TIFF SCALED IMAGE QUALITY

HI,
I am scaling a scanned image to fit into my application screen.
But the scaled image quality is very bad.
I am using the following code to scale the image.
PlanarImage im0 = JAI.create("url", new URL (sURL));
Interpolation interp = Interpolation.getInstanceInterpolation.INTERP_BICUBIC);
ParameterBlock params = new ParameterBlock();
     params.addSource(im0);
     params.add(0.4F); // x scale factor
     params.add(0.4F); // y scale factor
     params.add(0.0F); // x translate
     params.add(0.0F); // y translate
     params.add(interp); // interpolation method
/*Create an operator to scale image1. */
JAI xx = JAI.getDefaultInstance();
Map hints = new HashMap();
hints.put(RenderingHints.KEY_RENDERING,RenderingHints.VALUE_RENDER_QUALITY);
hints.put(RenderingHints.KEY_ANTIALIASING,RenderingHints.VALUE_ANTIALIAS_ON);
RenderedImage image2 = xx.createNS("scale", params,new RenderingHints(hints));
ANy idea helpful,
Thanks,
Ram

If you need to scale down your image from a factor smaller than 0.5, do the reduction twice, using factors that when multiplied give 0.4. For example, first reduce it using 0.8 then reduce the result using 0.5.
Weird, but should work. I've heard that reducing images in JAI with factors < 0.5 yield poor results.
Rafael

Similar Messages

  • Improving scaled image quality

    i am a newby in scaling images issues.
    i am scaling an image with the following code, but the resulting quality is not satisfying comparing it with the scaled image done with paint shop pro (for example).it is not as sharp as the good one.
    is there a better way to scale the image with a higher quality.
    Image image = getImageFromDatabase();
    Image newImage = image.getScaledInstance( iw, ih, Image.SCALE_SMOOTH );
    //iw = resulting width
    //ih = resulting height
    thanx for your help.
    marc

    If you need to scale down your image from a factor smaller than 0.5, do the reduction twice, using factors that when multiplied give 0.4. For example, first reduce it using 0.8 then reduce the result using 0.5.
    Weird, but should work. I've heard that reducing images in JAI with factors < 0.5 yield poor results.
    Rafael

  • 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...?

  • How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

    I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6.  (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
    I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
    I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
    Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
    (1) (1)   Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage.  Then dragging the first one into the base document.  It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image.  Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
    (2)   (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
    (3)  (3)  I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it.  No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
    (4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715  Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
    Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means.  (Or even in a different program!).  Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes.  Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help.  [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

    For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
    Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
    That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
    Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
    If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
    In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
    With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
    But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
    Why this happens has to do with simple math.
    inches x ppi = pixels
    Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
    When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

  • I'm thinking of using Final Cut Pro to straighten slightly crooked footage and then re-import back to iMovie to complete the video. Does this have any impact on image quality?

    I'm thinking of using Final Cut Pro to straighten slightly crooked footage and then re-import back to iMovie to complete the video. Does this have any impact on image quality?

    As your rotate the image, you will begin to see black edges. So, as Tom implies, the image must be scaled up to hide those voids. If you shot 4k ad are editing in a HD timeline, no problem, lots of room to spare. If you shot 1080 and are editing in a 1080 timeline, you will run into issues at a certain point. However, if your 1080 project is going to be transcoded to 720 or ye olde DVD you won't notice any deterioration at all.

  • Poor Image Quality when Printing PDF from Office 07 using Acrobat 9 Pro Ext

    Hi there,
    Hoping to figure out why my images (jpegs, gifs, pngs, etc) seem to print in very poor quality when printing from Powerpoint and Word 2007?
    When I actually print out the pdf onto paper, the images seem fine. The image quality is also good in Word and Excel
    I did not have this problem using Office 2003 products.
    Is this a common problem? I realize that the problem maybe Office related but any help or information appreciated.
    Thanks

    If the images' file format is PNG or TIFF you could play with the compression settings available in Acrobat's Preferences.
    Edit > Preferences > select the Category "Convert to PDF".
    In the"Converting To PDF" pane, select PNG or TIFF.
    Then, click on the Edit Settings" button.
    For either image format you could try one of the Lossless compression routines.
    Be well...

  • Image quality takes a hit in Word PDF conversion despite Compression being Off (Acrobat 9)

    When converting a Word doc to PDF, the image quality for embedded pictures seems to be taking a hit. In the resultant PDF, the large pictures have jagged edges, even though when I increase the size in the Word doc the picture looks smooth and high quality.
    Under preferences I've changed the Conversion Settings>Images to have Downsampling off for Color/Grayscale/Monochrome images, and also set Compression to Off. I've also tried setting Compression to Automatic (JPEG) with Maximum quality for Color/Grayscale. Both Compression Off and Maximum quality seem to have almost the same image quality, even though Compression Off doubles the size of the file. Neither has quality quite at the level it is in the Word doc.
    Is there some way to have the image quality for pictures in the PDF equal what it looks like in Word? Are there any more settings I should be aware of?
    I have Acrobat 9 Pro Extended and Office 2007 on Vista 64.

    What's the original file format of the images you're inserting into Word, and are they at 100% scale?
    We've seen issues with scaled high-res images (like header logos) which printed to PDF perfectly with a GIF or JPEG image, but failed dismally with a PNG even though the image resolution was identical and on-screen view was the same. Word has a quirky way of handling image data sent to the print spool compared to what's shown on-screen.

  • Image quality in iMovie

    Hi guys,
    I am trying to use iMovie to put together a slide show (I am a wildlife photographer) and it seems great for the job
    There are a couple of bugs within iMovie itself but mostly no big deal, except for one that is bugging me.
    The images I have generated are perfect quality when viewed in Adobe Lightroom, iPhoto or any other app, but in iMovie there appear to be far fewer colours so that (for example) the sky in an image is heavily pixelated. I can only guess there are fewer colours in the image.
    I am confused because in one of the articles I read it claimed that iMovie was directly accessing the file on disk.
    I simply dragged and dropped the hi-res images (they are all between 5 and 15 meg size) into iMovie.
    Has anyone else come across this? How can I make the images in iMovie look proper so that I can export the

    Are our events all co-mingled? Since ownership is ignored I assume we can see each other's video clips? This seems pretty messy to me and prevents any sort of privacy. In fact this basically breaks the whole user model.
    Since still images are not stored as an event in iMovie '08, adding an image from iPhoto, your desktop, etc. adds a copy of the file to you project to serve as the "source" for later export of your project. In addition, since there is a maximum size associated with your project, this "stored" image may be scaled if the original height is greater than 1080 pixels. Therefore, my recommendation was to actually look at the "stored, scaled" file in your project so as to compare it with your original files to see there there was any loss in image quality. You can manually open the project "package" using the "contextual" menu option "Show Package Contents" at the Finder level.
    I opened it in iMovie but can't see that option nor an option for setting colours to millions (which would probably solve my problem).
    The ideal here is to open the file stored in your project and look at it in the QT Player for comparison with the original file. When I said "color depth should be millions," I was referring to the color depth you should find in the inspector window when you open the files in the QT player. Both should normally read "millions" unless you saved them otherwise.

  • Quicktime image quality problems in FCP

    I'm trying to do a basic video tutorial on how to use a tool on my website. I captured the movie from my screen with a product called SnapZpro which saved the movie as a QuickTime movie. However when I import it into FCP to do some mixing with other graphical elements, add some transitions, edit the audio and add some other screen shots, the image quality is awful. I have rendered the file & also exported with no compression and still no luck. The original QT movie capture is crystal clear. Any ideas on how to get the original quality or other ideas on good ways to create a tutorial where a fair amount of editing needs to be done?
    Thanks,
    Ed

    You can spend several productive hours using the search function. We see this topic and variations often. Try searching for SnapzPro, tutorial, screen capture, stuff like that.
    We don't know what your movie settings were for your captures using SnapZ nor do we know your sequence settings within FCP. The most likely explanation is that there are some dramatic changes between the two. Your SnapZ clip is being scaled to fit the timeline and this can have a severe resolution compromise.
    bogiesan

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

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

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

  • Aperture Light Table - Poor image quality

    I am using the Light Table function in Aperture (3.4.5.) and I had an issue with the quality of the images on it, when zoomed in or scaled to fit.
    The quality of the (larger spread) images looks poor. As if I zoomed in on a thumbnail.
    I was looking for a discussion on this and saw some (archived) threads. None of them solved.
    However, I think I have found a workaround.
    If you get this situation, you can select the image(s) on the light table and regenerate the preview.
    Option-click Menu => Photos => Generate Previews
    (note: if you don't use the Option key, you will get Menu => Photos => Update Previews and Aperture may say (unjust) that the preview is already up-to-date).
    That solves the poor image quality look.

    I just remade the same book - as a test - in the extra large hardback format (ie. the one I used for the previous publication, last year).
    This time, the pictures are fine.  The images appear to be the same quality in the PDF as the originals - much, much better.  The size of the file has increased massively too > up from just 2.6MB to 52.8MB.
    So does the books production function work well only with the biggest, most expensive option? 
    I'd really appreciate some feedback from anyone who's tried the different sizes, and preferably some brilliant ideas to make them all work equally well.

  • Trouble with the image quality when viewing under 100%. First time posting on the forum.

    Hello everyone. I am sorry we have the get acquainted this way but I am having some issues and this is one of my last options of getting help.   Allow me to explain the problem.    When viewing a file under 100% zoom, everything looks jagged like the anti aliasing is missing.  Once I zoom in to 100%, everything looks the way it should. The saved file ( jpeg format for instance) is okay. I can zoom out and it still looks true to the image. The problem is related to photoshop. I installed my latest GPU drivers twice just to be sure and it was not from that.   This problem started last night and I don`t quite know how to solve it.  If I work on small resolution images, it isn`t such a bad problem because I will be working on 100% zoom, but I am working on high resolution images/ paintings. Somewhere around 8000x5000 pixels thus, working at 100% is not that doable. I attached an image that shows this issue. The one on the right is the zoomed out version and the one on the left is the zoomed in version.  Yes, the noise is affected by this, badly, but this started last night. up until then everything looked good even with noise or an out of this world sharpness. I can`t imagine what I could have done to trigger this.
       This being said, I am at the mercy of the more knowledgeable folks from around here. I do hope I posted this question in the right section. This is my first post here so sorry if I messed something up.   Looking forward to your replies.

    Here is a simplistic view that I feel may help you understand reality.
    The only time you're looking at your image pixels in Photoshop is when you're zoomed in to 100%,   There your look at the actual image pixels Photoshop has for your image at your displays resolution.
    At any other zoom level you are looking a scaled image that  has more or less pixels than your actual image these too are displayed at your display resolution.
    The scaling done by Photoshop is done for displaying your image is done for good performance not for the best image quality a quick interpolation.   Therefore at some zoom levels image quality looks poorer  than at other zoom levels.
    High resolution Display have now add a new wrinkle.   User interfaces were designed for displays  with resolutions around 100 PPI elements like text, icon, and other things like checkboxes, buttons etc. were created so there size would be useable are this more or less fixed 100 PPI resolution.   While Photoshop was designed to scale your images so you can work well on it is was not designed with a scalable UI.  Photoshop can not scale its user interface independently from its image display display window for you displays high resolution.  Photoshop's Image display area has the same resolution as the rest of Photoshop User Interface.  Just like there is only one resolution in all layers in a document. CC 2014 2xUI changes that.  PS UI is scaled to 1/2 resolution the image Area is at the displays actual resolution.
    Photoshop CC 2014 2x UI scales all of Photoshop User Interface including the image display to 200% which is 1/2 your display resolution effectively cutting you display pixel count to 1/4 its actual pixel count.   Your once again running on a low resolution display.     If your display has a native resolution  200 PPI you're running it at 100 ppi if your display has a 300 PPI resolution  you're running it at 150ppi.    Which defeats the reason of having high resolution.  Which is you would like to be able to edit your images at print resolution.  Adobe cc2x UI scales the UI but not the image window soa inage is 216ppi on the Surface Pro 3 the UI is large and dpoes not fit. screen
    To be able to edit your images at print resolution  you need a display the has a print resolution and you need and application the can scale its image display  and its UI independently.
    Current there is no OS interface for having multiple resolutions areas on  a display  and applications like Photoshop can not scale UI and Image independently.  OS and Photoshop can scale what is displayed.  Adobe Photoshop executable is coded in a way that it tell Microsoft Windows OS that it will handle display scaling so it can using your displays native resolution.  Currently Only  Photoshop CC 2014  Provides you with the option of running you display at half resolution.
    Windows can scale you display to many resolution and as several presets.  like 100%, 125%, 150% and like Adobe 200% half resolution.    You can make a Windows Registry and add an External Photoshop  Manifest file the tell's Microsoft Windows to handle display scaling.  I have a  Microsoft Surface Pro 3 m windows machine. Its LCD has a 216PPI resolution.  Windows 8.1 had 4 preset for scaling its LCD.
    Surface Pro 3 LCD Display 12"  IPS display 3:2 aspect ratio 9.984603532054124" Wide, 6.656402354702749" High 216.3330765278394  PPI
    Microsoft Preset Display scaling
    100% 2160x1440   216 PPI
    125% 1728x1152   173 PPI
    150% 1440x960    144 PPI SP3 Default setting
    200% 1080x720    108 PPI
    Most user these days has 1024x768 or better displays and Web pages are often authored for 800x600 pixels pages. So the give you a better handle on Resolution and scaling I have edit a 800x600 document with 25x25 px grid one my Surface pro 3
    using Windows 4  scaling presets and captured the 2160x1140 scaled screens  Only at the 100% preset does the image window have a 216ppi Also note  @ 2x UI Photoshop UI doe not fit on screen
    Adobe Photoshop  CC 2014 2xUI Scales the UI  to a display 1/2 resolution but does not scale the Image area  uses actual screen resolution. Photoshop  Help system info show the screen i 1/2 resilution 1080x720 but scalet the imase to the real resolution 2160x1440. however the image window is the 216ppi the ui 108ppi via scaling

  • IPhoto is changing resolution and image quality

    I am currently and for the first time using iPhoto 6 to produce a book - a feature within the application. I have edited my images in Photoshop, some have not needed to be so they have simply been saved as either high-res JPGS or TIFFS. On importing them into iPhoto selected images are downsizing and stating that they are not big enough to print - this I know is not true as they are adequatley large enough for printing to A0 minimum at 300 dpi. There are also a select few that are changing in image quality - the colours are looking either bleached out or over-exposed and they have lost their original quality. When opening the exact files in Photoshop they are correctly exposed, perfect colours, sizes etc. If I am to try and 'retouch' them within iPhoto I can resume some of their quality but it seems through the transition into importing inot the application they are being corrupted.
    Can anyone assist me as its driving me mad!!!
    Thanks

    What is the color space of the photos in photoshop?
    In iPhoto Preferences, Advanced, do you have it set to add ColorSync Profile?
    BTW, the 72 ppi (pixels per inch) is irrelevant. iPhoto defaults to reporting 72 ppi because that is a typical screen resolution. What's important is the total pixel dimensions of the image, and whether that size gives you an adequate dpi (dots per inch) when printed at the designated print size. So, while the image looks great on-screen in photoshop, that doesn't mean that it will be adequate for printing in a book. But you are right - you shouldn't see a significant shift in color when importing into iPhoto.
    Regards.

  • Color Corrector & Image Quality Issues

    I have been putting some color corrector on some clips and after rendering, the quality is very skippy. Even after exporting to quicktime. I'm fine with it skipping in FCE, but when I export , I want it to be as clear as possible and no skipping. How do I accomplish that? Do I need to export a certain format?
    I also have been placing images in my timeline from Keynote, exported to TIFF for best quality. When rendered, these images also look very bad. What image format does FCE play nicest with? SO that I can put in these images with no loss of quality.
    Any tips for either would be very helpful.

    Here are the properties to the best I can understand them from the clip browser. Frame-1920x1080, Vid Rate- 29.97fps, Compressor- apple intermediate codec, data rate- 17.6 MB/sec, aud rate- 48 khz, aud format- 16-bit integer, field dominance- upper(odd).
    Sequence is exactly the same except aud format- 32-bit floating point.
    Not sure if that is what you're looking for? This particular clip is too bright and my subject has shine on his face. When rendered, I view the playback in the Canvas window, that is where I notice the skipping. It is the same in the Viewer window when rendered.

  • Still image quality loss b/t viewer and canvas?

    When I import a still (I've tried jpg, tiff, etc), the image quality is perfect in the viewer, but as soon as I lay it down on the timeline it is blurred and foggy. What am I doing wrong? Please, any advice would be helpful, as this is for a job and I can't hand this in as is...

    I'm sorry, I just realized someone else posted a similar quesiton. I jumped the gun.

Maybe you are looking for