Scaled down images look poor

when placing .png files into CS5, they look fine, though as I scale them smaller, once I reach a certain size, they begin to look pixelated and the edges are jagged. Why is this? Why would they look worse at smaller sizes and how can I scale them down without them doing this?
Thanks.

I agree with the last poster, .png is a newer format.
You problem may be with bitmapped graphics previews in Illustrator. The best accuracy of a bitmapped graphic preview is in photoshop at 100% (1 pixel file to 1 pixel monitor). As you zoom in on a scaled down illustrator the preview will get better, as Illustrator uses the bitmapped preview part of the file to display the image, but the interpolation may make thin lines look bolder or thinner when not in a 1 to 1 pixel preview.
Please post an example screenshot if you still need help, and we can answer your question much better.

Similar Messages

It's about attaching scaled down image

hi...
i'm attaching an image that has been scaled down from 3040 x 2016 to 1200 x 796 (using photoshop) to a jpanel via drawImage...
it works fine, but then a message occur on the console when the program terminated :
'Corrupt JPEG data: 3304 extraneous bytes before marker 0xed'
i've tested attaching the real image (3040 x 2016)... there's no problem, but it's way too big,
slowing down the program initialization...
so is it a problem attaching a scaled down image ?
thanx !

Does the image open properly in photoshop? What type of image is it?

Scaling Down images in Illustrator

I scaled down original images into a file in an illustrator file but the pictures are still the original HUGE picture size. When I scale it down or save the file as a pdf is there anyway to get the size down proportional to the scaled down version? This is going to press so I can't reduce the quality.

Look at the preferences for pdf export, I believe it is under the edit menu. You can set the image reduction there. If necessary, create a new preset with the options you prefer, but one of the pdf-x options should work. (I never tired the pdf-x presets, so I am assuming it would be right).

Scaling down images to thumbnails with bilinear/bicubic filtering in Flex?

Hi!
I develop a Flex based AIR Application, which needs to create
thumbnails of big images. My Thumbnailer class does what I want to,
but the results look not so well. The problem is, that even with
"smoothing" turned on, when drawing the bitmap smoothing only
effects up-scaling.
The thumbnails look very jagged and crisp. Photoshop uses
bilinear or bicubic filtering when scaling down an image, which
looks much better. I have searched the web with google and I have
looked for other Flex projects using thumbnails but I could not
find anything producing better thumbnail images.
Performance is not very important because I save the
thumbnails to image files and use these. So scaling does not to be
real time.
Is there a way to create better thumbnail images in
Flex?

I don't think it should be necessary to do things this way.
I tried following the approach outlined here:
http://blog.739saintlouis.com/2007/02/05/scaling-an-image-with-smoothing/
in both an AIR app and a normal web app, and it looked
noticeably different (worse) in AIR. Have you done the same
experiment?
Anyway, someone will look into it. (It's still possible you
may be able to get better results following your method,
though...not sure about that).
Mike Schiff
Flex SDK team.

FaceTime Camera Images Look Poor on New Macbook Pro Retina Models

I received my new 2012 Macbook Pro Retina display model yesterday. When doing Facetime last night, others on the other end were commenting how poor the image coming from my end looked. Then I tried it on my iphone 4S and it was amazing how much better the picture of me looked on the phone versus the macbook. Today, I went to the Apple store to compare my new computer to the Retina display models on the display. Their camera images honestly didn't look much better than what I have on mine (but for example, the new Macbook Air's images look much more realistic). Why is this? How can the HD Facetime camera in the Macbook Pro produce less realistic images than the lower resolution iPhone 4S or Ipad cameras? Any help or insight you could share would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Jason

Thanks for the update, Jason.
Jason1975 wrote: ... There is definitely a difference between what was seen on the MacBook Pro Retina models on display and what the other sources I mentioned were displaying. Perhaps it has to do with the new display and software that isn't updated yet...
.... Unfortunately, the new laptop has the same issue...
Of course what is seen on Retina versus non-Retina display will be different. That is a different issue from the video quality your video contacts experience. However, the fact that you see the same problems at your home on a second new Mac means you will need to do some more extensive troubleshooting involving another trip to the Apple Store.
Rather than merely looking at displays of the live camera, I suggest you compare how the FaceTime video looks when received on your iPhone while in the Apple Store. If necessary, you should test your new Mac plus some of the Store models, too. Taking your new Mac & iPhone back the the Apple Store and connecting there will have the added benefit of eliminating possible internet connection issues at your location.
At the Store, you can compare how your new Mac's video transmissions (iChat, FaceTime, etc.) and video from some Store display cameras look on your iPhone as a receiving device. If all are "bad" on your iPhone, you can also compare video transmissions received on one of the Store's devices to be sure it sees the same video problem as your iPhone.
While connected via wi-fi in the Apple Store, if the FaceTime video transmissions from your new Retina MacBook Pro (RMBP) to your iPhone is lower quality from that of the Apple Store's RMBP FaceTime to your iPhone, it seems to me that the Geniuses should determine whether your new RMBP needs service or (highly unlikely) is a second "bad" Mac that should be exchanged for a RMBP that works properly. This time, test the fix BEFORE you take it home again.
If, every RMBP you test in the Apple Store looks worse than the video sent from all other devices, you are most likely correct that some software needs to be updated for video quality.
All this testing may take some time, so plan ahead. Perhaps you want to make a Genius appointment. However, although the Geniuses were unable to give a definitive answer other than swapping RMBPs during your last visit, they may have since found an official answer to your questions.
Message was edited by: EZ Jim
Mac OSX 10.7.4

Having problems scaling down image

Hi there, I was hoping somebody here may be able to answer a query I have.
I'm currently creating the following icon in Illustrator:
The Image was created within illustrator using the shape and pathfinder tools, the problem I'm having is that when I come to scaling it down, this happens:
The strange thing is that when I scale the icon upwards it does it perfectly as it should, but the problems are coming from scaling it down.
I think it may have something to do with the size of the image already, it's quite small, approximately 50px accross. I'm looking to get it down to about 25-30 px accross, but when i take it down to about 40px the distortion occurs and gets worse as I make it smaller.. I thought it may have something to do with the handles on the anchor points overlapping? But I'm not so sure as I've never had an issue like this before, although I've never worked at this small scale before either.
Any help on this is much appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Lionel.

In your transform palette turn OFF align to pixel grid, prior to scaling. Adobe since CS5 has made that to be on by default when you create an RGB document.

Pixelated images when scaled down issue.

I have scaled down some JPG's in flash and they look fine but
when I publish to a SWF they look pixelated. I've read other
threads and done what is suggested i.e. Smoothing on or off, JPG's
instead of PNG's and quality at 100% with no success. I know that
Flash isn't a resolution based application and bitmaps are but the
images look fine in the Flash IDE.
Can anybody help me further with this. Thanks in advance for
any help.
Simon.

Hi andy 3r x1...I'm not sure I understand what you mean,
sorry. I have JPG's inside flash and they look fine but when I
publish and view them through the player they don't. The JPG's are
scaled in the flash movie but are seen 1:1 later on in the movie.
The scaled versions are pixelated.
Anyhow, I've found what the problem is. I'm publishing for
Flash player 7. If I publish for 8 and above the JPG's look fine.
Haven't got a clue why this is other then the players are better?!?

Stop imported images from being scaled down

This is a quote from the Adobe Premiere Elements 7 web page Guidelines For Adding Files
Guidelines for adding still image files
By default, Adobe Premiere Elements scales still images to fit the project frame size. You can override this behavior and instead add your files at the size at which they were created.
My question is how do you override the down scaling my image of 4000x3000 is getting scaled to 1280x??? so when I zoom it is pixelated.
Thanks all.

Also, how do you intend to export this 4000 x 3000 pixel still? If you go Share/Personal Computer/Windows Media, even with the choice preset = 1440 x 1080 HD anamorphic, the max that you can type in for frame size = 2000 x 2000 pixels.
In the OP's case, the Export will be to the chosen Frame Size. Let's just say that it's 1440 x 1080. That is all that will show. However, PrE will be displaying that Frame Size from the larger still, and as it moves about, within that Frame Size, the image will change to reflect the current view of that still image. It's like having a 1440 x 1080 window. Behind that "window," the scene is moved about, as is needed. The view will always be through that window, but with something like the Effect>Motion>Position, will be dynamically altered, frame by frame. Without Scale to Fit, only the 1440 x 1080 "view" will be seen, and never the 4000 x X full view. It's about the same as a PiP, that is created by Effect>Crop. The full image of the Video Clip on Track 2 is never seen, as we have created a "window," reflected by the Crop. That is all that the NLE "sees," and Exports.
Still, the resources useage will be predicated on the size of the source material, even though we only see that 1440 x 1080 "view" of it. The program has to "crunch" the "big picture."
Hunt

Green screen filter and scaling down distorts image?

I captured footage from Digital Video Camcorder NTSC ZR30 MC (standard definition camera 2001?) through firewire connection. Footage was recorded in 12 bit rate. Captured in equivalent DV NTSC 32 kHz. Edited the footage using green screen, scaled down to about a quarter of the frame and used oval shape video generator.
Using FCP 0.6. After rendering all edited footage, it plays back digitally distorted (digital lines constructing the image are out of sync). When exported through Quick Time Movie the image remains distorted.
What can be the cause of that?
Please help,
Hazel

When you slow down footage you are creating frames where there were none before. I'd suggest you do this in a two step process:
1. Slow down your footage and render it. export selfcontained movie, do not recompress all frames.
2. re-import the slowed down footage and apply green screen filter.

IOS: Thoughts on scaling down Retina content for iPad 2?

I don't have a non-Retina device to test on (yet. Still early in development on my universal first app), so I was wondering if anyone else is considering scaling Retina content down 50% for non-Retina devices? (iPod Touch 3rd Gen, iPhone 3GS & iPad 2) This method would sure be nicer than having to package a bunch of extra images!
Testing for appearance in Flash CS 5.5, this scaling method seems to work fine, with the exception of small text; (button labels) doesn't look that great. Anybody have some insight or experience with scaling text on these screens? Will it look better on the actual device or should I import native resolution non-Retina elements for the smaller text?
Thanks for helping an iOS noob!

Update since I played with this some more today...
I decided to create new tab/nav bar with buttons at standard (non-Retina display) resolution and call that in for non-Retina devices, while scaling down my app pages 50%. (Larger text seems to look fine when scaled down) I dropped the font on my button labels from Helvetica Neue "medium" to "regular" as well as checking "use device fonts." Both actions seemed to bring a marked improvement on legibility for the small font size (11). Hopefully this will all check out when I get to test it on a real non-Retina device, but I do hear Apple's hardware does a pretty good job at scaling.
Hope this helps someone...

Blurry/Scaled Down Artwork Column and Cover Flow are in 9.2

i have noticed on my iMac 27" that the album artwork is really blurry, and when i double click the art work at the left bottom and enlarge it, it looks fine. For some reason Apple scales down the pixel size of images and it looks really blurry. Before it was the standard 600x600 artwork that looked beautiful but not anymore..
This is an infuriating problem as I have taken a lot of time to embed high res art in my fles. The art still remains hi res in the bottom left, but in cover flow or the album artwork column it is a crappy looking blurry image.

I noticed this also. And yes, it infuriates me too. I used to browse my music collection in Cover Flow on a 46" LCD. Not any more since iTunes 9.2. iTunes 9.2 comes with several new features and improvements, including this one: "Album Artwork improvements make artwork appear more quickly when exploring your library".
It turns out that the album artwork cache build by iTunes consists of scaled down copies with a size of 128x128!!! These scaled down copies are used in the album artwork column, grid view, and cover flow. Not much you can do about it except give feedback (http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunesapp.html). That's what I did.

Proportional Scaling external Image to stage

Sounds confusing I know but basically I want to place some images on the stage and I want every image, whether big or small, portrait or landscape, to be scaled to about a quarter of the stage size.
I have tried coding this myself and even tried many suggestions found on the web, but they all seem to do the same thing. The code either sizes every image to be equal in width and varying height, or scale every image to be equal in height with varying width.
Say you have some images all the same size, but some in landscape orientation and some in portrait orientation. Most of the code I found for "proportional scaling" would scale the landscape images okay, but make the portrait images the same height as the others, so they looked alot smaller. Or the reverse was true.
example:
image.width = stage.stageWidth;
image.height = stage.stageHeight;
( image.scaleX < image.scaleY ) ? image.scaleY = image.scaleX : image.scaleX = image.scaleY;
This makes all the images fit on the stage all right, but they all have the same width. reversing the equality amkes all teh heights the same.
If two images did not have the same width before they are scaled down, they should not have the smae width afterwards in my opinion.
Sometimes I get some code that seems to work, then I change the stage size to check it and all the images did not scale to 1/4 of the stage new size when the FLA was run.
I bet this is simple, but I have been working on it too long, y mind is in a knot!

I loaded an array with a Loader and then used a random a variable to pick from the array using a variable that has the length of the array in it: here is the code, but the cut and paste does not wok that well.
import com.greensock.TweenLite;
var XMLURLLoader:URLLoader = new URLLoader();
XMLURLLoader.load(new URLRequest("link to picasa photo rss feed"));
XMLURLLoader.addEventListener(Event.COMPLETE, processXML);
var media:Namespace=new Namespace("http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"); imagesArray:Array = new Array();
var imagesDateUploaded:Array = new Array();//The title properties of the XML File
//var imagesWidth:Array = new Array();
//var imagesHeight:Array = new Array();
var imagesLength:uint;
var imagesLoadedCount:int=0;//A counter, counts the images loaded
var formatFont:Myriad = new Myriad();//This is the embedded font
var textformat:TextFormat = new TextFormat();//A TextFormat Object
textformat.color=0xFFFFFF;
textformat.font=formatFont.fontName;
textformat.size=80;//Use the same size you used when embedding the font from the Library
var
function processXML(event:Event):void {
var XMLdata:XML=new XML(XMLURLLoader.data);
imagesLength=XMLdata.channel.item.length();
for (var i:uint=0; i < imagesLength; i++) {
var loader:Loader = new Loader();
loader.load(new URLRequest(String(XMLdata.channel.item[i].enclosure.@url)));
imagesArray.push(loader);
var imageDate:String=XMLdata.channel.item[i].pubDate.substr(6,10);
imagesDateUploaded.push(imageDate);
loader.contentLoaderInfo.addEventListener(Event.COMPLETE, imagesLoaded);//A listener to the function that will be executed when an image is loaded
function imagesLoaded(event:Event):void {
imagesLoadedCount++;//Adds one to the imagesLoaded variable
if (imagesLength==imagesLoadedCount) {//When all images are loaded
prepareImages();//This function is explained in the next step
var maxSize:Number=stage.stageWidth/2;
function prepareImages():void {
//These actions will be applied to all the images loaded so we use a "for" and the "images" array to do that
var i:uint = Math.floor(Math.random()*imagesLength);
trace(i);
var container:Sprite = new Sprite();//A container that will store the image, frame, TextField, TextField background and shadow
var frame:Sprite = new Sprite();//The Frame Sprite
var infoArea:Sprite = new Sprite();//The TextField background
var infoField:TextField = new TextField();//The TextField
//build the frames
frame.graphics.beginFill(0xFFFFFF);
frame.graphics.drawRect(-20, -20, imagesArray[i].width + 40, imagesArray[i].height + 40);
frame.graphics.endFill();
//creates a black rectangle in the bottom part of the image, where the TextField will be.
infoArea.graphics.beginFill(0x111111, 0.5);//.5 is alpha
infoArea.graphics.drawRect(0, 0, imagesArray[i].width, 100);//100 = height
infoArea.graphics.endFill();
infoArea.y=imagesArray[i].height-100;
//The following code sets the TextField properties and adds its contents
infoField.defaultTextFormat=textformat;
infoField.embedFonts=true;//You have to add this to use the embedded font
infoField.antiAliasType=AntiAliasType.ADVANCED;//This property will display the text more clearly
infoField.width=imagesArray[i].width-5;
infoField.height=100;
infoField.text=imagesDateUploaded[i];//The content, obtained from the XML and stored in the Array
//The images will have a random position based on the center of the Stage area. We use Math for that.
//add a shadow filter
//Distance, angle, color, alpha, blur, strength, quality
var shadowFilter:BitmapFilter=new DropShadowFilter(3,90,0x252525,1,2,2,1,15);
var filterArray:Array=[shadowFilter];
container.filters=filterArray;//Apply the filter
//adding children to container
infoArea.addChild(infoField);//Adds the TextField to the TextField Background
container.addChild(frame);//Adds the Frame to the Container
var bd:BitmapData= new BitmapData(imagesArray[i].width, imagesArray[i].height);
var bmp:Bitmap = new Bitmap(bd);
bd.draw(imagesArray[i]);
container.addChild(bmp);
// using the loader from the array directly was causing problems like only showing once.
// container.addChild(imagesArray[i]);//Adds the Image on top of the Frame in the Container
infoArea.visible=true;//We set the image information to invisible by default
container.addChild(infoArea);//Adds the information area in top of everything
//resize the images to no more than 1/2 the image width or height compared to stage
if (container.width>container.height) {// horizontal asset
   container.width=maxSize;
   container.scaleY=container.scaleX;
} else {// vertical asset
   container.height=maxSize;
   container.scaleX=container.scaleY;
container.x = Math.floor(Math.random()*(1+stage.stageWidth - container.width-20))+20;
container.y = Math.floor(Math.random()*(1+stage.stageHeight - container.height-20))+20;
//the plus and minus 20 keeps the image in the stage boundary. something wrong with the container width calculations
this.addChild(container);//Lastly, we add the Container to the Stage
container.alpha = 0;
TweenLite.to(container,1,{alpha:1});
trace("Just added child");
var timer:Timer = new Timer(5000,1);
timer.addEventListener (TimerEvent.TIMER, initTimer);
timer.start();
function initTimer(event:TimerEvent):void{
trace("Timer started");
prepareImages();
timer.reset()

Can I restore resolution after scaling down?

I created a scene for an animation by painting in photoshop meant for HDTV 1080p. I scaled the image down in order to create a longer panel for a tracking shot, but now when I scale it back up to the correct size the resolution is terrible! Is there any way to restore the resolution? I was told I should have made it a smart object before resizing, but is there any way to fix the problem after the fact?

Assuming your painting is made of pixels (vs. shapes), other than going back in your History (assuming you're in the same Photoshop session), no. Once you've downsampled pixels, there's no getting the lost detail back.
Some thoughts:
Close the document without saving and reopen the original.
If you've already overwritten your master document, look for a backup of the file.
-Noel

Still having problem with PDF document video - Text Blurred on Scaling Down

Need to scale down a captured PDF document video (.mp4). but text become blurry after scale down. Any suggestions to keep the text clear and readable ?

Those two things are not the same shape. If what I am about to say is too basic, please forgive me. It might help someone else later.
The ratio of your captured image (1434 x 958) is calculated as:
1434 / 958 = 1.496868475991649
The ratio of your export is calculated as:
640 / 480 = 1.333333333333333
Just get the representation of them into one document, I created a Photoshop file big enough to hold them both. Then I scaled it down and took a screen shot to fit this forum's restrictions on file size.
If you look at the first image, it is difficult to see that they are different shapes.
In order to make them easier to see, I scaled down the larger layer, using the Shift key to ensure that the scale is perfectly proportional.
Now you can easily tell that the ratio of 1434x958 is much wider than the ratio of 640 X 480.
That means that you are changing the shape of the image when you export.
If you are concerned about the long edge, you could divide 640 by 1.496868475991649 and export the image at 640X428 and get closer. It is not optimum, but should look better. Optimum would have been to size your PDF to where the longer edge was evenly divisible by 16. But, too late for that.
Another choice would be to edit the video in a 640X480 sequence, and scale the PDF video down to fit that sequence - leaving a letterbox look (black bars on top and bottom). That might help the image stay sharp. Then export to 640X480 from there.

Firefox is scaling down the photo sizes, along with chrome and internet explorer but Firefox's photos are usually smaller

I sell products on a site, along with other sellers, that is owned by someone else.
We have many sellers there. Some of us are having problems with how we are able to view the size of our photos taken of our products that are up for sale.
From seller to seller, we have different versions of Firefox that we are using. I have the newest Firefox, which I believe is 4.
I was having, like others who use 4, the same problem seeing smaller photos before I did the upgrade as well.
It seems to be the case for most of us who are having the problem, that Firefox photos scale down smaller than Internet Explorer and Chrome.
We have been told that this may be a browser issue as the site owners say they have not made any changes. At this point we are unsure since there are so many variations from seller to seller (keep in mind that some sellers are not seeing the photos scale down through their computer).
We have asked the site owners to look into this problem further. I also wanted to see what the Firefox community had to say. Do you think it may be a browser issue? We would greatly appreciate your input.
Below are some examples of photos that have been scaled down for the sellers who are seeing a problem with smaller photos while both in Firefox; all using different versions of Firefox:
One photo that was originally the size of 419px by 1, 007px is being seen by one seller to a scaled down size of 81px by 64px.
Another seller is viewing this same photo scaled down to 163px by 329px.
Another seller is able to view this photo as the original size it was intended to be, which is 419px by 1, 007px.
The above scenario has been the worst scaled down size we have heard of so far.
Typically a photo that is the size of 1, 000px by 930px has been scaled down to 420px by 391px.
There are other examples as to size, but you can see that the photos have been scaled down quite a bit.
You can see that it has been scaled down to less than half of the original size. This can pose a real problem for us depending on the type of product that is being photographed.
Thank you!!

Thank you!!

Scaled down images look poor

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for