Quality differences between iDVD and DVD Pro

Are there any differences in viewing quality between using iDVD or DVD pro?
I like using iDVD when I don't need a lot of menues.
Thanks for answers.
Robert

What I need to know if it is a dramatic different in quality that I should use DVD Pro instead of iDVD.
If you want a DRAMATIC improvement in quality, shoot sharp, high quality content like Hollywood (usually on film) and have it compressed by high quality hardware encoders.
There is a good reason Hollywood DVDs look better than iDVD/DVD Studio Pro DVDs.
F Shippey

Similar Messages

Difference between Satellite and Satellite Pro L100

what is the difference between satellite and satellite pro? for example - satellite L100-175 and satellite pro L100-176?

Hi,
the difference between Satellite and Satellite Pro is the operating system:
Windows XP Home for Satellite
Windows XP Professional for Satellite Pro
The difference between the models L100-xxx is just the equipment.
For Example the CPU:
Sat L100-175: Core Duo T2500; 2.0 GHz
Sat Pro L100-176: Core Duo T2400; 1.83 GHz
For further details look in the specs of the models.
Bye

Print quality difference between iphoto and aperture...?

when ordering books, is there a print quality difference between using iPhoto and Aperture? or are they sent to the same lab?
it's possible i may have some setting wrong, but when i order a book using iphoto, i never really feel the quality is that great. it's good, i just feel it could be a lot better. the print quality sort of reminds me of newsprint, albeit high quality newsprint. similar sized prints made at home on my basic 3-in-1 printer look better.
thanks...

Previews are what you view on your display. When you import a photo into Aperture (and I'm pretty sure iPhoto as well), your computer automatically generates a preview for quick viewing. The original images are stored in your library, but it is the preview that you see.
In Aperture, you are able to set the size and quality of these previews. When sharing photos between Aperture and iPhoto, the process is as follows:
Let's say that your images are stored in Aperture, but you also want to be able to view them in iPhoto without taking up too much room on your hard drive. Essentially, if you were to import the originals into iPhoto as well, you would be storing two exact, yet separate copies of the same image on your hard drive. As you are aware, with large images (whether JPEG's, and especially RAW) this would put quite a tax on your storage capacity after not too long.
So, you have your images in one or the other (in this case Aperture), but you want to play around with them in iPhoto. What you can do, is open iPhoto, go to the File menu and then select, Show Aperture Library. This will open a window with all of the contents of your Aperture Library. You can then drag any images you want into iPhoto . The only thing is, you are not dragging the original JPEG's, but rather, the previews of those images. If you have those previews set to a lower quality (again for capacity concerns), you will only have lower quality and lower detailed images in iPhoto. These images might not be ideal, or even suitable for printing high quality prints. The previews that you generate in Aperture though can be adjusted to be extremely high quality with no size limits.
My thinking was that since you mentioned Aperture, it sounded like you had experience with working with it and with ordering a photo book through Aperture. I guess you were saying that you ordered via iPhoto, weren't happy with the quality and were wondering if Aperture created books were better.
Anyway, if this is the case, I cannot answer that for you. I have never ordered a book through Aperture. If the quality of your images is good, you should be able to get a decent product no matter where you order it from. There is not doubt that the materials used and the print shop that does the work makes a difference, but if your images are good, you should still get a decent product through iPhoto. Perhaps iPhoto isn't the way to go though if you have had poor experiences with them.
If you haven't used Aperture yet, I would highly recommend it though aside from the photo book aspect of this thread. It is a stellar product.
I hope this helps.
Message was edited by: macorin

Difference between Tekton and Tekton Pro?

Hi,
I'm aware that Adobe's "Pro" designation means that the font contains all the necessary glyphs to set European languages. But that's not what I'm asking.
We have a client for whom we're preparing a book. We've been using Tekton Pro (Bold and Regular). We sent a PDF proof to the client and they say that they meant the old Tekton (not Pro--rather, the postscript version). I've tried to compare the two, but it's very difficult online.
My question is: is there a difference in the actual form of the letters between the old Tekton and Tekton Pro?
(In the case of Garamond and Garamond Premier Pro there is a significant difference between the shapes of some letters, for example.)
Thanks,
Ariel

Hi Neil,
As far as I understood, our firm's client's concern was that the font looked
different (reflow not being an issue in this case because it's used for a
main heading only).
Anyway, I went into the office (a rarity in these days of telecommuting) to
investigate. The outcome is that somehow or other one of the graphics people
managed to switch Tekton for some variant of Times. Good grief! No wonder
the client sounded concerned; I'm impressed that they managed to remain so
polite about it, actually.
I think you're right about there generally not being a difference between
the PS and Pro versions of Adobe fonts. I would be interested to hear more
insight into this point.
I seem to have three Adobe Garamond's on the computer. The old Adobe
Garamond PostScript and Adobe Garamond Pro: these two seem identical, and a
full alphabet also sets the same width.
On the other hand, Adobe Garamond Premier Pro seems to be essentially
different, though very similar, font. It sets differently, and unless I'm
imagining things, the x-height is slightly shorter, plus all the strokes
seem slight thicker.
This adds support to the theory that a regular Adobe PS font is identical to
its Pro namesake except for some added glyphs. Perhaps that is why Adobe
Garamond Premier was actually given a different name.
Regards,
Ariel

Do you feel a quality difference between PC and ipod?

When you play music on very good headphones... eg. sennheiser HD series... do you feel a big difference between playing a 128 or 256 kbps file on PC versus on ipod? I think I do, but I may be imagining it, or it may just be because of equalizer settings. Thanks!

Allan Eckert wrote:
While some have managed to hack things so that they can install OS X on a PC, the results have been not very reliable. Generally OS X has many part that do not function properly.
It doesn't work well because the Mac hardware itself is different from what is found in any other Intel-based computer. Even the CPU's & support chips are not off-the-shelf Intel parts but variants optimized for Macs that are not available to other computer makers or to DIY enthusiasts.
This is probably why for a time in 2007 the 'fastest Windows notebook on earth' was a MacBook Pro, as tested by PC World, a fact touted for a while in Apple TV ads. (It lost that title to a more conventional Wintel laptop about a month later, but the new champ cost over $5000, had "almost nonexistent" battery life, & weighs over 11 pounds, which should give you some idea of the advantages an Intel-Apple collaboration has over the competition.)

Internal Differences between MacBook and MacBook Pro?

I was wondering if anyone has concrete information on whether on not the un-coustomizable, internal workings of the MacBook and MacBook Pro are different, such as the motherboard, logic board, other interfaces, etc.
I have been talking with Apple reps and none have been able to give me a deffinate answer or written proof. Does anyone have info. supporting or refuting the statement that MacBooks and MacBook Pros are condigured/maunfactured with the same parts, aside from the Video Card?
Thanks

They are not the same; the disassembley pictures for both are here so you can compare for yourself
MacBook - http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/86.1.0.html
MacBook Pro - http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/85.1.0.html

Quality Difference Between Source and Program Monitors

Hi,
Hopefully somebody might be able to shed some light on my problem... I am working with a QT file in PP CS5 which is an animation created in AE CS5.
File Details:
Type: QuickTime Movie
File Size: 507.4 MB
Image Size: 1920 x 1080
Pixel Depth: 24
Frame Rate: 25.00
Total Duration: 00:01:00:00
Average Data Rate: 8.5 MB / second
Pixel Aspect Ratio: 1.0
Now when I view the footage in my Source with window (at 100%) it looks nice and crisp, bright and vibrant. When I view it in the Program monitor (at 100%), at both pre and post render stages the footage looks jagged, pixelated and much less vibrant, I've also noticed a slight colour shift as well.
I'm pretty new to PP CS5 - sorry if this is something really obvious or basic that I have overlooked!, but hopefully someone can help me out!
Many Thanks,
Neil.

Neil,
The Source Monitor is a simple player (as is the tiny player window in the Project Panel), and plays directly from the AV file on the HDD, where the Program Monitor is displaying from the Timeline, and takes into consideration any decompression, any Effects, etc.. There are also several settings in the Program Monitor, that can affect the display, such as Quality (try on Highest), and whether one is displaying 1/2, 1/4, etc. Resolution. What are all of the settings in your Program Monitor.
Also, what form of MPE do you have enabled, and what is the make/model of your video card? At the same time, you might want to list your video driver number/date.
Good luck,
Hunt

Color Differences between Lightroom and Premiere Pro

I have been making color adjustments to movie clips in Photoshop or Lightroom (both of which do a great job), but when I bring the clips into Premiere Pro or Premiere Elements the colors are not the same as what I was seing in the other programs. It is as if the programs are using different color profiles. How do I resolve this problem?

bryanbrowne1 wrote:
I have been making color adjustments to movie clips in Photoshop or Lightroom (both of which do a great job), but when I bring the clips into Premiere Pro or Premiere Elements the colors are not the same as what I was seing in the other programs. It is as if the programs are using different color profiles. How do I resolve this problem?
Photoshop and Lightroom are designed for still photography. Still photographers use a color managed workflow that in general ends in a paper print. Since printers/inks/papers can in general display a wider gamut than computer monitors can display, we use tools manage it, such as soft proofing. The efficient way to control this is through ICC profiles of the printer/ink/paper combinations, of which there are thousands. Thus Photoshop and Lightroom and other still photography tools are esentially required to be color managed.
PPro and film/video have decidedly different requirements. The video workflow ends in a light source display (projection, HDTV, or web video, all are light sources, where a pigment ink print is a reflective source, which has entirely different characteristics). These end displays are not variable workspace displays. HDTV displays only in REC.709 workspace, its gamut, contrast, etc. are tightly defined. Web video uses the sRGB workspace. Etc.
I'm just sayin' that still photography and video have very different requirements. Trying to force still photography methods onto a video workflow is bound to be difficult and full of problems, as you have found.
The answer to your "How do I resolve this problem" question is perhaps to use the still photography tools for still photography, and the video tools for video. A stills workflow for stills, and a video workflow for video.
A video workflow implies doing color correction and color grading on external monitors that natively support the target work space (Rec.709 in the case of HDTV, Blu-ray, or DVD output [OK, technically DVD uses SDTV's REC.601 work space, but 709 is "close enough" that you can get by in all but the most critical applications]). IOW, use a production monitor, or at least an HDTV (calibrated of course), to judge final output.
Trying to color correct video on a computer monitor is just asking for trouble. As you well know by now.
A good place to start learning the video way of things when it comes to color correction and grading is Alexis Van Hurkman's Color Correction Handbook. Highly recommended; it answered questions that I didn't know enough to ask yet. Might for you too, IDK.

Difference between MacBook and MacBook Pro

I'm wondering why someone would choose a Pro model over the non-Pro model. Is it worth the extra $.
The difference I see are:
Screen size
Only have firewire port on Pro
Only have back lit keyboard on Pro
While the Pro I'm looking at has faster Processor (2.4/2.0), the bus speed is slower on the Pro (800/1066).
Thanks for any tips/advice.

I recnetly checked both machines at a local Distributor (scNet), and there's quite the difference apart from what you posted. Despite the fact that I rrrreally like the cute very mobile 13" form factor, I decided for the 15"machine. The display of the larger notebook is amazingly better, the 13" display really is a disgrace, it's washed out and doesn't feel as high end as it should. Coming from an Asus W2J 17" glossy, I'm used to reflections, but the 13" inch would have been a step backwards. Also, the 15" has the better processor options (larger L2, higher speeds and the 7200 rpm harddisks, which you really should spent 50 or 90 bucks for, as they will make a LOT of difference in terms of performance). However much I may like the compactness of the smaller machine, it's pretty clear that the macbook pro is well worth paying 600€ more.

What is the difference between iMac and Mac pro?

I want to buy an iMac but have saw the mac pro. What is the difference? Do you need an iMac to get a mac pro or does it come with a monitor?

Yes, exactly as Kappy has stated.
The iMac is an "all-in-one" computer similar to an HP Envy, or HP Touchsmart.
HP Envy Here: http://tinyurl.com/bb-hp-envy
HP Touchsmart Here: http://tinyurl.com/bb-hp-touchsmart
These are an "all-in-one" machine, where the CPU (central processing unit), mainboard, and graphics display adapter are all embedded onto one board, and it is built-in to the monitor display case.
So you just have what looks like a "thicker" monitor on your desk and your keyboard connects to this "all-in-one" computer. (and actually the newest 2012 iMacs are not really that "thick" at all, and it does look pretty nice/thin/sleek).
The disadvantage to an "all-in-one" is that it's not easily upgradeable. You can't change out the graphics cards, or install new PCIe expansion cards (faster network cards, RAID adapter, etc.), can't add extra internal hard drives (i.e. 4 internal hard drives), etc.
The Mac Pro is a standalone computer. It requires an additional monitor/display. The advantage of having a Mac Pro is that it is upgradeable (you can get more powerful graphics cards in the future if you need better 3D rendering power) and it has far more memory slots, so it can be expandeable to I believe 128GB of RAM (whereas I believe the iMac might be 32GB of ram?)
iMac memory expansion here: http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/
Mac Pro Memory expansion here: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory
Also the iMac is a much thinner device, and you can't separate the display from the CPU (they are an "all-in-one" device) so you can't upgrade or change the primary display, but you can add a second display).
With the Mac Pro, you can add additional graphics cards, and you can power up to twelve displays (if you wish). You also have a much more powerful processor on the Mac Pro (one quad-core, or up to two 6-Core Intel Xeon processors). So the Mac Pro a much more powerful machine.
The iMac is just a nice cute/thin desktop display (all-in-one), but with a quad-core processor it's still a fairly fast/decent machine.
If you are doing heavy 3D graphics rendering or gaming, or graphics design (3D CAD, etc.) then I would probably go with something more powerful like a Mac Pro, since you can get better graphics cards, and the Mac Pro will run much cooler (as you're trying to do massive rendering).
> Do you need an iMac to get a mac pro or does it come with a monitor?
No, you don't need an iMac for a Mac Pro (they are two separate and different computers), but yes you do need an external monitor display if you buy a Mac Pro.
Any 1920x1080p monitor/display with an HDMI input will be sufficient for using with a Mac Pro.

Why are there print differences between Reader and Acrobat Pro

I have a PDF file generated by InDesign (CS3). When I print the PDF from Reader (8.1.4) I get lighter text than when the same file is printed by Acrobat Pro (9.1.0). A close examination of the printed letters shows that the text printed from Reader is not solid black, while the text from Pro is solid black.
Is this typical or is there something I need to do to improve the printing from Reader?

I am a CADD Coord. (CADD Mgr)designer) I used to do a lot of design. Just recently we have noticed that anything printed from Adobe, the reader or the full version, is printing so lightly in many cases that it looks like it is missing data. whenever we create teh PDF from Autodesk products or Bluebeam Revue, it is the same. Bluebeam prints perfect. Yet the exact same file printed through Adobe is very, very light. Even printing as image it does this. And it appears at random. Some people print ok, but the exact same printer sent by someone else, using the same method, comes out too light in Adobe.
I have contacted Autodesk and they have punted it back. Anyone have any answers or clues to fix? i send out deliverables for clients all the time and I hate to find out they print and miss something of the design.

Image quality difference between timeline- and clip monitors

I've just captured dv into fcp4.5 and got surprised that I got the unrendered red line indication in the timeline when dragging it down from the clip monitor.
However, I rendered it but in timeline viewer the quality was bad like it was a field error. Contures were uneven etc.
The video in clip monitor has perfect quality.
I wish to find out a solution with this to learn something from it, rather than just re-install FCP wich normally puts things right.
Big thanks for advice /Erik
G4 1.2 Mac OS X (10.4.3) 1.8GB RAM

Thanx Jim, the compression was for some reason changed to none, now I changed it back to DV-PAL.
I suppose this compression doesn't affect the final export?
If I'd export with the DV-PAL compression (Ialways export with none) would that degenerate the video again or just read in the same trax so to speak?
Regards, Erik

What is the difference between SpeedGrade and Premier Pro

Mainly, I do Youtube videos, and I want the one that would be better for color correction. And for working with blue (chroma) screens and cut and deleting clips

[ moved to the Premiere Pro forums ]
Premiere Pro (PP) and After Effects (AE) are both able to edit footage, pull chroma keys and apply color correction. PPis a non-linear editor and so is primarily used to assemble clips into a timeline, so it has a lot of editing/transition and layering tools. AE is a post-production tool for creating very complex visual effects and applying compositions onto footage but it doesn't have the same real-time playback as PP.
Speedgrade is a dedicated colorist application - while it can be used to assemble clips into a sequence it doesn't have anything like the features of PP or AE, and it takes a while to learn how to use it. What SG does have is a very powerful color-grading toolset designed for use in a professional workflow.
If you're doing basic grading of clips from a consumer camera or DSLR (setting white balances, etc) then PP and its Three Way Color Corrector is usually more than adequate. If you're working with pro cameras that record in RAW/log format, Speedgrade is the best choice but you would be using it in combination with PP to assemble the final program.

Quality difference between Windows and Mac

Well, that's the problem:
The same song, (Skull and Crossbones by Klaus Badelt), played under my Mac partition or under my Windows partition is sounding different.
I thought the speakers were broken, but it's not that. Under the Mac iTunes, it sounds horrible, it's distorted and compressed. Equalizer is set the same (Classical), the file is the same, same machine, same application (iTunes 7.6.2), everything is the same. Except the library size. Under Mac it's 13.4 GB, under Widnows only a 100 MB...
Any ideas?
Thanks

Neither version of iTunes will make jewel cases.

What is the difference between QuickTime and iMovie?

Why would I need to upgrade my QuickTime to QuickTime Pro if I have iMovie? If I did have these two programs wouldn't that be redundant? They both edit the same kind of information, right? If you use both programs, please provide pros and cons. Thank you.
iMac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.4)

It would take a book to describe the differences between iMovie and QuickTime Pro, so I won't go down that road. Here's Apple's QT Pro Tutorial, which will help introduce its features:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/pro/tutorials.html
I use QuickTime Pro every day to help with one task or another. It's a very useful tool, which gets you closer to the basic functions of QuickTime than does iMovie. It also helps you learn more about QuickTime software, the heart of iMovie. Like most other things, the more you understand the fundamentals the more you understand the program using them.
There's one important difference: Unlike iMovie, whatever task you want to perform with QuickTime Pro can also be done with an AppleScript script. So if you have repetitive tasks with movies, QuickTime Pro is a must. Just write a script that you call from within QuickTime Pro to perform just about any task, or collection of tasks. The script literally "tells" QuickTime Pro to perform the task.
I strongly recommend QT Pro for anyone who uses iMovie HD a lot, or who is interesting in understanding the underlying structure of QuickTime movies.
Karl

Quality differences between iDVD and DVD Pro

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for