Reduced Image Quality

So... I've perused through looking for help on this, and it seems like many people have had this problem, but I'm not sharing in their successes.
I have an image (a group photo) that I'd like to include in a sequence (DV NTSC), and when I view it in the browser it looks stellar, but when I edit it into the timeline it looks pixelated and blurred.
I know that you're not supposed to judge image quality by looking at it in the canvas, but shouldn't an EXPORTED DV sequence look better? It doesn't.
Rendering the image doesn't help (any rendering should occur when the whole sequence is exported anyway); it clearly has something to do with the inherent reduction of quality when the high-res image is edited into my DV sequence. I've tried editing the image to an uncompressed sequence as a test with no luck.
I have some titles whose quality is also degraded when they are edited into the sequences (and exported).
I'd love some help with this.

DV degrades the photo. If you have a 3000x2500 image at 600dpi, you drop it into a FCP DV sequence it becomes 720x240 at 72dpi, and adopts the DV 5:1 compression.
Nothing you can do to avoid this...except for when you lock picture then take your DV sequence, drop it into a DV50 or uncompressed 8-bit timeline and render. Your picture will look much better.
But that only works if you are making a DVD. If you go back to DV tape then there is nothing you can do.
Shane

Similar Messages

Does reducing image size reduce image quality?

i 'm new to AI and also to this forum.
I know that enlarging and image can reduce image quality.
I'd like to know if reducing the image size (not in pixels, but in actual size),
will reduce the quality?
i have a Ai file that's 600x300, and need to reduce it to 300x120 my websie.
Before I convert it to a web format, I want to reduce this large Ai file to 300x120.
Will i still lose quality even if it's still an Ai file, before converting to web format???
thanks!!!!!

No it is however best to use save for the web to do so for the best optimization.
keep in mind the only lose in quality will be if some one grabbed it off of the website and tried to enlarge it or view it at a larger display size.
What you want to do is the best way of reducing the size.

Iphoto 2 reduces image quality on iPad Air

I seems there is a significant reduction in image quality when editing images in iPhoto 2 (iOS7) on an iPad Air.
Not sure which component is the real problem ... and no, I'm not talking about file size (I know they are reduced) - I talk about dpi
So here's my old setup:
Nikon 5000 (image quality fine), iPad 3, Connection Kit for SD card, iPhoto on iOS 6
... with that setup I was able to save my edited pictures back to camera roll and the still had 300 dpi
My current setup:
Nikon 5000 (image quality fine), iPad Air, New Connection Kit for SD card (lightning), iPhoto 2.0 on iOS 7
... now my adited images only save back to the camera roll with 72 dpi!
As my DSLR and the SD cards are the same than before it seems that either
- Connection Kit
- iPhoto 2
- iOS7
- iPad Air
is the trouble maker!
While iPhoto seems the obvious source for the problem I had an experience that makes me think it could also be the iPad Air:
After creating a video with iVideo (with material from the iPhone 5) I saved this bakc to the camera roll and it was resized (resulting in cuts on the left and right edges) on the iPad.
Copying the same Video to iVideo via AirDrop on my iPhone 5 and savicg it to camera roll there resulted in a correct non-resized version.
So while I can easily live with that workaround for Video the reduction in images from 300 dpi to 72 dpi is signifikant and a real problem.
Anybody experiencing the same, any hints what I can do different to avoid thar reduction?

Just found an interesting article that may be the solution of my problem:
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/icloud-photo-stream-and-image -quality/
As I brought together pictures from my DSLR and the iPhone I think I used the Shared PhotoStream folder for editing them in iPhoto 2. In the past I usually worked on the pictures separately (and directly form the Camera Roll) as I didn't mix so much DSLR and iPhone use.
That should explain it and I have to remember to edit directly in the camera roll and the next time.
So it's not a big deal ... I still have all the originals and will save them somewere in my Dropbox if I need them in higher resolution. At least I know I have to change my re-work behavior in the future.

Does Export Version reduces image quality?

Hi,
I got smaller file size when I "export version" at "original size". My master was jpeg of 5.1MB and I exported in jpeg format, I got 3.6MB. If I "export master", I do get 5.1MB. What does Aperture do to the jpeg image that reduces the file size?
Then I played around with "image quality", which is 10 by default. If I set it to 11, I got a file of 4.1 MB, still smaller than the original 5.1MB. Set it to 12 I got a file of 10.4MB. I am kind of confused. I guess the "image quality" relates to degree of jpeg compression, and a 12 setting means that Aperture compresses the jpeg image at a lower compression ratio than my camera? Does Aperture uncompress jpeg image and re-compress it when "export version"?
The bottom line is, how do I preserve image quality after adjustments? In other words, I would like to export at the same image quality as my original photo, or as close as possible (I assume Aperture reduces jpeg image quality a bit every time I apply adjustments to the image via export). Thanks much for your time.

Wanderzhuanyou wrote:
2) When I make adjustments in Aperture I actually work on the image Aperture produces out of the master file - which should be about 73MB in my computer memory as the size of the image is 2848 x 4272 and Aperture works in 16 bit.
Internally, Core Image (which Aperture uses) actually works in 32-bit, but your basic idea is right.
3) When I export, Apertures compresses this 73MB image (assume adjustments don't make much difference to the image size) to a jpeg file.
First the image will be reduced to the bit depth of your export preset. Image adjustments will make quite a difference to the final file size because areas of high definition detail and a large tonal range will both increase the file size for a given compression setting. So any sharpening, for example, will increase the file size.
As a test, export an image with no sharpening applied, then add some edge sharpening and export it again. You should see a noticeable difference in file sizes.
Correct?
Pretty much.
Ian

Reduce image quality (and file size)

Is there a simple way to reduce the quality of all backgroung
images ? (there are all bitmap images, about 3 MB each of them)
I imagine that by reducing the image quality, the file size
will be less huge...
But I wasn't able to find a way to do that...
(the option about JPEG quality in project/preferences has no
effect, because all background images are bitmap... )
Any idea is welcome !
Valérie

Hi Valerie
I have been doing some research on this -- the issue of file
size (relating to both .cp and .swf) crops up a lot on this forum,
so I wanted to find out which were the critical factors relating to
images.
My findings show that there are two critical factors:
-- Slide Properties: Quality (High, Standard, JPEG,
Optimized)
-- Format of original image file (used for slide background
or inserted image object)
To summarize the results of my testing:
Slide Quality
Changing the slide quality from High
to Standard or JPEG makes little or no difference to the size of
the .cp file but can *significantly* reduce the size of the
.swf
This is an especially useful way of
dealing with the very large .swf file sizes caused by importing PPT
slides
A .swf consisting entirely of
imported PPT slides with complex backgrounds may be reduced to less
than 10% of its original size by changing the quality setting for
each of the slides to JPEG and using a JPEG image quality setting
of 75%.
Format of original image file
For complex images such as photos,
the best image file format to use is (oddly) .bmp -- although it
results in a larger .cp file than other file formats (such as .jpg
or .png), it generates the smallest .swf output.
The benefit of using the .bmp format
is less marked if you have set slide quality to Standard instead of
High, but it can still cut the file size of the .swf output by up
to 50%
For slides using a quality setting of
JPEG, there appears to be no difference in resulting .swf file size
between .bmp or any other image file format
A final comment: it is interesting to compare the size of the
.cp and resulting .swf for different Captivate projects. There is
typically an assumption that the .swf file will be smaller due to
compression. However, this is not always the case. For example, I
tested one project that used High slide quality and images that had
been inserted from .jpg files -- the generated .swf file was over 4
times larger than the .cp file. However, when I changed the quality
setting for all slides to JPEG, the .swf file reduced to less than
50% of the size of the .cp file.
I hope this information is helpful -- please contact me if
you'd like to see the detailed test data.
Best regards,
-Matthew Ellison

!! Exporting SWF file in PDF reduces image quality.

Hello,
I have a file with many multi-state picture frames and buttons for them. I export it in pieces in SWF format, then I put the SWF's back in the document as a new layer and export as interactive PDF. Finally everything worked fine, except that PDF opens in a larger then normal zoom and when zooming in on pictures the quality is very poor I am guessing 72ppi at the intended zoom. I check the SWF file and see that its image quality is good when zoomed, so the problem is with the way the PDF has exported the SWF.
notes: I made sure the settings were to export at 300ppi and high image quality. When I take a single multi-state frame with its associated button and export to SWF then PDF the image quality is maintained.... however I have over 150 image frames, so I rather not export them individually. Please, please reply... any suggestions will be gratefully excepted.

edit your image in photoshop and experiment with various settings/size. there's no magic high quality small file size setting.
it's a trade-off. the higher the quality and the greater the image dimensions, the greater the file size. you have to decide where those are acceptable.

Cropping Photo appears to reduce image quality - but maybe not

Hi,
This morning I took some pictures of hoar frost, and then emailed a couple of them to a friend. I chose the actaul image size which said it was 3.3MB. Tonight, I was going to email them again to have them printed, so I cropped the picture (with the built in editor) and constrained it to 4x6, and then emailed it. Before it sent, I noticed "actual size" was about 850KB - at least that's what it said. That made me nervous considering it was going to be a print quality photo. If it was true, that would have been a significant resolution loss.
I pulled the email that I had sent earlier in the morning - which said it was 3.3MB - and sent it to myself. I then sent myself the 846KB picture and pulled them both up side by side on my large computer screen and they look identical as far as resolution.
Is this just a weird fluke or have other's experienced this as well?
Thanks!

No it is however best to use save for the web to do so for the best optimization.
keep in mind the only lose in quality will be if some one grabbed it off of the website and tried to enlarge it or view it at a larger display size.
What you want to do is the best way of reducing the size.

Rendering reduces image quality. Confused

I'm working in P Pro 7.1 with GH3 footage shot 72mbps/All-intra MOV files.
I made a sequence from a clip (settings posted below).
A clip in the sequence has the yellow render bars and plays back very nicely.
But if I render it, a whole bunch of artifacts are introduced. It looks awful.
Changing to max render quality does nothing.
I also don't understand why these are the settings that premiere generates from the clip.
Why would this happen?

Well, not in this exact instance, but I will as I build the sequence and when it comes time to export.
But even if I don't need to, I still don't understand this.

Image quality clarification

Hi I'm a newbie when it comes to video. I too was disappointed with the result of my 1st iDVD project. The images where soft, desaturated and there appeared to be some digital artefacts around type in the menu themes etc.
So I read the forum extensively on this subject and I THINK I finally understand something: (please correct me if I'm wrong)
iDVD outputs video to a maximum of 720 x 480 screen resolution. When we play this back on our lovely, wide, high-res, LCD monitors or our LCD TV screens at home – we are disappointed. The slideshow we can see in iPhoto (that plays all of our lovely sharp hi-res digital photos beautifully in full screen on those same LCD monitors) cannot be replicated by iDVD. Hence so many disappointed users like me checking the forum to see what gives.
Do I have it right?
If I have that right, how do the makers of commercial movie DVD's make movies that DO look gorgeous on our LCD monitors?
(I have a feeling the answer might be quite technical I'm looking for a "lay-persons" explanation!)
Thanks.
G5 Mac OS X (10.4.3)

iDVD outputs video to a maximum of 720 x 480 screen resolution. When we play this back on our lovely, wide, high-res, LCD monitors or our LCD TV screens at home – we are disappointed.
You're correct. In fact, it's even worse than that. In computer square pixel terms, the NTSC size is actually 640x480.
If I have that right, how do the makers of commercial movie DVD's make movies that DO look gorgeous on our LCD monitors?
Better quality original material and high quality hardware encoders.
There are things you can do to improve your video quality like lighting the scene correctly and placing your camera on a tripod for shooting - the very slight movements of objects between frames of hand-held video reduce image quality in MPG-2 compression.

Photoshop slice tool and Save for Web image quality. Will it affect prints?

I want to slice a large photo into multiple smaller (4x6) printable photos to arrange in a 12x12 inch scrapbook binder pocket (made of of 4x6 pockets). I need to order separate 4x6s online so tiling in the print options is not what I need.
The slow way I know to do this involves cropping and saving each section (maybe even recording this action to do batch processing). However, another way is to use the slice tool to quickly divide up the sections then "Save for Web...". I can adjust some parameters, but I'm afraid there are other automatic adjustments that I don't want. For example, all images are converted to 96 dpi instead of the original 300 dpi. The number of pixels remains the same so I don't think there will be problems printing the picture.
My question is: does the Save for Web function reduce image quality in any way when printing (it is obviously intended to be used to optimize images for websites)? Are there settings in "Save for Web" that would optimize for high quality prints? Is there a better way to tile an image?
I have not yet compared any prints.
W7
CS6

If you understand that something will do something you do not want like convert to 96 DPI as long as it does not resample you can always convert back to 300 DPI. If you want 6 4x6 to form a 12x12 you must start with an square 1:1 aspect ratio image. That you resample to 12"x 12" at 300 dpi if you want 6 4x6 300 dpi images.
If the original images vary in size and aspect ratio you need to crop them square or add two borders to make them square. The rest is easy to do with an action.
The square crop or border can be automated with a little scripting. If crop a center crop would be the route to go. My crafting actions package contains more the a dozen scripts to be used within action. One is a plug-in script that would make center cropping a snap two steps menu File>Automat>AspectsRatioSelection followed menu Image>Crop. Add a menu Image>Size set side to 12" and resolution 300 DPI and you have your starting 12"x12" 300 dpi image.
Flatten the image make your first 4"x6" selection copy past to add it as a layer. Select the background select the next 4x6 area copy and paste repeat that process till you have added the 6 4"X6" layers. Then delete the background, Select all, target all layers and use layer>Align layers to selection>Top edge then repeat align to left edge. the Image>Trim you have your 6 4x6 in a stack. You can the use Adobe Photoshop Script Export Layer to file. All automated in an action however the last step Export layers to files is interactive for its not a plug-in script. So if you batch it you keen to hang around to interact with the last step for each image.
You could also write you own export script that would not need human intervention to use instead of Adobe interactive script.
Crafting Actions Package UPDATED Aug 10, 2014 Added Conditional Action steps to Action Palette Tips.
Contains
Action Actions Palette Tips.txt
Action Creation Guidelines.txt
Action Dealing with Image Size.txt
Action Enhanced via Scripted Photoshop Functions.txt
CraftedActions.atn Sample Action set includes an example Watermarking action
Sample Actions.txt Photoshop CraftedActions set saved as a text file.
More then a dozen Scripts for use in actions
Example
Download

Optimize JPG image size reduction by reduced compression quality vs. reduced pixels?

I have many images of slides scanned at high res (4800 DPI, maximum pixels 5214x3592). Although I will be saving these as lossless TIFs, I also wish to make JPGs from them that I wish to be just less than 5 MB in file size. Aside from cropping, I know I can achieve such a reduction of JPG file size by a combination of saving to lower quality JPG compression or reducing image size. My question is, what is theoretically or practically better, achieving this mostly by reducing image total pixels or by reducing JPG compression quality. Thank you

Thank you Doug. The comments on extensive uniform blue sky vs. marked variation in color seem well taken, I'll keep this method of choosing in mind. My goal is to create a JPG family photo archive of the highest quality images that I can make for future use by non-technical descendants (thus it will supplement the TIF archive that holds the best quality versions of the same images but that may not be usable to novices). As I cannot anticipate exactly how the JPGs will be used, I just want them to be the best possible, while still being of a size that can be uploaded to, say, Costco (5 MB size limit) for making enlargements.
In general, I am often left curious as to how exactly Photoshop carries out its algorithms and how different factors influence the outcome. So often, one read "just try different techniques and see what looks the best". But I am always left wondering, what is the theory behind this and has it been systematically studied and worked out and published. In so many disciplines, such as medicine, the methods of optimization has been evaluated, systematized, and fully described. I have not yet explored what may be found in technical journals, but I'm sure much of this good stuff must be available somewhere. It would be nice to have a "How Things Work" that actually explains what Photoshop is doing under the hood.
Thanks again.

PLEASE HELP! 67MG PDF file can't reduce to email without losing image quality

I have created an 88 page fashion look book for work and it needs to be emailed out pronto to our customers!
I created it using In Design (the latest version)
I saved it as a PDF for my records - Highest Quality for printing purposes.
I open it in the latest version of Adobe Acrobat Pro XI - Version 11
When I compress the file it goes form 67Mg down to 10MG which is great, however the image quality is not good enough.
Being a fashion brand we need it to look crystal clear!
Can anyone help me and tell me where I am going wrong???
Thanks you in advance, Nicky

Try working on the images themselves before you create the original document. I don't normally recommend JPeg, but if you have pictures the feature of JPegs that reduces the color sharpness may help. Once you have what you want, you might then change it to a TIFF or PNG file. You can also do an audit in the PDF (save as>PDF Optimize) to see where the bloat is located. It is likely in the images. In that case you need to see how to reduce the size of the original images (actually work on copies so your originals stay good). It may be that you are using too many pixels (300-600 should be good in most cases) or you might be able to reduce the color depth (256 colors might be adequate. When you use the photo in ID, be sure you use it at 100%. If you need to change the size, do it in a graphics package that can properly interpolate the bits. You should do physical size reduction before you reduce the resolution. It may be that what is happening when you do the compression to 10MB is that the interpolation of the pixels is getting in the way. So doing all of this on the graphic before you use it would help a lot. I may not be a graphic expert, but trying to work on the original graphic to size and quality before you use it is typically a first step to a good look. PhotoShop should be able to do the reduction, but a simple program for such is IrfanView.

Reduce image in flash without dropping quality

Hi,
I’m going to import a image in to flash and reduce the
size to a half,
But it’s not looks good when I reduce the size of a
image in flash,
So I heard that there is a actionscript class for avoid it,
Someone please tell me where I can find it
Thank you

I never heard of it, but i guess you can try to reduce the
quality in a bitmap editing software like Photoshop and import it
into Flash. Also, you can check the allow smoothness check box in
the image setting

Reducing image size without reducing quality

Hello all.
I'm trying to learn if there is a way to reduce the size of an image in Pages without reducing the quality. It seems that when I use the built-in command from the file menu or by control-clicking on an image, the images go soft after the reduction. There has to be a way to keep the photos sharp without having them take up so much space. Any tips out there?

Best is to take the original images into Preview and:
1 Crop them to the view in Pages
2. Decide what resolution you want for the final size in Pages:
300dpi for good quality printing
150 dpi for good quality screen appearance
72 dpi for bare minimum screen appearance
3. If they are color photo like images, save them as .jpeg with as much quality loss as you you can tolerate
4. If they are flat areas of color or black and white save them as compressed .tiffs
After cropping and compression bring them back into Pages and use no compression there at all.
Peter

Image quality reduced when scaled down on black background

I am trying to view two tracks at the same time so I have scaled them down. Once I rendered them, the quality was horrible and then I changed the background to checkerboard instead of black, which worked, but I would like a black background for viewing, so how do I fix the poor image quality problem?

I'm guessing you're making this judgement in the Canvas. You really can't. Check it on an external CRT, and make sure your render settings are all set to their highest. Just because it plays back or evven has a proxy render doesn't mean you're seeing its highest quality.
Are you saying that when you put them over a different background the quality improved? I don't know why that would be, bbut if it works then try putting a slug on V1 as a black background.
Or by checkerboard you mean you set the Canvas to a different mode...?

Reduced Image Quality

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for