Quality control? crashes, performance, image quality...

I like to functionality of new lightroom, but once more I have to say: what about quality control? even after 2.1 this prog is a beta-version at best:
- performance: slower than a mountain duck
- image quality: adjustment-brush not ready for prime time
- stability: lightroom crashes more often in one day than all other programs together in one year.
summary: very poor quality control and very poo customer.
Phil

Phillie1
I understand your frustration. I too love LR's functionality but I've had a nightmare with it, particularly since 2.1. I have a high specified machine; Q6600, 4GB RAM, ATI 4850, XPsp3. LR constantly crashes.(the only program that does so) No Virus checker, Latest GFX driver, etc.
My main Issue-The Develop Module, After 30-45 mins usage.
(No difference whether it's my H3D-39 or 1DS mkIII files.)
In v1.0 I used to get an upside down red out of memory error.
I had to quit and restart to resolve.
In v2.0 unfortunately things got worse. The red OOM message was gone but unfortunately this was replaced by a gray area where the image should've been. I had to quit and restart to resolve.
I read that the problem in the develop module had been fixed in 2.1, seemingly it was attributable to a memory leak? Guess what?
Still a gray area where the image should be, sometimes preceded by the image flipping 180deg. I have to quit and restart to resolve.
Task manager confirms some odd things going on with memory.
I cannot use 2.1 with confidence, particularly so in front of my clients. It's not solid enough.

Similar Messages

  • Image display QUALITY controll bar/change/modifi

    Hello
    the bridges display quality of jpegs and raw images is awfull!!!
    i see blockiness in all of my images, how can i watch my photos like this??
    there is no crispness!
    u should made a picture display quality controll bar like speed-------quality
    so the user can select!

    Frosti,
    This request has been made many times. The development team are aware of the need for 100% previews. However, such a feature, if provided, will not be available until at least Bridge 2. Based on previous upgrade cycles that would be late 2006, at earliest. In the meantime you might consider providing more information on the type of images you're trying to preview (i.e. Raw, JPG, etc).
    Also, I would suggest that you soften the tone of your comments otherwise you'll find yourself with Read Only access.
    IanLyons
    Forum Host

  • Controlled test shows imovie 08 import is problem with image quality

    Friends,
    Like many others I thought that I had noticed a quality difference between imovie 08 and imovie 06. So I did a controlled test:
    I imported the same video into imovie 08 and imovie 06. I made two separate movies out of the video in 08 and two separate movies out of the video in 06. I then exported one of the 06 movies into 08 and one of the 08 movies into 06. I then burned all four movies to dvd.
    The resulting burns were the following:
    1. imported into 06, burned through 06
    2. imported into 06, exported to 08 and burned through 08
    3. imported into 08 and burned through 08
    4. imported into 08, exported to 06 and burned through 06.
    The result:
    The movies imported into 06 were clearly superior in image quality to those imported into 08. I couldn't tell a difference between the 06 imports burned through 08 and 06. I also couldn't detect a difference between movies imported into 08 and burned in 06 and 08.
    What is it about 08 import that causes quality degradation? I couldn't find any quality preferences to change.
    I suppose this post isn't much different from the others along this line but I couldn't find any that did this type of controlled test.
    Applecare had no idea why there was this difference.
    Steve

    I think I've solved my problem with a Google Search. I came across a free slide show generator
    (contributions requested) that shows much higher quality slide shows than either iPhoto or Aperture 3.
    You click on a folder of jpegs and it almost immediately generates thumbnails and within a few seconds
    I can be viewing a full screen, tack sharp, slideshow of all of the files in the folder. Much sharper than
    I'm used to seeing.
    I think I'll keep the Aperture 3 and use if for the purpose it's intended for in the future. I'll also redo the
    image preview files to the small size it started with and then I'll copy all of the files I'm interested in from
    iPhoto into a separate folder on another disk. I'll use Aperture to catalog and to perform image manipulations
    on but I won't try to use it as an iPhoto replacement. I don't think I'll be using iPhoto much as an image
    viewer in the future either after I finish moving my favorite pictures to the Phoenix Slides folder.
    The name of the free program is Phoenix Slides. It's free to download and try, free to keep (though I
    think you'd want to pay the small amount requested) and fast. My pictures have never looked so good
    before.
    http://blyt.net/phxslides/
    Message was edited by: Jimbo2001

  • Cms for flash gallery with image quality control

    Halo.
    I'm looking for a non-commercial solution / tutorial (AS3, MySQL, PHP, XML) that would point me in the right directon to control the quality of uploaded images.
    Do you know any?
    Regards.

    What is the definition of image quality in this context?

  • Image quality / performance

    Hey All,
    I often wonder about this. (I'm using CS5.5): In Flash I need a movie clip that to be 200 px by 200 px on my stage.
    -If I create a 500px by 500px image in Photoshop and import it at that size, create my MC, then resize it down to 200 x 200 in Flash, it looks real nice.
    -If I create a 200 x 200 image in Photoshop and import it and create my MC (no need to resize in Flash), it looks kinda crappy.
    In my final SWF, is there a greater performance hit with the larger pixel dimension images that are resized in Flash ..compared with the images imported at the exact same size as they will display on my Flash stage?
    Also: I always save my images as PNG from Photoshop because I've heard that that is the best format for Flash. Can someone confirm or correct this belief?
    Thanks much!

    Amy,
    What do you mean by: "low quality image?"
    Correct me if I'm misunderstanding but it sounds like what you're saying is what I'm doing (except I'm using PNGs):  To arrive at a good looking image in Flash, I create a larger (in pixel dimensions) image than what the final size will be on the Flash stage. So, for example, if the final size of the MC needs to be 200 x 200px, in Photoshop I create a 500 x 500px PNG image that has a resolution of 72, import it at that size and then resize it to 200 x 200. I'm happy with those results. That results in good image quality but I want to know if I'm going to pay for it down the road in slow performance once I've added lots of images in this way.
    So I guess my question is about best practices: Should I consider importing larger images as a performance trade off? Do larger images (resized down in Flash) cost in performance as compared with images that are imported at the exact size they will appear on stage?
    In other words: I can probably get an even better looking image if I create a 600 x 600 image in PS (requiring even more resizing in Flash)...but if it will slow down the animation then I might settle for the 500 x 500.
    Thanks for your help.

  • NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

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

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

  • Final Image Quality in Film, Avid vs. FCP

    Hello all,
    I'm heading up post-production and editorial for an independent feature film in pre-production. There are some potential producers that are interested in the film, but they're saying that (from their experience) the films they've cut on Avid have turned out to be visually superior than those cut on Final Cut Pro.
    Now, I have no specifics as to the exact post-production workflow for either of the films, but I feel as though this statement is incorrect, as it is my assumption that give the same post-production workflows, the image quality would be the exact same.
    I, for one (as the editor attached to the project), am for using a Final Cut Pro workflow, specifically because I already have a system set up:
    Mac Pro 2.66 GHz Quad
    5.0 GBs RAM
    Final Cut Pro 5.1.4
    Kona LHe
    Cal Digit HD444 6 TB RAID
    Toshiba 26" HD Client Monitor
    1402 Mackie Mixer
    DSR-1500 DVCAM Deck via SDI and 422 machine control
    Personally, I have no issue with editing on either system, as I am well versed in both Avid and Final Cut Pro. However, this is an independent feature, and saving money is key. So why cut on Avid and have to rent a bay when we could cut on mine for free?
    As far as finishing is concerned, we're planning on cutting back to the original negative (using Cinema Tools as our aide).
    Can anyone give me a possible reason for why cutting a feature-length on film in Final Cut Pro would not look as good if it were cut on Avid, assuming the post workflow is the EXACT same?
    Thanks!
    Mac Pro Quad 2.66 GHz / 5.0 Gigs RAM / GeForce 7300 GT / 2.0 TBs internal SATA   Mac OS X (10.4.9)  

    Specifically, the producer in question noted that in
    the past, when using FCP to cut a feature, they had
    issues in the sound mix.
    In my experience, I've never encountered a sound
    mixer that's had a problem with an OMF export from a
    FCP sequence when they create their ProTools
    session.
    Additionally, they pointed out that only Avid offline
    projects would translate to a Da Vinci DI suite, and
    FCP wouldn't work as well. Is there any truth to
    this? I find this hard to believe...
    It sounds as if your Producers don't truly understand the details of a post-production workflow for a professional film. They either only know the brands that they paid for, or they tried to unrealistically accomplish too much with too little resources and facilities on prior films, and hung their hats on the lesser of two evils. If the sound was edited, mixed, and somehow mastered on AVID or Final Cut only...without going into sound design/final mix/mastering in their respective stages and facilities...either one has an equal chance of sounding crappy...and that's a good chance. As long as the editor knows what he/she is doing and how to prepare their work for the next steps, a final mix/design can be just as good coming from a film edited on FCP as from AVID.
    FCP offlines can translate just fine for AVID online/correction and what have you as long as this is planned for, researched, and understood from the outset. Basic things like knowing not to repeat frames if you're going back to film negative unless someone's willing to pay for the interpositives/dupes and such...apply if you're preparing for onlining. Same goes for sound and knowing that the final mix is where things will really take shape. the post supervisor needs to make sure that the editor and online/color correction facility (if different) are in perfect communication with eachother, and that the editor will know how to prepare and export their project to be compatable with the Davinci or whatever. The people who perform this work should generally be very open to your questions and attention, because it makes their job easier and more accurate when they're getting things well-prepared, rather than having to redo things that should be in place already. I've prepared simple EDL's which have worked fine for onlining and correction...but I made sure, step by step, that I was delivering what they needed, rather than just making it and shipping it out, and I was there with them for the whole process in case something was missing or confusing. Went without a hitch.
    For sound design, I only do a basic edit during picture edit for sync work and music selection/editing/matching, or a rought mix that will approximate the final results, but I won't use that for the actual design except for perhaps a scratch reference. The rest...EFX, ambiences, foley, etc. is done in Pro Tools, and I can simply bring the project in to a mix house and open it on their system.
    I guess you could hypothesize that there's a smaller, younger, and less-experienced pool of talent using primarily FCP than those using AVID, since AVID's been around longer and is still the "standard''. And a well-established, fully AVID-based in-the-can to on-the-screen facility will be more capable than a single FCP suite. But that's not FCP's fault. As long as we know the steps that have to be taken, FCP is fully capable of performing perfectly in its step on the ladder, and moving the project to the next.
    So again, it seems like the producers are inaccurately attributing their disappointments to machines, instead of workflow and compatability that can and should be controlled by people who understand it. It's ususally the Post Supervisor's job to make sure of that. Of course, not every production will have the right budget for this, but the producers need to understand where the money for post goes and what things (along with the people, of course) need to be paid for in order to get the quality deserving of a professional feature film. That's the producer's job...at least one them.

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

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

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

  • Image quality of slide shows using Aperture 3 seems inferior to iPhoto '08

    I haven't previously used Aperture. I've been using a copy of iPhoto '08 for several years. I've shot everything in RAW for the last several years and process it in
    DXO on my Mac Pro (3 1/2 years old with 7 gigs of RAM). I then load the jpegs into iPhoto '08.
    I downloaded Aperture 3 yesterday, and it certainly is impressive in what it can do for improving existing jpegs. I think I could do most touch-ups with Aperture
    instead of Photoshop 3. Because of some glitch, I couldn't load or link to my 37,000 images from iPhoto but I did export about 4000 images as full jpegs into
    a separate file and then imported these images into Aperture. Touch-ups are an order of magnitude better that trying to use iPhoto to do the same.
    I'm an amateur and aside from a fair amount of print making and a few thousand images uploaded to a new Picasa account
    http://picasaweb.google.com/jamesn88888
    I enjoy a lot of my images via slide shows on my 23" Apple monitor, usually sequenced at 3 seconds per slide.
    Comparing slide shows of identical jpegs run with iPhoto '08 and then with the files uploaded to Aperture 3 there is a very subtle loss of definition with Aperture. It's not so
    obvious when viewing relatively large detail but is is very noticeable when running slides containing small detail. When both of these programs are just used to display static images full screen I note no difference in readability. Someone suggested that I check the preferences for preview displays. Sure enough, it was set for relatively low quality. I decided to re-do all 4000 images maximum preview display quality.
    Using the import settings that came already selected on the trial software, the total size of my
    Aperture 3 trial library was a little over 25 GB. The quality of the slide shows did not approximate
    the quality of the slide shows of the identical jpegs included in my iPhoto '08 library.
    I therefore re-processed all of the previews to the "don't limit" in the photo preferences. The total size of my Aperture 3 trial library grew from 25GB to 41.37GB, an increase of 17 GB. With 3926 jpegs in the library that means the average additional size added to each preview image was 4.33 Megabytes. Inasmuch as the original jpeg images that I imported into Aperture 3 were more in the neighborhood of 1.7 to 3.5 Megabytes each (I have DXO output most jpegs @ 90% quality- fine for my purposes), this is an extreme measure to take in order to be able to use Aperture 3 the same way that I used iPhoto '08. In comparing slide shows between the two applications I still get the feeling that there is a very slight loss in acutance when viewing the slide shows. iPhoto still wins out.
    I think that I'm better off staying with iPhoto and continuing to do the RAW processing with DXO and slight file modifications with iPhoto. More elaborate changes can continue to be done using Photoshop 3 and Viveza. It's a shame, because I really like the image processing abilities that are contained in the new Aperture.
    Have any of you compared slide show views on your computer between Aperture and iPhoto?
    Is there any workaround for best slide show viewing- importing or referencing my existing iPhoto library of 37,000 images does not work for me. My copy of iPhoto 7.1.5 get the message that Aperture cannot import or link to iPhoto earlier than 7.1.5 (?)

    I think I've solved my problem with a Google Search. I came across a free slide show generator
    (contributions requested) that shows much higher quality slide shows than either iPhoto or Aperture 3.
    You click on a folder of jpegs and it almost immediately generates thumbnails and within a few seconds
    I can be viewing a full screen, tack sharp, slideshow of all of the files in the folder. Much sharper than
    I'm used to seeing.
    I think I'll keep the Aperture 3 and use if for the purpose it's intended for in the future. I'll also redo the
    image preview files to the small size it started with and then I'll copy all of the files I'm interested in from
    iPhoto into a separate folder on another disk. I'll use Aperture to catalog and to perform image manipulations
    on but I won't try to use it as an iPhoto replacement. I don't think I'll be using iPhoto much as an image
    viewer in the future either after I finish moving my favorite pictures to the Phoenix Slides folder.
    The name of the free program is Phoenix Slides. It's free to download and try, free to keep (though I
    think you'd want to pay the small amount requested) and fast. My pictures have never looked so good
    before.
    http://blyt.net/phxslides/
    Message was edited by: Jimbo2001

  • HT201335 Airplay Mirror Poor Image Quality on CBS app - help?

    Airplay mirror from iMac/iPad to HD TV w/Apple TV has a Poor Image Quality when watching network shows via for example the CBS.com site or the CBS app. The image looks dark, not HD at all. My internet speed/performance is obviously not the issue because Hulu, Netflix etc all come in great using Apple TV ~ sorry, not all that savvy in this department, is the poor picture down to it just being a mirror of the iMac or iPad or is there a setting or something I am missing?

    You should use the Acrobat extra menu in word 2010: then edit Preferences and choose Conversion settings : High quality print
    Hope it helps

  • Why does iDVD '11 image quality suck so bad with a slideshow?

    First of all, I have spent the last few days trolling forum after forum trying to understand the problem. It seems that for years and years people have been complaining about this issue and nobody ever gives a satisfactory answer.
    Ok, I understand the difference between an HD 720p movie and a lower resolution DVD movie at 720/702x480 resolution. I get that. It means that the DVD version has to recalculate the lines using some interpolation algorithm. I can think of good and bad ways to do that myself - I am a software developer and an electrical engineer. I realize that a TV monitor is much bigger than a computer monitor and the lower resolution on a larger monitor won't look as good. What I am seeing goes well beyond that. I am seeing splotchy blacks, awful pixelation, moire effects in water and around just about any two parallel lines, and the occasional odd red-then-green-then-freeze frame.
    Here is what I don't get: When I watch a commercial DVD on my TV, it does not look like crap. Sure, a Blu-Ray looks better, but a DVD is quite acceptable. When I watch the slideshow that I made in Aperture, assembled in iMovie, and wrote out as 720p, it looks terrific on my monitor. If I do it as 720 (Large) it also looks terrific. When I downgrade to 480p (the same resolution as a DVD), it looks fine as a .mov file. However, when I take any of these .mov files and go through iDVD to produce a DVD file, I get horrible results - it looks like I used old VHS footage that I had accidentally left in my microwave. Even changes in resolution of the input file seem to make no difference. Why is this?
    I have tried using "Best Performance", "High Quality", and "Professional Quality". I would rather label them as "Lousy", "Lousy", and "Lousy". To my eye, they all look equally poor.
    Is there file file format that I should be using rather than the default .mov format? .dv or .m4p? Is there some other setting I should be setting? Does the DVD media itself make a difference? I am using Kodak DVD+R media. I read somewhere that Verbatim DVD-R was the way to go. Is this true?
    Finally, is there perhaps another route I should be exploring? I looked at DVD Studio Pro, but that is not affordable. I considered writing a Blu-Ray instead, but buying a burner and software is not worth it at this point. What about another app? Even on the PC, I am flexible.

    There are many ways to produce slide shows using iPhoto, iMovie or iDVD and some limit the number of photos you can use (iDVD has a 99 chapter (slide) limitation).
    If what you want is what I want, namely to be able to use high resolution photos (even 300 dpi tiff files), to pan and zoom individual photos, use a variety of transitions, to add and edit music or commentary, place text exactly where you want it, and to end up with a DVD that looks good on both your Mac and a TV - in other words end up with and end result that does not look like an old fashioned slide show from a projector - you may be interested in how I do it. You don't have to do it my way, but the following may be food for thought!
    Firstly you need proper software to assemble the photos, decide on the duration of each, the transitions you want to use, and how to pan and zoom individual photos where required, and add proper titles. For this I use Photo to Movie. You can read about what it can do on their website:
    http://www.lqgraphics.com/software/phototomovie.php
    (Other users here use the alternative FotoMagico: http://www.boinx.com/fotomagico/homevspro/ which you may prefer - I have no experience with it.)
    Neither of these are freeware, but are worth the investment if you are going to do a lot of slide shows. Read about them in detail, then decide which one you feel is best suited to your needs.
    Once you have timed and arranged and manipulated the photos to your liking in Photo to Movie, it exports the file to iMovie 6 as a DV stream. You can add music in Photo to Movie, but I prefer doing this in iMovie where it is easier to edit. You can now further edit the slide show in iMovie just as you would a movie, including adding other video clips, then send it to iDVD 7, or Toast, for burning.
    You will be pleasantly surprised at how professional the results can be!
    To simply create a slide show in iDVD 8 onwards from images in iPhoto or stored in other places on your hard disk or a connected server, look here:
    http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1089

  • Poor image quality after burning with idvd

    I used Final Cut Express to make a 45min movie. When I preview the finished product as a Quicktime file it looks great. BUT when I burn it with idvd, the quality of the video is terrible! Jagged diagonal lines, some color loss, some dancing pixels,...
    I have been trying to find the solution to this problem for days on end, I have burned about 20 dvd's now, all in different settings and so on, but the quality is not improved.
    First I thought it was my tv, but then I put the dvd in my mac and compared the same scene from my quicktime file with the scene on the dvd, and the difference in quality is staggering! For instance, diagonal white road markings are crisp on the quicktime file, but jagged on the dvd.
    What is idvd doing with my movie????? Help me!

    My Final Cut Express movie (.mov file) is crisp, and interlaced.
    You are missing the point - your CRISP FCE movie is mpg-2 compressed by iDVD - that's what DVDs are - mpg-2 compressed video content. Unfortunately, mpg-2 is a very low quality CODEC compared to modern CODECs like h.264.
    The best image quality out of iDVD will result in using the 'Best Performance' mode of encoding - this requires your content be under 60 minutes for a single-layer disc.
    'Best Performance' encoding uses fixed bit-rate encoding that produces a DVD with about as high playback bit-rate as can be supported by set-top DVD players.
    You have three choices: (1) live with the mpg-2 compression on a DVD because you can't do anything about it, (2) use the h.264 CODEC out of FCE and create a data DVD with the file that can be played back in computers, (3) make a Blu-ray disc if you have the equipment and buy the software.

  • Poor Image Quality at Start Menu

    Hi All
    I use iDVD 08 for my movies and was creating a menu at the start of the program.
    While the resolution looks good in iDVD (before burning to DVD), it is not so after. I would like to enquire on how can can improve on the image quality on my DVD.
    FYI, I referring to the photos that I put in my start menu. I burn my DVD in NTSC format. Appreciate any help and advise.
    Thanks.
    Jojo

    Here's what iDvd's Help Menu states about those 3 encoding settings you inquired about:
    You can use the amount of video in your project as a rough determination of which method to choose. If your project has an hour or less of video (for a single-layer disc), choose Best Performance. If it has between 1 and 2 hours of video (for a single-layer disc), choose High Quality. If you want the best possible encoding quality for projects that are up to 2 hours (for a single-layer disc), choose Professional Quality. This option takes about twice as long as the High Quality option, so select it only if time is not an issue for you.
    Use the Capacity meter in the Project Info window (choose Project > Project Info) to determine how many minutes of video your project contains.
    Can we really tell the difference ?
    Yes. I can see the difference. And so can bcd in the following thread:
    http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=8377592#8377592
    Keep in mind Burned dvd's are low res devices by nature. Meaning all data is eventually compressed into mpeg 2 (normally). In general, Dvd's have not kept pace with today's higher res cameras and camcorders nor with apple's editing applications (ie, iMovie, FCE, and FCP) and there is very little you can do to improve upon this unfortunately since most macs do not yet support burning a Blu-ray disc. When and if they ever do, then we will see some significant improvements all the way around since Blu-ray dvd's hold at least 5 times the data of a standard dvd and with significantly higher clarity and resolution than the standard Dvd's most of us use today.
    Am I missing something ?
    No. You aren't missing anything from what you have described above. Your observations are actually rather astute.
    Hope this reply helps but if not just come on back.
    Message was edited by: SDMacuser

  • Poor image quality? Why do Jpeg's look so bad?

    If anyone has tips on how to improve the image quality of jpeg's in acrobat.com I'd really like to hear them. I've edited the images in Photoshop (CS4), exported them as jpeg's, and inserted them into my acrobat.com presentation. They look horrible, and there are many artifacts. If I insert the same image into Powerpoint, they look considerably better, but I'd prefer not to have to use it. Is there an image quality setting that I'm missing?
    Thanks for any help,
    Rob

    Hi Rob,
    Thanks for posting - and sorry you're having trouble. It sounds as though the image's quality is suffering because it's being down-sized upon insertion. In Presentations, any images larger than 1024 on a side are resized to fit within a 1024 bounds (we do this to optimize performance - important for a web application).
    Here are some tips from one of our fine engineers:
    For the best looking images, pre-scale your images to fit the size of the presentation before you upload them; for reference, the slide canvas is 720 pixels wide and 540 pixels tall. Any image larger than those dimensions is larger than it needs to be on the client so you and your audience are downloading more data than they will ever see. If you resize your images to fit the size it will appear on the screen, you will have a better looking image.
    The choice of image format makes a difference at this scale as well. For image with smooth transitions like photographs of landscapes, jpeg is a good format. For computer generated diagrams like charts, or images with lots of details like text, PNG is a better format.
    It is important that the image be scaled to the appropriate size before uploading because the server will recompress any image it needs to scale using JPEG compression. So if you are uploading a PNG image with transparency, you will loose any transparency effect if the image is large enough to require scaling on the server.
    I hope this is helpful, Rob. Please let us know if you have any further questions.
    Best regards,
    Rebecca

  • Image Quality In Crystal Reports for Visual Studio 2010

    I am using the new production release of Crystal Reports for Visual Studio 2010 and I am having an issue with image quality when adding an image to a crystal report.
    The image itself is a .TIF file,  and when opened in Windows, the quality of the image, which is mostly text, is very high. The image was created from a electronic PDF form and I intend to use this as a background for the crystal report, over which I will place data fields.
    As soon as the image is added to the report you can see the degradation in quality in the design window and in the preview window within visual studio. The quality remains low when viewing the report in the WPF report viewer and when printing from this control.
    I have ensured the "Retain Original Image Color Depth" option is checked but this has made no difference (the image is black and white anyway).
    The image in the report has been left at its native size, no resizing at all. The image is 355KB in size if that's relevant.
    Is there a reason the image looses quality when added to a report? Is it being compressed? More importantly, is there a way to make the image retain its native quality when adding it to a crystal report?
    Thanks in advance.

    The following image is the image I am trying to display. Although imageshack has converted it to a png, if you right click and save the image you can open it and zoom in with little image degradation.
    http://img132.imageshack.us/i/j301.png
    The following is a screen shot of how the tif file looks in the designer when zooming in:
    http://img138.imageshack.us/i/j30lowquantity.jpg
    The second image has lost its clarity and is unusable when printing.
    I hope this helps.

Maybe you are looking for