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

Similar Messages

Adobe Premiere Elements 11 - HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?

I'm using Adobe Premiere Elements 11, on a Windows 8 PC and when I "render" still pictures, some videos and simple effects -- they lose quality and get grainy --
HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?

Molnar are you receiving that error during the download or install process? Also which operating system are you using?

Poor image quality when viewing PDFs in Digital Editions

I recently bought a digital copy of a book in the .acsm file format. The site I bought it from recommended using Digital Editions. I am on a mac, OS X 10.6.3. When viewing this book, there are various screen shots that are essentially illegible in the single or double page format. If I use the zoom feature they become more legible but still of low quality. At first I thought it was the ebook I bought but I think it's Digital Editions, actually. As a test I opened a plain 'ol PDF in Preview that had some screenshots in it - and those looked good. Viewing the same PDF in Digital Editions though, the images were again of low quality.
Digital Editions doesn't seem to have preferences (like most OS X apps) that might allow me to tweak this. Is there something that can be changed in terms of settings to make the images clearer?
Also, as an aside, Digital Editions on the Mac seems to have some delay when I try to copy things from the text. I have to hold the command + c keys longer than I would otherwise in order to get the highlighted text to be copied.

In iTunes with you iPod connected select the Photos tab and check *Include full-resolution photos* and re-sync.

1ds MK III images corrupt when viewed at 100%

Hi using Aperture 2.1 all my 1ds MK III images are corrupt when viewed at 100% even when viewed with the loupe but display fine when seen in preview mode and at reduced size and they export ok.
I have reinstalled aperture, 10.5.2 and the graphics update. Im using 2 X 2.8 Quad with 2600 xt card.
Any ideas?

I am having the same trouble! All of my Canon 1Ds MarkIII raw file has the problem.
Tested on my Mac Pro 2.8 Radeon 2600, and iMac 24 Radeon card. Both have the same problem. When I hit zoom, I see exactly the same problem: http://gallery.mac.com/krux#100170
I have all the updates 10.5.2, aperture 2.0.1. Now I'm doesn't able to work with Aperture...
Please download my Canon 1Ds Mark III Raw file, and test it in Aperture 2:
http://www.handras.hu/stuff/0G7J6343CR2.zip (20.6 MB, 16 bit uncompressed Raw file)
If U have a Ati radeon card, and make straighten crop, or zoom, the picture should messed up
If U have nVidia, everything will be perfect.
(sorry for my bad english, I come from Hungary)

I am having problems with the image quality when image placing in indesign

Hi
I am finding that many illustrations are pixilating when I place them in indesign from illustrator or photoshop. Some times I can rectify the issue by increasing the size or dpi of the image prior to placement, but I'm sure there must be another way. How can I improve on the quality and definition of placed images in Indesign?

This forum is actually about the Cloud, not about using individual programs
If you start at the Forums Index http://forums.adobe.com/index.jspa
You will be able to select a forum for the specific Adobe product(s) you use
Click the "down arrow" symbol on the right (where it says ALL FORUMS) to open the drop down list and scroll
http://forums.adobe.com/community/indesign
http://forums.adobe.com/community/illustrator
http://forums.adobe.com/community/photoshop

Has anyone had issues with poor image quality when using lightroom to process raw images from Canon 7dmk2

Hi everyone..
..I have been having image quality issues when using Lightroom to process raw files from a 7d mk2... They are all soft with poor clarity.....tonight in despair I tried processing them using canon's software and they are totally different..."much better"
anyone else had similar problems....Andy

I have a 7D2 and have not had what I interpret as poor image quality that has anything to do with the camera.
Can you post a screenshot of what you’re seeing and what specifically you don’t like? Maybe there is something you can do differently or at least there may be an explanation for what you’re seeing.
And if you have a raw image that you wouldn’t mind sharing in a public forum, upload to http://www.dropbox.com/ then post a public share link to it in a reply, here.
In other words post a screenshot of what you see in LR, another of what you see using DPP, and a link to the raw file you’re processing.

Help needed with simple image enlargement when viewing a gallery

Hi
I have a gallery component linked to a data thumb list. This all scrolls fine and works. When someone clicks on a thumb it shows the
image larger. Then I would like it if you click on the larger image it fills the height of the page to see an even bigger view. I have managed to do this but some of the buttons do not work in the area were this image is even if the image is not showing and the image will not go back to its off state even though it has an interaction to do so. If I drag the image component down the layers panel so it is behind all the other bits on my page it all works, the image enlarges and disappears so the previous state is shown. The problem with this is I want the image to cover everything behind it, not be behind everything. I have included a couple of screen grabs just to give you an idea.
sc 1 simple data list and image component
sc2 Enlarged image but can not get it to go
sc3 enlarged image can come and go no changes except I have moved the layer panel down
to the bottom
Any ideas how I can get this to work properly would be much appreciated
many thanks

I have sorted this out. There might be other ways of doing this but I added a button to the large image gallery component.
constructed a rectangle the same size as the large image and set the opacity to 0. The whole area is now a button you can not see.
One click anywhere on the image removes it with an interaction back to the first state which is off.
hope this help anyone

First time posting, about the last time I try to fix iTunes before I give up

I'm probably not going to make friends amongst the Apple-o-philes. PC user. deal with it; iPhones were sold to us as platform independent; iTunes is offered as a product that works with Windows. OK. I bought into it; my third iPhone, got one for my girlfriend, got 4,000 songs in iTunes. And I find rather than my Apple product making my life better, faster, quicker, stronger, more efficient, I'm spending hours every month doing things I've done or had to do now a dozen times. Every time there is an update, now I have three computers to update and it totally scrambles my music library with now four copies of every file.
Eventhe Apple boards I see online say "Oh, it will take you a few hours, but it's worth it"
That's not the point - why is it neccessary? Arent computers the kind of thing you'd use to sort through a list of 10,000 anythings and let the processor find the 2,500 you want so a human doesn't have to waste "a few hours"????
That there is now an aftermarket program offered for sale at $20 or more to fix the problems with iTunes libraries should embarass someone imprtant at Apple. It surely makes a good argument why we don't see the "I'm a Mac"/"I'm a PC" ads, because my Mac products (iPhones/iTunes) have cost me a lot of money, and taken a lot of my time.' at this point as much if not more than my 3 PC's. My frustration has brought me to tears, and unfortunately in the wake of the death of Steve Jobs, I'm going to say something that may sound "too soon" or at least sacreligious:
If I have "Manage music manually" checked, why can't I just click-and-drag a song straight from Windows into iTunes.? Onto my iPhone?
I mean it was Macintosh that brought the world the computer mouse, at least how most of us learned to use one is because Mac had it first. Click and drag is something that came first to Mac OS, second to Windows.
Why can I not drag a song, a podcast, a movie, from it's Windows location to iTunes, drop it on my iPhone and find it on the phone? Why do I have to go through this "sync" madness to risk wiping my phone clean in the process (as it did once already)? Why does "manually manage music" do no good, because if I drag a song anywhere onto the iTunes window, i Can't drop it anywhere.
I magange to get a Bachelor's degree from a Big Ten university, in of all things Computer Graphics Design. My experience with iTunes and my iPhone at times make me feel like someone must have dressed me in the morning and fed me liquid food through a straw because surely someone this hapless is too hopeless to chew and swallow on his own.
Next, Apple wants me to pay for the cloud, pay for support by the call, pay $40 for a new cord every time the dog chews one or when it comes apart on it's own (which any cable that costs $40 ought not to do under normal use) -
I feel used by Apple. I used to love my original iPod, right now I feel like a stooge and I'm having confidence issues about life in general because iTunes has broken my spirit, and the money-sink reality of this thing is making me glad the cassette deck in my car still works and my mix tapes just don't disappear like my playlists.
Should I just kill myself? This is almost a serious question - because I go up an ddown these forums and I see hundreds, thousands of questions - spent two hours looking for an answer before I posted this one - I can't find an answer.

I'm probably not going to make friends amongst the Apple-o-philes. PC user. deal with it; iPhones were sold to us as platform independent; iTunes is offered as a product that works with Windows. OK. I bought into it; my third iPhone, got one for my girlfriend, got 4,000 songs in iTunes. And I find rather than my Apple product making my life better, faster, quicker, stronger, more efficient, I'm spending hours every month doing things I've done or had to do now a dozen times. Every time there is an update, now I have three computers to update and it totally scrambles my music library with now four copies of every file.
Eventhe Apple boards I see online say "Oh, it will take you a few hours, but it's worth it"
That's not the point - why is it neccessary? Arent computers the kind of thing you'd use to sort through a list of 10,000 anythings and let the processor find the 2,500 you want so a human doesn't have to waste "a few hours"????
That there is now an aftermarket program offered for sale at $20 or more to fix the problems with iTunes libraries should embarass someone imprtant at Apple. It surely makes a good argument why we don't see the "I'm a Mac"/"I'm a PC" ads, because my Mac products (iPhones/iTunes) have cost me a lot of money, and taken a lot of my time.' at this point as much if not more than my 3 PC's. My frustration has brought me to tears, and unfortunately in the wake of the death of Steve Jobs, I'm going to say something that may sound "too soon" or at least sacreligious:
If I have "Manage music manually" checked, why can't I just click-and-drag a song straight from Windows into iTunes.? Onto my iPhone?
I mean it was Macintosh that brought the world the computer mouse, at least how most of us learned to use one is because Mac had it first. Click and drag is something that came first to Mac OS, second to Windows.
Why can I not drag a song, a podcast, a movie, from it's Windows location to iTunes, drop it on my iPhone and find it on the phone? Why do I have to go through this "sync" madness to risk wiping my phone clean in the process (as it did once already)? Why does "manually manage music" do no good, because if I drag a song anywhere onto the iTunes window, i Can't drop it anywhere.
I magange to get a Bachelor's degree from a Big Ten university, in of all things Computer Graphics Design. My experience with iTunes and my iPhone at times make me feel like someone must have dressed me in the morning and fed me liquid food through a straw because surely someone this hapless is too hopeless to chew and swallow on his own.
Next, Apple wants me to pay for the cloud, pay for support by the call, pay $40 for a new cord every time the dog chews one or when it comes apart on it's own (which any cable that costs $40 ought not to do under normal use) -
I feel used by Apple. I used to love my original iPod, right now I feel like a stooge and I'm having confidence issues about life in general because iTunes has broken my spirit, and the money-sink reality of this thing is making me glad the cassette deck in my car still works and my mix tapes just don't disappear like my playlists.
Should I just kill myself? This is almost a serious question - because I go up an ddown these forums and I see hundreds, thousands of questions - spent two hours looking for an answer before I posted this one - I can't find an answer.

Highly pixelated image when viewing at 100%

Dear Forum:
I'm using Aperture 3.0.1 on a MacBook Pro 2.53 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo; 4GB 1067 MHz DDR3. Using Mac OS 10.6.2.
I'm making a photobook, extra large size. I placed an image in a photo box that covers the entire page (in other words, the photo has no borders) When I look at it in 100% view. The image is startlingly pixellated as if it's a low res image (The image is not a super-cropped image of the original) Will the book print out that way or is it okay for the image to look low res when making the book?
Thanks,
Steve

Dear Thomas,
I don't see the yellow triangle on the image which is good. But the image is nevertheless low res when viewed at 100%. If I move the image in one or two directions, the image clears up and becomes sharp as it should be. But, when I come back to image after working on another page, and do 100%, the image is once again low res. I'm wondering if this is just a preview issue or if it will actually affect the PDF file that will eventually by generated for printing.
Thanks,
Steve

Firefox mage quality and resolution was superb when I used XP and Vista. Now that I have Windows 7, however (with the Firefox 3.6.3 version), the image quality and resolution is poor. Please help me!

I am using the Firefox 3.6.3 version with my new Windows 7 operating system. When I used all the previous Firefox versions in my XP and Vista operating systems, image quality and resolution was excellent! However, now that I have upgraded to Windows 7 and Firefox 3.6.3, the image quality and resolution is poor (unacceptable for downloading purposes).
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== I first activated my new computer and installed the Firefox 3.6.3.

All my images are pixelated in firefox 3.6.3
http://www.dcgdcreative.com
Not only on my site but on most sites I view.
The issue is not solved by resetting the zoom text view (ctrl+0)
The issue is not resolved by starting in safemode with add-ons disabled
The problem seems to only affect .jpeg files and only on Windows 7 on my desktop; as I have viewed several sites using windows XP with my laptop, no issues.
I had the same issue with IE8 and was able to fix the problem with by setting up the compatibility view for all sites. Issue fixed no problems at all. But nothing similar for firefox?
Whats the deal?

How can I control the image size when I export form iphoto, the choice is too limited, I need to send a photo under 3 MB but if I choose high quaulity it is only 1.1 and i need to keep the best quaulity I can. Thanks for help.

How can I control the image size when I export form iphoto, the choice is too limited, I need to send a photo under 3 MB but if I choose high quaulity it is only 1.1 and i need to keep the best quaulity I can. Thanks for help.

Any image can only be as large as the Original. With a program like Photoshop you can UpRes an image and get it to a bigger size, larger files size as well, but the actual quality of the image will be degraded, depending on the UpRes system and the original quality of the image.
iPhoto is not the program to be doing that in and I don't think it even has that option.
So I suspect the image you are trying to send isn't much bigger than what you are getting. You can also try Exporting it from iPhoto to yopur desktop and see what size you end up with. If it is still that 209KB +/- file size then that is the size of the original image.

I just set up a new computer running Windows 8.1. When I go to my icloud photostream, the pictures are in PNG format NOT JPG. When I open and upload photos from the photostream, the resolution is so low that the image quality is terrible. Help?!?

I just set up a new computer running Windows 8.1. When I go to my icloud photostream, the pictures are in PNG format NOT JPG. When I open and upload photos from the photostream, the resolution is so low that the image quality is terrible. Help?!?

Hey Sierra, You can do just what you have stated. My question, what is your "other"? If it is over 1.5 GB you most likely have corrupt files. Doing a Restore to New, Factory restore should correct it. Just make sure you make a full backup of all information on your iPod to your computer before you restore, so you don't lose your stuff, contacts, videos, pictures, non-iTunes music, etc, use the cable and connect with your computer. Then, via cable, connect to your computer, run the Restore to new, don't use your backup. Treat this iPod as if it was your first one ever. When restore is done, set up and add what info you wish to install on this iPod. The music apps etc you purchased should be on your computer, if not you should be able to retrieve purchased apps and music from iTunes. Any music, videos, apps not purchased from iTunes will be lost to you if you do not save them to your computer or the cloud first. When your done, make a current Backup and you should good to go. Hope this helps. Good luck. Cheers.

When I create a PDF with Adobe Reader XI, it wont take the links behind the images. Sometimes he does, mostly not.. Whats the solution? The links in text do work!

When I create a PDF with Adobe Reader XI, it wont take the links behind the images. Sometimes he does, mostly not.. Whats the solution? The links in text do work!

Hello,
How can I give a answer back in the discussion on Adobe.com?
I don’t see any link?
1.      We have a subscription.
2.      Im converting a newsletter from the web to PDF.
3.      Sometimes I put a weblink behind the image in the newsletter. Most of the time PDF wont take the links behind the image.
Only the tekstlinks are OK.
[private data removed]

When I used mountain lion in a preview of a picture I could just press the icon that was a box with an arrow pointing up and that would allow me to share (message, email, Facebook, etc) the image. Now in Yosemite in preview if I click the box-arrow

When I used mavericks in a preview of a picture I could just press the icon that was a box with an arrow pointing up and that would allow me to share (message, email, Facebook, etc) the image. Now in Yosemite in preview if I click the box-arrow

Found my answer in another thread- this is what I did
GO to System Preferences > Users > Right Click on your Name > Advanced Options > and refresh your UUID
Restart your System and the widgets are all back
This solution worked fine for me!

When I drag photos into iMovie, the image quality is degraded. Can I somehow prevent the degradation?

When I drag photos into iMovie, the image quality is degraded. Can I somehow prevent the degradation?

Hi
A very common origin to jumpy picture is
• Recorded material in one frame rate e.g. 29.97fps (NTSC) and iDVD set to do a 25fps (PAL) project - OR the other way around.
It delivers a DVD but a very bad one.
I do convert all my material to same fps as the DVD I want to do (e.g. PAL) - before any editing etc.
I use JES_Deinterlacer or Compressor to do this and the result is so much better.
JES_Deinterlacer is free on Internet and makes a Great job - Professional alternatives comes at an astronomical cost and the quality is not hardly no better.
Yours Bengt W

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

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for