Sharpness/softness

HI all,
I was hoping someone would fix the shapness /softness in iPhoto 07. (Shapness starts at 0 and goes to 1.00). In Iphoto 06 the shapness could be reduced to -1.0. Why did they remove this this off, its the main reason, by wife wants to move down to iphoto06. (Softness is as importand as making an image sharper).
regards
shadowfax2

shadowfax2
Welcome to the Apple Discussions.
iPhoto menu -> Provide iPhoto Feedback
Regards
TD

Similar Messages

Sharpness/Softness control in edit

On my Mac-Mini iPhoto, the edit function in iPhoto is different from my newer OSX 10.5.6. In particular, the older version has a better "Sharpness" control in the edit function. In the older version the default position is in the center, equally between "softer" and "sharper". Thus, if I want to add softness to a photo (which can look very nice sometimes) I just mover the slider to the left. Buts with the newer version, the slider is all the way to the left, and there is no way to add softness. Any explanation or work-around for this.

Does anyone know why the sharpness slide control in the edit facility of iPhoto hasn't worked on any iMac after the iPhoto update near the end of 2012 ? (not 2011)

Way to fix autofocus problem?

I have a 20 second shot where the autofocus on my camera had trouble settling on what point to focus on. Focus goes in and out at regular intervals, so it looks like the shot is pulsating. Is there a filter where I could compensate for this?
Meaning, since the sharp - soft focus goes back and forth at even intervals, is there a filter I could apply where I could blur - unblur the shot to even it out. I would rather have a soft shot then the very distracting strobe effect.
I hope this makes sense. Thank you

Effects>Video Filters>Blur>Gaussian Blur (or whatever other blur you prefer)
Effects>Video Filters>Sharpen>Sharpen
Both of these filters should minimize your issues. Simply apply the filters and then create keyframes in the viewer to animate the intensity of the blur or sharpen as the auto focus racks.

Slideshow looks soft and not sharp enough

Slideshow with LR4 for raw and JPG files is not sharp enough (seems a bit soft or appears not enough resolution) when comparing to using ViewNX2 for NEF files or using photo explorer of Windows 7 (with plugin) for DNG files. The same result for a small notebook screen or a 42" 1080P display. Any one can provide help on this? What is your best way to conduct slideshow of raw files for the right resolution that meeting display size? I have set my standard preview size to 2048pixels and medium quality.

How are you are you playing the slideshow (i.e. inside LR using 'Play,' exported PDF or Video) and what type of template are you using? It's best to match the template aspect ratio to the target playback screen aspect ratio. For my 16:9 1920 x1080 monitor I use a custom 'Widescreen Template like this:
My previews are also set to 2048 pixels, medium quality and PDF slideshow exports are sharp. If you read the post I linked to you will see that LR on Windows 7 causes portrait images in the PDF slideshow to have jaggies, which actually appear onscreen as "over-sharpening." I rarely use the LR Slideshow module full-screen 'Play' function, but just checked it for comparison. You are correct, both landscape and portrait images in the LR full-screen slideshow 'Play' mode appear slightly softer than the Slideshow PDF export at 'Screen' resolution and 91 Quality. What is interesting is that there are no "jaggies" in portrait images when using the native LR slideshow 'Play' mode, so the images are being rendered differently than the slideshow 'Export' modes.
IMHO, the slideshow module has become an orphaned stepchild of LR with issues that Adobe has ignored since LR2. For the best possible rendering I'd use 'Export PDF Slideshow' using the target viewing screen resolution and 90+ Quality, but there is this caveat:
LR has at least three different implementation versions, concerning this LR Slideshow Module behavior:
                         Stroke Border      Portrait Images
Mac OS:           Causes softness    OK (no resample artifacts)
Windows Vista: No issues               Resample artifacts (jaggies)
Windows 7:       Causes softness    Resample artifacts (jaggies)
This was at least the case for LR3.6 and I'm pretty sure LR4.1 has the same issues.

My photos are sharp but become soft when used in and IDVD slide show.

My photos are sharp but become soft when used in and IDVD slide show. How can I prevent this from happining??

Hi,
I suggest that you try unchecking both of the crop options - landscape & portrait.
To re-create your situation, I had to check the crop for landscape pictures option.
I prefer to have control over any cropping so I tend to crop each image first before creating the slide show.
Brian

Using slideshow function yield very fuzzy/soft focus show. Same images in MS slideshow are sharp.

When I view a selection of images using the slideshow function in Bridge, (CS6) it significantly softens the focus of every image. If I view the same images in the MS slideshow viewer, the images, same screen size, of possibly even slightly larger, are very sharp. Why the problem? Typically I am working with 3-8 MB files.

Thanks for your reply and for the link. However, the link addresses the problem for TV appearance while mine was concerned about the playback on my iMac.
When I burned other DVDs from Keynote, there was no "blurring or fuzziness" with photos or text on playback with my iMac or TV!
Also, the playback was automatic when the disk was inserted. When the latest one was inserted, the disk icon etc had to be clicked for it to run after which full screen had to be selected as well.
I do not want to make a DVD from iDVD - just one that will run the slideshow.
Any other suggestions on burning would be appreciated.
Vernon

DNG sharp in Bridge/ACR, soft in PS4

Hello,
I'm new to the forum - I hope I am asking this in the right place! I just upgraded to a D7000 and found that ACR can't read the .NEF files, so I used Lightroom to convert the files to DNG. I've since downloaded the DNG converter and will use that in the future, as I only have the trial of LR and don't do any editing there yet.
When I preview the photos in Bridge and open them in ACR they look nice and sharp...but when I open them in CS4 they look terribly blurry! As a test I saved some files from PS as jpegs and then uploaded and viewed them in Flickr and they look nice and sharp there. Any idea what settings in PS could be wonky? Prior to today I had a D70s and used ACR/PS4 with no problem, but I didn't have to convert to DNG (and my file size was a lot smaller, not sure if that's relevant).
Thank you for any help or ideas!!
Cheers,
M

Hi Noel,
Thank you for your thoughful and detailed response. Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, but here's what I've found out.
*I have a Macbook Pro from 2008 with a NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT 512 MB video card.
*I have no idea what display driver version I have
*We recently upgraded to OS X Lion 10.7.1 (within the last month)
*Last week I upgraded my camera to a D7000 which significantly increased my file size (vs the D70s from 2005)
*I have CS4 which doesn't read the NEF files from my new camera, so I'm converting them to DNG
*Photos would look sharp everywhere (Bridge, Finder, saved as JPEGs and uploaded to Flickr) except for within PS4
To make things even more strange, the problem seems to be intermittent. I opened some photos with and without OpenGL today and took screen shots to attach here, and they look very similar - maybe a slight change in tone and sharpness, but nothing to write home about. I checked the Nvidia site, and when I search for updated drivers for my card they don't list OS X Lion as an option for the operating system - maybe that is part of the problem? I did a Google+ search and apparently a lot of Macbooks from 2007/2008 are having issues with this video card, and Apple is actually repairing them for free if they fail within four years of purchase. I'm now wondering if the new file size + OS X Lion is somehow exposing an inherent weakness in the video card. At the extreme end these cards have failed completely - I'm clearly not there yet, as my photos look fine today! Not sure if this makes any sense. Thank you for your help!

TK weave now goes soft and sharp on Smoothcam processed shot

Hi folks.
Hoping someone may have a suggestion or idea.
Trying to improve a wobbly shot. Shot on super 16 with a TK txfer from a Spirit onto Digi (625). However, shot has rotational weave (not excessive but iritating enough for the director to want us to see if we could fix it - it was not a fault on the TK as we checked that - pleased one slightly worried colourist). So I decided to see how Smoothcam would perform with it. After analysis, the shot is now rock solid. However where the movement is obviously being processed the most, the image goes soft which I did expect it to do but was hoping would be less obvious than it is. I tried altering the parameters in Smoothcam but it didn't help a whole lot. I then tried applying deflicker and then sharpening, which actually did help a bit. However I've now run out of ideas, so does anyone out there have any other suggestions I could try. (especially as I don't want to have to give it to our DS ops so they can sneer about FCP although I'd say they'll probably get the same result). The shot is only 6 secs long of which 18 frames either end is a dissolve, but any chance to put one over the smug DS boys would be great.
Cheers
Rob C

Well first of all smoothcam how it applies to FCP is not really designed to handle things like this. Its main purpose is to take out the bumps in a bumpy dolly move, etc and frankly this is more for the prosumer crowd. If you are a pro guy, which it sounds like you are, you should be seeking help from an experienced operator of an effects package like shake (from which this feature was cannabalized) or flame. I had this happen to a roll of film I shot and had a flame artist take it out after 2 hours of work. Each situation is different in how they might approach a weave so the "push button" solution in FCP is not going to satisfy you. If properly done right you may minimize the weave but in reality if you are expecting it at closer inspection to look as if it never was there, thats probably asking too much. The softening in my guess is just a reality for what is a worse alternative.

Adobe Bridge CC previews soft.

Hi,
I've recently upgraded from a PC to a 27" imac. When I open Bridge CC and go to "Full size preview" to edit the days shoot all images look extremely soft / blurred, however once I click the image to zoom in it appears sharp again. I used bridge on my old PC set-up and never noticed this, is there anyway I can make previews sharp?
Thanks.

Hi,
I am using an iMac 27" too and I've faced in with this situation as well as you are, I hve tried several different setting but it feels like it is normal. I've gone trough on Bridge, CC and CC2014 nut they are all the same. If you open on camera raw any raw files you might see similar softness. As soon as you convert to JPG,TIFF, PNG... it will be fine.

T2 Digitizer frozen after soft,warm,hard resets.Can not get it to calibrate at all.

My T2 occasionally has to be recalibrated. I downloaed DigiFix some months ago and it seemed to help a bit. I hot synced my data last night and all was well. This morning I could not tap my screen to access anything. I tried cleaning carefully around the screen edge, gently cleaned the screen ( no visible damage to the screen noted ), performed a soft reset ( which usually worked ), a warm reset, followed by a soft reset and finally a hard reset ( kept data ) followed by a soft reset and then the big one, a hard reset with loss of data followed with 5 soft resets in a row. I found through the forum a T2 update which I downloaded and is ready to be installed when I next hot sync.
The unit is now frozen with the x in the starting position in the top left corner. Despite my efforts to gently tap all around the X, I can not get it to recalibrate or even get off the calibration screen. If I could just get back to any regular screen, I could get my data back and install this T2 update.
I also downloaded Pocket DVD studio a week ago and have been able to upload .avi files for viewing videos on my Palm. I works beautifully. I think I still have the original Kimoma player on my T2, but never really like it. Can anyone PLEASE help me out? This T2 update is supposed to help according to the infor I found in forum....MANY THANKS!
Post relates to: Tungsten T2
This question was solved.
View Solution.

Thank you for the fina advice. It worked and my T2 is now working perfectly. I think the real trick is using cheap copier paper, not the higher grade stuff or a business card for the cleaning routine. I floded the paper lengthwiase and put a sharp crease in before cutting into little work strips. It took a lot of patience and time to perform a proper cleaning, but it was worth it. Seems that the smallest bit of anything which get trapped under the bezel will throw the T2 into a stupor. Many thanks your your fine advice.....Rgds,John Brown
Post relates to: Tungsten T2

Sharpness of Photos in Lightroom 5.3

Can anyone please provide an explanation as to why my pictures when edited in Lightroom 5.3 appear soft and seem to require too much sharpening for an acceptable screen view.    When pictures are subsequently made ready for printing from Lightoom 5.3, they then appear over-sharpened when previewed.          Lightroom 5.3 does not seem to show screen images at the same level of sharpness as the supplied RAW processing software supplied by Sony for my A7r camera.      Images loaded directly into Sony's own Raw processor (IMAGE DATA CONVERTER) look tack-sharp having been auto-edited with basic default presets within the programme.
I have invested in a high resolution monitor and this is kept regularly calibrated.       LR 5.3 knows it is dealing with RAW files from my Sony A7r because the Metadata transfers efficiently on import.
If I do any other photo work on my computer (WIN 8.1 64bit), all my pictures look acceptably sharp.     When loaded into LR 5.3, they always seem to require more sharpening to look the same.     Often the sharpness slider requires to be pushed to 100-120 in order for the picture to look correct........
Have I missed some important set-up procedure when installing LR 5.3?         How can I ensure that Sony RAW files look presentably sharp following basic standard preset importation (with the sharpness slider settling to about 25)
Some help with this vexing issue would be appreciated.
Many thanks in advance.

Your comments and those of others appreciated.
2 things to report since my last communication.
a)    I am now reasonably sure that the rendering of sharpened screen images within LR 5.3 do not display correctly when referenced with the amount of overall detail applied.       This is because images exported out of LR 5.3 and then viewed in a different photo viewer look so much better.
b)    By fortunate coincidence, I have now downloaded and installed LR 5.4 and my very first impression is that some improvement in the sharpening (detailing) facility has been incorporated.      I will work with this new version of the programme further before considering a further judgement.
Very best regards and thanks to all.
trshaner wrote:
Billtimepilot wrote:
Forgive my naivety but I feel I must make beg the question, 'why isn't the sharpening facility within LR 5.3 as efficient, effective and straightforward as it is in RAW processors such as SILKYPIX and SONY IMAGE DATA CONVERTER?           Within these programmes, the sharpening added to RAW files by basic default.......which I understand to be known as 'capture sharpening......is usually just right.
There could be a number of things going on that are affecting what you are seeing.The onscreen preview image inside the editing application may be using different scaling algorithms to make the image "fit" in the loupe window. If they are using the simpler and faster nearest-neighbor or bilinear algorithms they will appear sharper (i.e. LR Develop module preview), but on closer examination will also exhibit interpolation "jaggies." along straight edges. I also believe the editing applications you mentioned do not apply noise reduction to the preview image, which may also make the image look a bit sharper.
Run a quick test by applying Sharpening to a raw image at 1:1 view so that it appears cirtically sharp when viewed at 1:4 Zoom in the Library module. Next Export the image to 16bit TIFF, ProPhoto RGB profile with NO Image Sizing and NO Output Sharpening. Using the same raw file Export the image to 16bit TIFF, ProPhoto RGB profile, but with 1:4 Image Sizing (i.e. Long Edge = 1/4 raw file long edge in pixels) with Output Sharpening = Screen Standard. Next Compare the 1:4 resized TIFF export image at 1:1 view to the other two images at 1:4 view so they are equally sized. Let me know what you see.

CS4 NOT capable of sharp displays at all zoom levels

I must have been asleep, until now, and missed the significance and importance of what follows.
In post #11 here:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/375478?tstart=30
on 19 March 2009 Chris Cox (Adobe Photoshop Engineer - his title on the old forums) said this, in a discussion regarding sharpness in CS4:
"You can't have perfectly sharp images at all zoom levels.". Unfortunately, my experience with CS4 since its release late last year has repeatedly confirmed the correctness of this statement.
What makes this statement so disturbing is that it contradicts an overwhelming amount of the pre- and post-release promotional advertising of CS4 by Adobe, to the effect that the OpenGL features of CS4 enable it to display sharp images at all zoom levels and magnifications. What is surprising is that this assertion has been picked up and regurgitated in commentary by other, sometimes highly experienced, Ps users (some unconnected with, but also some directly connected with, Adobe). I relied upon these representations when making my decision to purchase the upgrade from CS3 to CS4. In fact, they were my principal reason for upgrading. Without them, I would not have upgraded. Set out in numbered paragraphs 1 to 6 below is a small selection only of this material.
1. Watch the video "Photoshop CS4: Buy or Die" by Deke McClelland (inducted into the Photoshop Hall of Fame, according to his bio) on the new features of CS4 in a pre-release commentary to be found here:
http://fyi.oreilly.com/2008/09/new-dekepod-deke-mcclelland-on.html
Notice what he says about zooming with Open GL: "every zoom level is a bicubically rendered thing of beauty". That, when viewed with the zooming demonstrated, can only be meant to convey that your image will be "sharp" at all zoom levels. I'm sure he believes it too - Deke is someone who is noted for his outspoken criticism of Photoshop when he believes it to be deserved. It would seem that he must not have experimented and tested to the extent that others posting in this forum have done so.
2. Here's another Adobe TV video from Deke McClelland:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1584v1021
In this video Deke discusses the "super smooth" and "very smooth" zooming of CS4 at all zoom levels achieved through the use of OpenGL. From the context of his comments about zooming to odd zoom levels like 33.33% and 52.37%, it is beyond doubt that Deke's use of the word "smooth" is intended to convey "sharp". At the conclusion of his discussion on this topic he says that, as a result of CS4's "smooth and accurate" as distinct from "choppy" (quoted words are his) rendering of images at odd zoom levels (example given in this instance was 46.67%), "I can actually soft proof sharpening as it will render for my output device".
3. In an article by Philip Andrews at photoshopsupport.com entitled 'What's New In Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Photoshop 11 - An overview of all the new features in Adobe Photoshop CS4',
see: http://www.photoshopsupport.com/photoshop-cs4/what-is-new-in-photoshop-cs4.html
under the heading 'GPU powered display', this text appears :
"Smooth Accurate Pan and Zoom functions – Unlike previous versions where certain magnification values produced less than optimal previews on screen, CS4 always presents your image crisply and accurately. Yes, this is irrespective of zoom and rotation settings and available right up to pixel level (3200%)." Now, it would be a brave soul indeed who might try to argue that "crisply and accurately" means anything other than "sharply", and certainly, not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, could it be taken to mean "slightly blurry but smooth" - to use the further words of Chris Cox also contained in his post #11 mentioned in the initial link at the beginning of this post.
4. PhotoshopCAFE has several videos on the new features of CS4. One by Chris Smith here:
http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs4/vid/CS4Video.htm
is entitled 'GPU Viewing Options". In it, Chris says, whilst demonstrating zooming an image of a guitar: "as I zoom out or as I zoom in, notice that it looks sharp at any resolution. It used to be in Photoshop we had to be at 25, 50 , 75 (he's wrong about 75) % to get the nice sharp preview but now it shows in every magnification".
5. Here's another statement about the sharpness of CS4 at odd zoom levels like 33.33%, but inferentially at all zoom levels. It occurs in an Adobe TV video (under the heading 'GPU Accererated Features', starting at 2 min 30 secs into the video) and is made by no less than Bryan O'Neil Hughes, Product Manager on the Photoshop team, found here:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1556v1686
After demonstrating zooming in and out of a bunch of documents on a desk, commenting about the type in the documents which is readily visible, he says : "everything is nice and clean and sharp".
6. Finally, consider the Ps CS4 pdf Help file itself (both the original released with 11.0 and the revised edition dated 30 March 2009 following upon the release of the 11.0.1 update). Under the heading 'Smoother panning and zooming' on page 5, it has this to say: "Gracefully navigate to any area of an image with smoother panning and zooming. Maintain clarity as you zoom to invididual pixels, and easily edit at the highest magnification with the new Pixel Grid." The use of the word "clarity" can only mean "sharpness" in this context. Additionally, the link towards the top of page 28 of the Help file (topic of Rotate View Tool) takes you to yet another video by Deke McClelland. Remember, this is Adobe itself telling you to watch this video. 5 minutes and 40 seconds into the video he says: "Every single zoom level is fluid and smooth, meaning that Photoshop displays all pixels properly in all views which ensures more accurate still, video and 3D images as well as better painting, text and shapes.". Not much doubt that he is here talking about sharpness.
So, as you may have concluded, I'm pretty upset about this situation. I have participated in another forum (which raised the lack of sharp rendering by CS4 on several occasions) trying to work with Adobe to overcome what I initially thought may have been only a problem with my aging (but nevertheless, just-complying) system or outdated drivers. But that exercise did not result in any sharpness issue fix, nor was one incorporated in the 11.0.1 update to CS4. And in this forum, I now read that quite a few, perhaps even many, others, with systems whose specifications not only match but well and truly exceed the minimum system requirements for OpenGL compliance with CS4, also continue to experience sharpness problems. It's no surprise, of course, given the admission we now have from Chris Cox. It seems that CS4 is incapable of producing the sharp displays at all zoom levels it was alleged to achieve. Furthermore, it is now abundently clear that, with respect to the issue of sharpness, it is irrelevant whether or not your system meets the advertised minimum OpenGL specifications required for CS4, because the OpenGl features of CS4 simply cannot produce the goods. What makes this state of affairs even more galling is that, unlike CS3 and earlier releases of Photoshop, CS4 with OpenGL activated does not even always produce sharp displays at 12.5, 25, and 50% magnifications (as one example only, see posts #4 and #13 in the initial link at the beginning of this post). It is no answer to say, and it is ridiculous to suggest (as some have done in this forum), that one should turn off OpenGL if one wishes to emulate the sharp display of images formerly available.

Thanks, Andrew, for bringing this up. I have seen comments and questions in different forums from several CS4 users who have had doubts about the new OpenGL display functionality and how it affects apparent sharpness at different zoom levels. I think part of the interest/doubt has been created by the over-the-top hype that has been associated with the feature as you documented very well.
I have been curious about it myself and honestly I didn't notice it at first but then as I read people's comments I looked a little closer and there is indeed a difference at different zoom levels. After studying the situation a bit, here are some preliminary conclusions (and I look forward to comments and corrections):
The "old", non-OpenGL way of display was using nearest-neighbor interpolation.
I am using observation to come to this conclusion, using comparison of images down-sampled with nearest-neighbor and comparing them to what I see in PS with OpenGL turned off. They look similar, if not the same.
The "new", OpenGL way of display is using bilinear interpolation.
I am using observation as well as some inference: The PS OpenGL preferences have an option to "force" bilinear interpolation because some graphics cards need to be told to force the use of shaders to perform the required interpolation. This infers that the interpolation is bilinear.
Nothing is truly "accurate" at less than 100%, regardless of the interpolation used.
Thomas Knoll, Jeff Schewe, and others have been telling us that for a long time, particularly as a reason for not showing sharpening at less than 100% in ACR (We still want it though ). It is just the nature of the beast of re-sampling an image from discrete pixels to discrete pixels.
The "rule of thumb" commonly used for the "old", non-OpenGL display method to use 25%, 50%, etc. for "accurate" display was not really accurate.
Those zoom percentages just turned out to be less bad than some of the other percentages and provided a way to achieve a sort of standard for comparing things. Example: "If my output sharpening looks like "this" at 50% then it will look close to "that" in the actual print.
The "new", OpenGL interpolation is certainly different and arguably better than the old interpolation method.
This is mainly because the more sophisticated interpolation prevents drop-outs that occurred from the old nearest-neighbor approach (see my grid samples below). With nearest-neighbor, certain details that fall into "bad" areas of the interpolated image will be eliminated. With bilinear, those details will still be visible but with less sharpness than other details. Accuracy with both the nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolations will vary with zoom percentage and where the detail falls within the image.
Since the OpenGL interpolation is different, users may need to develop new "rules of thumb" for zoom percentages they prefer when making certain judgements about an image (sharpening, for example).
Note that anything below 100% is still not "accurate", just as it was not "accurate" before.
As Andrew pointed out, the hype around the new OpenGL bilinear interpolation went a little overboard in a few cases and has probably led to some incorrect expectations from users.
The reason that some users seem to notice the sharpness differences with different zooms using OpenGL and some do not (or are not bothered by it) I believe is related to the different ways that users are accustomed to using Photoshop and the resolution/size of their monitors.
Those people who regularly work with images with fine details (pine tree needles, for example) and/or fine/extreme levels of sharpening are going to see the differences more than people who don't. To some extent, I see this similar to people who battle with moire: they are going to have this problem more frequently if they regularly shoot screen doors and people in fine-lined shirts. Resolution of the monitor used may also be a factor. The size of the monitor in itself is not a factor directly but it may influence how the user uses the zoom and that may in turn have an impact on whether they notice the difference in sharpness or not. CRT vs LCD may also play a role in noticeability.
The notion that the new OpenGL/bilinear interpolation is sharp except at integer zoom percentages is incorrect.
I mention this because I have seen at last one thread implying this and an Adobe employee participated who seemed to back it up. I do not believe this is correct. There are some integer zoom percentages that will appear less sharp than others. It doesn't have anything to do with integers - it has to do with the interaction of the interpolation, the size of the detail, and how that detail falls into the new, interpolated pixel grid.
Overall conclusion:
The bilinear interpolation used in the new OpenGL display is better than the old, non-OpenGL nearest-neighbor method but it is not perfect. I suspect actually, that there is no "perfect" way of "accurately" producing discrete pixels at less than 100%. It is just a matter of using more sophisticated interpolation techniques as computer processing power allows and adapting higher-resolution displays as that technology allows. When I think about it, that appears to be just what Adobe is doing.
Some sample comparisons:
I am attaching some sample comparisons of nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolation. One is of a simple grid made up of 1 pixel wide lines. The other is of an image of a squirrel. You might find them interesting. In particular, check out the following:
Make sure you are viewing the Jpegs at 100%, otherwise you are applying interpolation onto interpolation.
Notice how in the grid, a 50% down-sample using nearest-neighbor produces no grid at all!
Notice how the 66.67% drops out some lines altogether in the nearest-neighbor version and these same lines appear less sharp than others in the bilinear version.
Notice how nearest-neighbor favors sharp edges. It isn't accurate but it's sharp.
On the squirrel image, note how the image is generally more consistent between zooms for the bilinear versions. There are differences in sharpness though at different zoom percentages for bilinear, though. I just didn't include enough samples to show that clearly here. You can see this yourself by comparing results of zooms a few percentages apart.
Well, I hope that was somewhat helpful. Comments and corrections are welcomed.

New to fios - HD soft looking and remote question

Just got FIOS installed yesterday. I'm an IT Tech for a living so I've gone through a bunch of settings and options and not matter what the HD picture looks about 10% or more softer than the picture I had with Optimum. I have a 52" 1080 lcd. I've tried hdmi and composite, I've made sure the box is set to 1080i, I've raised the boxes sharpness setting to max, etc. Where should I go from here?
Also, the remote... With both the FIOS one and my logitech harmony if I'm watching a channel and hit the UP arrow to see what's on the next channel it goes down and vice versa. Why do the arrow keys work opposite?? Never did this on optimum. In case I'm not clear enough... If I scroll down with the arrow keys it scrolls up in the channel list - 800, 801, 802, etc. If I scroll up with the up arrow it goes 800, 799, 798, etc.
Rev.

Rev2010 wrote:
Just got FIOS installed yesterday. I'm an IT Tech for a living so I've gone through a bunch of settings and options and not matter what the HD picture looks about 10% or more softer than the picture I had with Optimum. I have a 52" 1080 lcd. I've tried hdmi and composite, I've made sure the box is set to 1080i, I've raised the boxes sharpness setting to max, etc. Where should I go from here?
Also, the remote... With both the FIOS one and my logitech harmony if I'm watching a channel and hit the UP arrow to see what's on the next channel it goes down and vice versa. Why do the arrow keys work opposite?? Never did this on optimum. In case I'm not clear enough... If I scroll down with the arrow keys it scrolls up in the channel list - 800, 801, 802, etc. If I scroll up with the up arrow it goes 800, 799, 798, etc.
Rev.
If you think you're viewing HD channels using a composite connection then you're seeing an SD version of that channel. Composite is only SD. The sharpness setting only applies to SD signals. Have you reset the settings on the TV itself? They probably will need to be different from your old provider since the signals are not precisely the same. Also, make sure your SD override is set to off.
The guide scrolls as it is shown on the screen, which is a lower channel number above a higher channel number. The "next" channel you expect to see may be higher in number but below the current item on the guide, and that's the way it scrolls -- down the guide, not up it. Up shows a lower channel in the guide.

How can I make my thumbnails softer & smoother?

Hi, I am trying to create thumbnails from my digital camera. I have been comparing JMagick to the java2d api. My needs are simple - resize jpegs. I am finding indistinguishable image quality between the two when I resize except in the case of thumbnails. Those I am getting from the java2d package are looking sharp & brittle. The ones from Jmagick are soft & smooth. Can anyone please let me know how I can get softer & smoother thumbnails from Java2d? Here is my test that compares JMagick & java2d - notice there are several different possible ways I am saving using Java2d (JAI, AffineTransform, and Graphics2d). I am finding the best results (quickest) using AffineTransform. The Graphics2d approach below is of noticably worse quality. I'm new to this so any help is appreciated.
Craig
What it does: I am using this to take 1600 x 1200 images & create a copy, a 1024x768 image, and a 150x112 thumbnail.
import java.awt.Graphics2D;
import java.awt.RenderingHints;
import java.awt.Image;
import java.awt.image.BufferedImage;
import java.awt.image.AffineTransformOp;
import java.awt.geom.AffineTransform;
import java.awt.image.renderable.ParameterBlock;
import java.io.*;
import javax.imageio.ImageIO;
import javax.imageio.ImageWriter;
import javax.imageio.IIOImage;
import javax.imageio.spi.ImageWriterSpi;
import javax.imageio.spi.IIORegistry;
import javax.media.jai.Interpolation;
import javax.media.jai.InterpolationBicubic;
import javax.media.jai.PlanarImage;
import javax.media.jai.JAI;
import java.util.*;
import magick.ImageInfo;
import magick.MagickException;
import magick.MagickImage;
import com.sun.image.codec.jpeg.*;
import com.sun.media.jai.codec.*;
* @version      1.0
* @author          creichenbach
public class JmagickVsJava2d
     private     static     int          MAX_THUMBSIZE           = 150;
     private     static     int          MAX_IMAGESIZE          = 1024;
     static     final      String          APPENDAGE_THUMB          = "_tn";
     static     final      String          APPENDAGE_MED_COPY      = "_MediumCopy";
     static     final      String          APPENDAGE_COPY           = "_Copy";
     //               THUMBNAILS                     //
     double scaleImageJava2d( List imgs, int maxSize, String appendage ) throws Exception
          long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
          int size = imgs.size();
          for ( int i=0;i<size;i++ )
               File f = (File) imgs.get( i );
               String imgPath = f.getAbsolutePath();
               String copyPath = imgPath.substring(0, imgPath.length()-4) + "Java2d"+appendage+".jpg";
               File infile = new File( imgPath );
               FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream( infile );
               com.sun.image.codec.jpeg.JPEGImageDecoder decoder = com.sun.image.codec.jpeg.JPEGCodec.createJPEGDecoder(fis);
               BufferedImage im = decoder.decodeAsBufferedImage();
               fis.close();
               int width = im.getWidth();
               int height = im.getHeight();
               double scale = getScale( width, height, maxSize );
               //uncomment to use Affine Transform
               scaleAndSaveWithAffineTransform( scale, im, copyPath );
               //uncomment to use JAI
               //scaleAndSaveWithJAI( scale, im, copyPath );
               //uncomment to use Graphics2d
               //scaleAndSaveWithGraphics2d( im, width, height, maxSize, copyPath );
          long stop = System.currentTimeMillis();
          return getElapsedTime( start, stop );
     double scaleImageJmagick( List imgs, int maxSize, String appendage ) throws IOException
          try
               long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
               int size = imgs.size();
               for ( int i=0;i<size;i++ )
                    File f = (File) imgs.get( i );
                    String imgPath = f.getAbsolutePath();
                    String copyPath = imgPath.substring(0, imgPath.length()-4) + "Jmagick"+appendage+".jpg";
                    ImageInfo imgInfo = new ImageInfo( imgPath );
                    MagickImage image = new MagickImage( imgInfo );
                    int width = (int) image.getDimension().getWidth();
                    int height = (int) image.getDimension().getHeight();
                    int[] dim = getImageDimensions( width, height, maxSize );
                    MagickImage thumbnail = image.scaleImage( dim[ 0 ], dim[ 1 ] );
                    thumbnail.setFileName( copyPath );
                    thumbnail.writeImage( imgInfo );
               long stop = System.currentTimeMillis();
               return getElapsedTime( start, stop );
          catch (MagickException e)
               throw new IOException( "MagickException. Failure creating thumbnails." );
     //                    COPIES                     //
     double makeImageCopyJmagick( List imgs, String appendage ) throws Exception
          long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
          int size = imgs.size();
          for ( int i=0;i<size;i++ )
               File f = (File) imgs.get( i );
               String imgPath = f.getAbsolutePath();
               String copyPath = imgPath.substring(0, imgPath.length()-4) + "Jmagick"+appendage+".jpg";
               ImageInfo imgInfo = new ImageInfo( imgPath );
               MagickImage image = new MagickImage( imgInfo );
               image.setFileName( copyPath );
               //imgInfo.setQuality( 100 );
               image.writeImage( imgInfo );
          long stop = System.currentTimeMillis();
          return getElapsedTime( start, stop );
     double makeImageCopyJava2d( List imgs, String appendage ) throws Exception
          long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
          int size = imgs.size();
          for ( int i=0;i<size;i++ )
               File f = (File) imgs.get( i );
               String imgPath = f.getAbsolutePath();
               String copyPath = imgPath.substring(0, imgPath.length()-4) + "Java2d"+appendage+".jpg";
               File infile = new File( imgPath );
               BufferedImage im = ImageIO.read( infile );
               File outfile = new File( copyPath );
               ImageIO.write( im, "jpg", outfile );
          long stop = System.currentTimeMillis();
          return getElapsedTime( start, stop );
     void run() throws Exception
          File f = new File( "images" );
          List imgs = parseDirImages( f );
          int size = imgs.size();
          //resize thumbnail
          System.out.println( "starting resize thumbnail test" );
          double java2dTime = scaleImageJava2d( imgs, MAX_THUMBSIZE, APPENDAGE_THUMB );
          System.out.println( "java 2d scaled "+size+" images to "+MAX_THUMBSIZE+" in "+java2dTime+ " seconds" );
          double jmagickTime = scaleImageJmagick( imgs, MAX_THUMBSIZE, APPENDAGE_THUMB );
          System.out.println( "jmagick scaled "+size+" images to "+MAX_THUMBSIZE+" in "+jmagickTime+ " seconds" );
          //resize medium
          System.out.println( "starting resize medium test" );
          java2dTime = scaleImageJava2d( imgs, MAX_IMAGESIZE, APPENDAGE_MED_COPY );
          System.out.println( "java 2d scaled "+size+" images to "+MAX_IMAGESIZE+" in "+java2dTime+ " seconds" );
          jmagickTime = scaleImageJmagick( imgs, MAX_IMAGESIZE, APPENDAGE_MED_COPY );
          System.out.println( "jmagick scaled "+size+" images to "+MAX_IMAGESIZE+" in "+jmagickTime+ " seconds" );
          //copy test
          System.out.println( "starting copy test" );
          java2dTime = makeImageCopyJava2d( imgs, APPENDAGE_COPY );
          System.out.println( "java 2d copied "+size+" images in "+java2dTime+ " seconds" );
          jmagickTime = makeImageCopyJmagick( imgs, APPENDAGE_COPY );
          System.out.println( "jmagick copied "+size+" images in "+jmagickTime+ " seconds" );
     public static void main(String[] args)
          try
               JmagickVsJava2d jdt = new JmagickVsJava2d();
               jdt.run();
          catch ( Exception e )
               e.printStackTrace();
     //               UTILITY METHODS                    //
     static boolean isOriginal( String filename )
          int x;
          return (     (x = filename.indexOf( APPENDAGE_THUMB )) < 0 &&
                         (x = filename.indexOf( APPENDAGE_COPY )) < 0 &&
                         (x = filename.indexOf( APPENDAGE_MED_COPY )) < 0 );
     static boolean isImage( String filename )
          boolean isImage = false;
          int len = filename.length();
          String ext = filename.substring( len - 3 );
          isImage =      "jpg".equalsIgnoreCase( ext ) ||
                         "gif".equalsIgnoreCase( ext ) ||
                         "png".equalsIgnoreCase( ext );
          return isImage;
     private int[] getImageDimensions( int width, int height, int maxLen )
          int[] dimensions = new int[2];
          //get the larger of the 2 values
          int longest = width > height ? width : height;
          //determine what we need to divide by to get the longest side to be MAX_THUMBSIZE
          double divisor = (double)longest/(double)maxLen;
          double w = (double)width/divisor;
          double h = (double)height/divisor;
          dimensions[0] = (int) w;
          dimensions[1] = (int) h;
          return dimensions;
     private double getScale( int width, int height, int maxLen )
          double scale;
          //get the larger of the 2 values
          int longest = width > height ? width : height;
          return (double)maxLen/(double)longest;
     private double getElapsedTime( long start, long stop )
          long s = stop - start;
          double elapsed = (double) s/1000;
          return elapsed;
     private List parseDirImages( File dir ) throws IOException
          ArrayList imgFiles = new ArrayList();
          if ( dir.isDirectory() )
               File[] files = dir.listFiles();
               int len = files.length;
               for ( int i=0;i<len;i++ )
                    File f = files[ i ];
                    String filename = f.getName();
                    if ( isImage(filename) && isOriginal(filename) )
                         imgFiles.add( f );
               }//end for
          } //end if is directory
          else
               throw new IOException( dir.getName()+ "is not a valid directory." );
          return imgFiles;
     private void encodeJPEGImage( BufferedImage bi, String copyPath ) throws IOException
          if (bi != null && copyPath != null)
          {      // save image as Jpeg
               FileOutputStream out = null;
               try
                    out = new FileOutputStream( copyPath );
               catch (java.io.FileNotFoundException fnf) {
                    System.out.println("File Not Found");
               JPEGImageEncoder encoder = JPEGCodec.createJPEGEncoder(out);
               com.sun.image.codec.jpeg.JPEGEncodeParam param = encoder.getDefaultJPEGEncodeParam(bi);
               param.setQuality(0.99f, false);
               encoder.encode(bi);
               out.close();
     * Scale with Java 2 standard graphics API
     private void scaleAndSaveWithAffineTransform( double scale, BufferedImage srcImg, String copyPath )
          throws IOException
     AffineTransform xform = AffineTransform.getScaleInstance( scale, scale);
          RenderingHints hints = new RenderingHints(     RenderingHints.KEY_RENDERING,
                                                                 RenderingHints.VALUE_RENDER_QUALITY);
//          RenderingHints hints = new RenderingHints(     RenderingHints.KEY_INTERPOLATION,
//                                                                 RenderingHints.VALUE_INTERPOLATION_BICUBIC);
          //AffineTransformOp op = new AffineTransformOp( xform, hints );
          AffineTransformOp op = new AffineTransformOp( xform, AffineTransformOp.TYPE_BILINEAR );
          BufferedImage dstImg = op.createCompatibleDestImage( srcImg, srcImg.getColorModel() );
          BufferedImage out = op.filter(srcImg, dstImg);
          encodeJPEGImage( out, copyPath );
     * Scale an image using the JAI API
     private void scaleAndSaveWithJAI( double scale, BufferedImage srcImg, String destName )
          throws IOException
          //using AffineTransform
          AffineTransform transform = AffineTransform.getScaleInstance( scale, scale);
          Interpolation interpolation = Interpolation.getInstance(Interpolation.INTERP_BICUBIC);
          PlanarImage img = (PlanarImage)JAI.create( "affine", srcImg, transform, interpolation);
          FileOutputStream fos = new FileOutputStream (destName);
          ImageEncoder enc = ImageCodec.createImageEncoder( "JPEG", fos, null );
          enc.encode( img );
          fos.close();
     private void scaleAndSaveWithGraphics2d(     BufferedImage      im,
                                                            int                width,
                                                            int                height,
                                                            int                maxSize,
                                                            String                copyPath )
          throws IOException
               int[] dim = getImageDimensions( width, height, maxSize );
               int tw = dim[ 0 ];
               int th = dim[ 1 ];
               HashMap hints = new HashMap( 2 );
               hints.put( RenderingHints.KEY_ANTIALIASING, RenderingHints.VALUE_ANTIALIAS_ON );
               hints.put( RenderingHints.KEY_RENDERING, RenderingHints.VALUE_RENDER_QUALITY );
               BufferedImage thumb = new BufferedImage( tw, th, BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_RGB );
               Graphics2D g2D = thumb.createGraphics();
               g2D.setRenderingHints( hints );
               g2D.drawImage( im, 0, 0, tw, th, null );
               File outfile = new File( copyPath );
               ImageIO.write( thumb, "jpg", outfile );

Hi, You were right,
the resulting quality when scaling images using the drawImage method is
miserable. Thus there is a getScaledInstance method provided by the
Image class. This Method allows us to specify the scaling algorithm
(AREA_AVERAGING, SMOOTH, FAST...). Unforunately the jpeg encoder is only
capable to encode BufferedImage objects an not Image objects. So the
method listed below scales an Image, then uses a MediaTracker to wait
for the end of the scaling process an copy the scaled image into a
BufferedImage. One has to mention that the MediaTracker Contructer needs
a Component object. To me the reason for this is not really obvious, but
it seems we can feed it with any Component ( new Frame() should do the
job).
Regards,
Henning
private synchronized Image getScaledImage(Image ii, int nMaxWidth, int nMaxHeight) {
Image im = ii.getScaledInstance(nMaxWidth, nMaxHeight, Image.SCALE_AREA_AVERAGING);
MediaTracker mt = new MediaTracker(frame);
mt.addImage(im, 0);
try {
mt.waitForID(0);
} catch (Exception ie) {
System.out.println("exception scaling image:" + ie.getMessage());
if (mt.isErrorID(0)) {
// don't use the scaled icon if there was an error
im = ii;
System.out.println("getScaledImage():Error scaling the ImageIcon!!");
} else {
// scaling succeeded
return im;

Lack of sharpness in previews - Lightroom 2

I'm hoping the collective wisdom of this forum can help me sort through this issue that is causing me a lot of problems.
I am shooting NEFs. When I view my images in Lightroom 2 after import, there is a noticeable lack of sharpness to the images. Everything just looks slightly soft, even at a 1:1 preview. I am using the default detail setting of 25 for sharpness.
When I view these same images in another application like Photo Mechanic, the images are much sharper. I'm thinking that maybe this is due to PM using the embedded jpg while Lightroom does not. I'm not sure.
I am looking for suggestions on what settings people are using for optimal sharpness in Lightroom. I really like LR but right now I am finding hard to accurately evaluate my work.
Thanks,
Les

>I wish the developers could give us a switch to defeat this. PS displays, or at least hints at, sharpening when zoomed out.
They are quite set against it so I doubt it. Photoshop is really lying to you in many different ways when you judge sharpness at zoomed out levels. Of course, the only reason you see it in Photoshop is that it is a pixel editor. If you have rendered 1:1 previews, in Lightroom, you always see the effect of sharpening in the Library module when zoomed out as it is rendered from the preview image. In fact what you see there is the same when in Photoshop at power of two zoom levels (25%, 50%, etc.). So it is there, they just don't show it in Develop when you are zoomed out, where it would not tell you anything anyway.

Sharpness/softness

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for