 running on a seperate SSD drive, i'm going to try and get some video editing software on there, maybe a PE11 trial, and see what happens.Just to rule that out.

  • Indesign DPS Preview Quality

    When I view my article in preview mode on an iPad via Overlay Creator the quality is much better than when I share it for download - new to all this - any help very much appreciated.

    Hi Bob,
    I am away from the studio until the morning (UK) but can provide a little more detail - I have tried all three formats and get the same result - have tried all jpeg settings as well as the automatic option. Images are a little coarse but the text is particularly noticeable - the preview that is created and viewed on a linked iPad is much higher quality.
    I have tested on iPad 2 and retina - iPad 2 quality is just about acceptable but retina is not.
    I will take some iPad screenshots of the preview mode quality and the shared version when I get in tomorrow morning (UK) - hopefully they will provide a visible difference.
    If necessary I can share the poor quality version with you.
    I am new to all of this so I am hoping that it is something simple that I am missing - if I have an epiphany during the course of the day I will let you know.
    Regards

Maybe you are looking for