Preview size & quality settings

Although I have been using LR for many months I am still confused as to what to set my import settings to when it comes to previews. Standard or 1:1? What quality settings? Can anyone enlighten me on best practices?

>... my import settings to when it comes to previews. Standard or 1:1?
Standard Size previews are of your choosing: 1024, 1440, 1680 and 2048. You set these in the catalog settings "File Handling" tab. Also, you can set the quality to Low, Medium or High. You could also think of the Standard Size as that which most closely matches you screen size.
1:1 Previews are previews that match the dimensions of the image and are generally much larger than the Standard Size previews. e.g. from a 10MP Nikon D200 the size is 3872*2592.
The implications of your choices are as follows:
- The larger the preview size that you choose, the slower the import
- Larger previews take more disc space in your .lrdata folder, specifically the thumbnail-cache file.
If you are going to import a large number of photos, that you may later cull prior to doing any develop work, then you could choose Standard Size previews, with a low (1440) pixel size, Medium Quality. Import should then be fast. After you have eliminated photos that you do not wish to keep, you could use the Library ->Previews -> Render 1:1 Preview, if you wish to generate full-size previews of the selected pictures. Again, this may take a significant amount of time, depending on how many photos you select.
When you go to Develop module, Lightroom will automatically generate a 1:1 preview of the selected photo. So if you are not concerned about a slight delay while Lighroom generates 1:1 preview in Develop module, you could stay with Standard Size previews for import.

Similar Messages

Standard Preview size/quality Lightroom 1.1. (how and what)

I'm working on a Macbook pro, with hi-res 17" screen 1920x1200. In most manuals, tutorials etc. it says that you can "set the standard preview size fitting for your screen".
I'm looking for some more background info on the standard preview, to decide which setting to use(if somebody has other criteria to keep in mind please do say so):
1) What is the difference in size of files for the different combination of options (pixel/quality). Does somebody have a list.
2) What is the actual difference in the quality options
3) In which modules is the preview size used (also in development and slide show?)
4) Are they also used to generate the thumbnails from? If so, does a higher standard preview size reduce the performance in library mode because it as to shrink bigger files for these thumbnails?
5) what happens if I would use the smaller, let's say 1440 preview and then decide to view the picture full-size, in library or slide show
6) What would be the size (in pixels) on the normal main window in lightroom on my 1920x1200 screen. if it is about 1440 (might take that one)
Last question of course: What standard preview size / quality should I use on my 1920x1200 screen??
Thanks in advance for all your thoughts!

As to standard preview size and quality, try 1440 and 1680 and Med and High quality and see what you like best. You will probably choose 1680 size for your screen running at 1920x1200. That will let you run LR full screen where the image size will be close to the full size of your monitor. You can try 1440 too but I doubt that you will see any performance improvement. I have tried both sizes on my 1600x1200 monitor and I see no difference in quality or speed.
Try both Med and High quality and see if you notice any difference in your preview quality or speed. High will make your preview folders bigger which might be a factor if you have limited hard drive space.
Don't think preview size has anything to do with thumbs. Standard previews are separate from 1:1 previews so you can always zoom in and LR will generate a full size preview.
In short feel free to experiment with various settings in LR. Good way to learn the program and you will know what works best on your particular computer.

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 size question

Right now Preview size is set at Half Size and slider all the way to the left. Lowest quality I guess. This all in Aperture 2.1.1 preferences.
It takes forever to update previews. I shoot D300 NEF.
Is there a way to turn off previews? Or make them as small as possible? I import the photos on the MBP hard drive.
So I need Previews? I do not use the other iLife apps.
Anything to make Aperture faster is what I'm looking for.

No it says Previews next to the spinning pie chart as it's updated. I see thumbnails too.
My settings
If I make complex adjustments to a photo, I can wait for quite a while as the preview updates before I can do anything else. If I could turn off previews I could literally do my work in half the time.

Quality Settings

I'm pretty new to FCE. I've learned to create titles with LiveType and I think it's FANTASTIC! However, once I've exported my LiveType project (as a .mov file) and then imported it into FCE, I find I'm losing the clarity. Is that just the preview window, or did I lose that when I rendered it (must be rendered to be viewed) in FCE?
Is there a way to improve the quality of my project in FCE. . . I'm only putting a 25 minute video on a duel layer DVD, I really have the space.
Can anyone offer me a few basic tips for improving my video quality?
Thanks,
Lawrence

To test its real quality, you should first render it and then play it using an external (interlaced) TV monitor and/or burn a test DVD.
It's possible that clarity gets a little worse when encoding into PAL/NTSC given their intrinsic resolution.
The quality you see in the Viewer or Canvas is usually lower than the final one depending on their window size, render and preview quality settings, etc.
Hope this helps
Piero

Previews not Generated for 1024 Preview Size

I created a new catalog, selected the preview size of 1024, medium quality, then imported a bunch of Nikon NEF photos, and converted to DNG. Regardless of whether I render previews on import, or render previews manually, when I scroll through Loupe, I get the Loading message. When I look at the previews folder for the catalog, the preview for a sample photo changes from about 250KB to 1.5MB after I get the Loading message.
When I create another catalog and select a preview size of 1440, it works as expected and there is no delay scrolling though Loupe mode. The previews seem to be, however, about 400KB in size.
So there seems to be 2 issues. One is that the 1024 previews aren't generated until the photo is viewed, and the other is that the size of the preview is disproportionate.
Anyone else see this?
System is Windows XP SP3, Lightroom 3.2.
John Gregson

John,
The following may give you a better idea as to how Lr handles previews http://forums.adobe.com/thread/358026?tstart=0 and http://forums.adobe.com/thread/358039?tstart=0

Brush preview size / Size of actual brush stroke do not match?

Hello.
I recently acquired a Macbook Air (2012 version) and it came with CS5 extended preloaded. Everything seems to be working fine, with the exception of these two things:
1. Whenever I select any--that means any--brush and put down a dot or stroke, the width of the stroke is ALWAYS smaller than the preview size for the brush.
With the brush preview size on the left, the dot comes out the size of the dot on the right.
2. The pencil tool has the same exact problem. Also, when I use the pencil tool, the little cross in the middle of the brush preview becomes offset a little bit down and little bit to the right on every even number. (e.g., cross is centered in 3px brush, offset in 4px brush, centered in 5px brush, offset in 6px brush.
I've reset my brush settings multiple times. As far as I can tell, this isn't an issue of any individual brush setting.
As someone who does a lot of pixel art, this has basically brought my work to a full stop. I would greatly appreciate some help.
Cheers.

Which version of mac os x are you using?
Look under System>Preferences>Accessibility>Display and see if the Cursor Size is set to something other than Normal
(you want the Cursor Size set to Normal)

Print quality settings

Hi,
when I print from my ipad or ePrint, I cannot control the print quality settings. I want them to be only black and draft quality, which I can manually apply and set as default when I print from my Mac. How do I get that setting to also apply for ePrint and printing from mobile devices?
Thanks,
jjborje
This question was solved.
View Solution.

Hi there, the degree of control you have on print settings when printing from a mobile device depends on the method you are using to print and to some extent the content you're trying to print. I would recommend you use the ePrint mobile print app which you can download from iTunes. Using this app allows you set print settings including Draft and Normal modes as well as selecting Grayscale instead of colour. These options are available when you print web pages, documents or emails from within the app. If you print photos they will print in colour and default to photo media.
If you send emails with file attachments to the printers email address you have no control over print settings. Similarly using AirPrint does not all ow you much control over print settings.
Hope this information helps and post back with any more questions.
Best.
If my reply helped you, feel free to click on the Kudos button (hover over the "thumbs up").
If my reply solved your problem please click on the Accepted Solution button so other Forum users may benefit from viewing the post.
I am an HP employee.

How do i change the quality settings of my printer? the options are there but greyed out!

how do i change the quality settings of my printer? the options are there but greyed out! ie on my old HP I could print in draft if i wanted to print a doc to read and then bin...the option/box is there but greyed out so I can't select. HELP!!!

You can change the background display color in the playback preferences, either black, white, or checkerboard. This does not change the output color. If you want to add a color to the video, you have to place a custom generator underneath your video and change the color in the inspector.

Possible to adjust video camera quality settings?

I realize this is a shot in the dark, but is there any way to adjust the video camera quality settings on a 5th-gen nano? I'm wondering if the poor quality of the video is a result of the hardware or the built-in compression settings.

Hello Matt,
is there any way to adjust the video camera quality settings on a 5th-gen nano?
No. What you see is what you get.
Here are the specs for captured video on your nano.
H.264 VGA video, 640 by 480 pixels, up to 30 frames per second with AAC audio
Not exactly top notch, but still decently quality for a decent price. It's more than likely due to both reasons. This may improve with future generations.
B-rock

Retouch photo without reducing the file size/quality?

I have been retouching some pictures for use in a photo book but notice that each time I do so, the file size decreases fairly significantly e.g from 4MP to 2MP.
Is there a way I do minor retouching to a photo without reducing the file size/quality?
Thanks in advance

Where are you seeing this size reduction? What format are the original photos?
For example when you edit a RAW photos you create a JPEG modified version which is much smaller - one I just did went from 17 MB as RAW to 4.4 as a JPEG -- you could save as a TIFF but to me that is not worth the space loss - I seriously doubt that you will ever do anything that you can see the difference in quality between a TIFF and JPEG of yoru images
LN

Speed-up? - Force a rebuild of Preview Size

Folks
Many people say they experience an increase in speed by having smaller previews. The default Preview size, in 1.5, as set in Preferences under 'Limit Preview Size' is 'Don't Limit'.
If you alter this setting to a smaller setting it does not alter the size of your existing Previews. Some folks suggest throwing away all your Previews and starting again. However - Tech article 304345 suggests an easier/better way
Aperture: Previews do not update after changing Limit Preview Size Preference
Solution:
Issue or symptom
After you change the Limit Preview Size setting in Aperture's Preferences, existing previews are not changed, even if you choose Images > Update Previews.
Products affected
Aperture 1.5
Solution
Changing the Limit Preview Size setting does not mark existing previews as out of date. In order to force existing previews to be regenerated using a new size setting, select the desired images, press Option and choose Images > Generate Previews.

Is there a way to easily tell which pictures have unwanted preview sizes? I started building previews (36,000 pictures)with the aperture default setting (unlimited size) and a day-and-a-half (approximately 24,000 pictures) later switched to the size recommended for my display. Aperture is definetly running slower than before I updated to 1.5. If there isn't an easy way to identify and resize the "unlimited size" photos, am I better off just deleting all previews and rebuilding them from scratch, or should I just rebuild as needed for purposes of ilife integration? I like the idea of being able to view all pictures in my Aperture library for purposes of using in other applications but if it is in fact slowing down Aperture I will happily rebuild.
G5 2.3ghz, 23 inch HD cinema display Mac OS X (10.4.8)

Larger font preview size

How do I change the font preview size in the drop down font preview list in Adobe inDesign cs6?

It's in the Type section of the prefs...

Preview size for at 22 inch monitor?

Hi, I have just read some posts suggesting that changing the pixel dimensions for a specific monitor can help performance as far as rendering images is concerned. I have a 22 inch Samsung monitor, what would be the optimum pixel dimensions. At the moment it is set at default 1440 pixels, should I change it, and if so to 1680 or 2048? I suppose I could experiment, but is there an "optimum"!
As always
Thanks

The standard preview size should be set to match as closely as possible to the resolution at which you use your monitor. Therefore, there was some relevance to the question regarding the native resolution of the monitor as simply stating the size of the monitor does not dictate the resolution at which it operates. In my case, I have a 26 inch monitor, but the important information is that I have it set at its native resolution of 1900x1200. Therefore, I set the standard preview size to the closest resolution without exceeding it, which in this case will be 1680. Note that the standard preview size has nothing to do with any zoom factor as applying any zoom factor, even a 1:1, will quickly exceed the maximum standard preview size available of 2048.
Hope this helps!

Should I match STD preview size to native screen resolution or the resolution I am actually using?

My iMac 27" monitor is 2560 pixels wide but I run it on a screen resolution of 2048 x 1152. Would it be a waste for me to set the Lightroom Standard Preview Size to size to the setting of 2880? I am thinking I should set the Standard Preview Size to 2048 to save space on my hard drive. What do you think?
When I set my monitor to the native resolution the text on menus etc is pretty hard to see with my tired old eyes. Is there a disadvantage to using 2048 x 1152 on my 27" monitor when using Lightroom?

DanATD wrote:
I am thinking I should set the Standard Preview Size to 2048 to save space on my hard drive. What do you think?
If I were you, I'd use Jeffrey Friedl's Online Lightroom Configurator to bump the font-size of the text, and leave the monitor resolution at 2560 (and standard previews at 2880). Unless of course you can't see image detail all that well either with the increased resolution. There may be some text that jf's configurator can't reach - dunno, but it may be worth a shot..
If bumping font size (and monitor rez) doesn't pan out, then the answer is yes: 2048 is sufficient resolution for standard previews, at a monitor rez of 2048.

Preview size & quality settings

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for