Unsharp Mask Preview Looks Good - Once Applied Looks Horrifying

Settings - Preview unchecked
Preview when checked - looks good (exaggerated here just so it is more obvious)
Once applied, what the #%(#! just happened???

At 100% you should at least see a portion of the image. And that is what it should do. I did not expect you to see the entire image.

Similar Messages

  • Source and Program  preview look good,  AME renders linked aftereffects very poor

    I have searched high and low but cant figure this out:
    I have CS4 Master Suite installed on HPZ600 workstation Windows 7 Enterprise 64bit
    Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5550  @ 2.67GHz, 2661 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4 Logical     6GB ram.
    I created a 720p PremierPro (PP) sequence.  I added a “Black Video” then rightClick- replaced it with an aftereffects (AE) comp.  I added several screen captures to the AE file and animated a few graphics over the images.  When I jump back into PP the source preview (linked Comp) looks great, the Program preview looks good and when I Export media the 1st preview (still in PP) looks good.  Once it opens in Adobe Media Encoder the quality (mostly text on white background) looks terrible.
    I have tried endless combinations of settings and options with no luck.  I render out the AE file and it looks great.  Import it into PP, looks great.  Send it to AME, looks like poop.  If I take the images (used in AE) and import them directly into PP I get a good export in AME but I need them in AF to animate.
    If anyone has any info that might help I would be greatly appreciative.
    Thanks

    No,  but that does seem to be a good indicator.  When the preview (AME) is  bad, the rendered video comes out bad.  When it is good, the video comes  out good. I just rendered this.  The preview showed about 1 second of  good quality and then the busted look (with linked AE only, video was  good).  This is a 1280 x 720 png in AE with no animation or effects.
    The  linked AE is video2 in PP on top of 720p video in video1.  If I create a new  sequence and place (copy/paste from the old one) the linked AE alone it  previews and renders great.  Once I add the video (AE fades in over the  video) and have 2 720p elements, the AE will randomly look bad.
    Do you think it could be a RAM issue?
    Here is an example:  This is a rendered WMV about 20 seconds in.
    Here is the same WMV 21 seconds in.  It is the same image in AE.  This quality shift was also identical in the AME window.
    thank you for your time and info, I appreciate it.

  • Good-looking quicktime movie looks crummy once burned to dvd

    Hi. I made a cool home movie in Final Cut Express; exported it into a quicktime movie - looked good when I played it in quicktime. Then I burned it to a dvd-r (about 60 minutes of footage), and when I played the dvd on my dvd player on the tv, it looked crummy?
    Any advice?
    Thanks.

    All sorts of advice, but we will need more specifics to be of more help. For one, define crummy. What version of QT and OS X? How was the movie exported from FCE? iDVD expects a DV file... if you exported out of FCE using some sort of compression (other than DV ) that isn't good. What was your source material? Here is a link to some common info: http://www.videohelp.com/dvd
    Mike

  • How to apply a 'calculated' radius in Unsharp Mask en mass?

    In about a week's time, when I've finished applying Curves to about 1200 B&W images, I'll be ready to apply an Unsharp Mask to each of them. Exactly how I'll do that I'm not certain yet, but I've been reading my Photoshop CS Bible (Deke McClelland) in preparation. On page 503 it states:
    If you're looking for a simple formula, I recommend 0.1 of Radius for every 15 ppi of final image resolution... If you have a calculator, just divide the intended resolution by 150 to get the ideal Radius value.
    For example, at 300 ppi use Radius = 2. Such a recommendation is just that: a recommendation (and not 'ideal' as he also states), but I've taken it as a good starting point; and while I've been adding Curves I have also been experimenting with Unsharp Mask and various Radii (but not yet saving the sharpened images).
    McClelland's statement is not clear regarding what Radius should be used if you are NOT working on the image at final resolution. I think I know what the answer is, but I want to confirm.
    Some background: I'll be printing on a Xerox iGen running a colour line screen at 175 lpi. The printer wants the images to be 300 ppi. The images at the moment range from an effective ppi of about 100 to 2000, depending on how much they have been scaled in InDesign. So I've got resolutions all over the place which at some point I will have to tidy up. Those images below about 250 ppi, I will be upsampling to 300. Those above about 450 ppi (this may change), will be downsampled to 300 when I convert to PDF.
    I have some questions:
    QUES 1
    Say I have an image at 1200 ppi, that will be downsampled to 300 ppi. Should I do the sharpening on the 1200 ppi image, or on the downsampled 300 ppi image? i.e Will it make any difference to the final printed result if sharpening is done before or after downsampling?
    QUES 2
    I think the statement:
    I recommend 0.1 of Radius for every 15 ppi of final image resolution
    should read
    I recommend 0.1 of Radius for every 15 ppi of image resolution
    Surely the Radius (assuming you accept the figures McClelland gives) depends only on the resolution of the image you are working on. i.e if you have a 1500 ppi image, use a Radius of 10 (1500/150), NOT a Radius of 2 (300/150) -- the final image resolution that is sent to the printer. Is that a correct reading of McClelland's recommendation?
    QUES 3
    My experiments indicate that for the type of images I am using, McClelland's recommendation oversharpens, at least for my liking. I will probably use half the figure he suggests: Radius = 1 for 300 ppi.
    Given that I have about 1200 images, if I was going to apply an Unsharp Mask manually this is what I would do:
    1. Put all the layers in each image into a Group.
    2. Calculate the Radius to be applied to each image from the formula: Radius = (IMAGE PPI) /300.
    3. Apply an Unsharp Mask to the Group using the calculated Radius (plus Amount = 50, Threshhold = 0)
    Of course I'm not going to do this manually -- well, I hope I'm not -- but what is the best way? Could an Action handle all of this? A Script? A combination of both? Something else entirely? Not possible in PS?
    In summary: I want to automatically apply a variable Radius that depends on the image's resolution. Possible?

    The PDF says, for one of the steps:
    Command-click the duplicate channel to make the edge mask a selection.
    When I do that, a selection outline appears, but I can't work out, or find out, what conditions are applied to make the selection. Any ideas? I may have to start a separate thread for this question. I don't like to blindly follow recipes. I like to know what's going on.
    Guy,
    I'm not sure I understand your question. With command click, the channel is the selection. White = fully selected, black = not selected. It's all the steps made to create the channel that affect the selection. To me the selection edges are visually interfering with a soft mask, I usually hide the edges.
    In post 9 steps 2-6 all contribute to the final section. Find edges identifies the edges. Median has a smoothing effect. Maximum expands the selection a little, then the gaussian blur softens it.
    This process (post 9) works for me when I sharpen images, but you may not like it. Sometimes no mask at all is a viable option - some folks like a grainy/noisy appearance in non-edge areas. Some people may even purposefully add noise to create that kind of look.
    With USM the radius thickens the light and dark areas of edges, and amount intensifies (lightening the light, darkening the dark). Threshold is just what it's  name implies, it sets a parameter for Ps to apply the sharpening or not (but it can result in a pockmarked look in smooth areas, so I like 0)
    I always look at images at actual pixels in Ps when sharpening. With sharpening there is room for opinion. Some people like thicker edges (higher radius). Some people go easy on the amount, some people are more aggressive.
    It's the scaling in ID that makes things difficult, because actual pixels won't give you a true print appearance. To correct this the image either needs to be scaled to size in PS, and placed at 100% in ID - OR left as is in ID, and the resolution changed in PS (300 x % i.e. 300 x 25% = 75 PPI)
    I like to start with radius 1 and 100 amount but these values are always subject to change. I wish it was an exact science but it's not. I like sharp images, but I don't want icicles in eyebrows either. I believe you said 175 LPI screening, so if it was me I would err on the sharp side...
    Something else I just thought of - the print size is something to think about, too. Consider the two extremes (which may or may not apply to your project) - thumbnails, and posters. If it's a thumbnail, by the time you've got the scaling right in Ps, there really isn't much pixel information left! In his instance a lot of sharpening probably wouldn't hurt, it would create contrast (which is important in very small images). The other end of the spectrum - posters. Actual pixels may be a little misleading in this case, because when the average person looks at a poster, they don't get right up on it at a normal reading distance, they view it from several feet away. For this reason sometimes poster images are only half-resolution, to keep the file size manageable, and give a more realistic view perspective.
    Hope this helps. I am not a forum expert. The others may have better advice, or may see errors in my information.

  • Making IWeb sites look good.

    I've seen a lot of iWeb sites, and for the most part they're not bad, but generally they look really generic. From my graphic design point of view there are a few things that people can do to improve the "look"of their site.
    1. Delete the auotmatic navigation bar that iWeb creates when making new pages. This can be done under the page tab in the inspector. Anything can be turned into a hyperlink, so make your own buttons, instead of letting iWeb do it. This means graphics and any kind of text you want. Be creative.
    2.A. Typograghy please. Its a good rule of thumb to only use a few different fonts. Doing this throughout the website will add consistency to the overall design. iWeb allows for strict control over type (take advantage of this) text type (paragraph length type) looks best at a smaller sizes ie. 9-11 pt. Also increase the leading (the amount of space between lines of type). This will make the text easier to read.
    2.B. Choose your own fonts. Don't use iWeb's default fonts. Generally text size can be reduced as well. Type makes the page, so pay attention to it.
    Hope these tips help someone.
    Power Mac G5   Mac OS X (10.4.7)  
    Power Mac G5   Mac OS X (10.4.7)  

    Hello all,
    I would like to add to red.sea's comments. The reason : I have over 60 emails to reply on the topic of iWeb design from forum members.
    It's a hard question to answer when someone asks you ways to improve their sites ... without wanting to hurt their feelings. I have to consider the fact that because I do this comfortably for a living, design comes as natural to me as painting. But what I have always enjoyed in my life, is seeing someone try ... and ultimately enjoy what they can achieve. Imagination is surely one of the greatest virtues.
    Having said that, I would like to add a couple of points. This principally applies to people who wish to build a site entirely from scratch using a white blank page. But some of these methods will apply to template users.
    Before designing a site, sketch it out on paper. Each slip represents a new page. Mark out roughly the topics, the placement of pictures, the amount of text involved on the page. This will save you a lot of time - believe me.
    FONTS
    Refine what you have just done in (1) by selecting different fonts as red.sea mentioned. Choose fonts according to the theme of the site. E.g. Romantic wedding sites, use fonts like Zapfino, Mona Lisa Solid, Bodoni etc. - script as well as serif fonts. Modern sites - sans serif fonts seems to be the trend, and it has been for a number of years. Examples, Gill Sans, Optima. The default Helvetica isn't bad, but try using Light instead of Bold. Use large point size. I use Avenir and Nobel on my sites.
    N.B. The only area to leave as template default, is the blog - in case you want to use the Search feature.
    IMAGES
    Work your images to 100% of the size you intend to use in iWeb. Resizing will blur the images. This has been mentioned many times over, so I won't touch on this further. 72dpi images work fine with me and if you must, tweak your colours before dragging them to iWeb - if you are using Photoshop, for instance. Unsharp mask can help sharpen your pictures. I use NIK filters.
    COLOUR (I was raised in England, so I spell with a 'U')
    Theme colour is important. Many folks feel that white is boring. That really depends on how you use it and design normally plays a part in this. Should you choose to use colours, there are millions to use on the palette. Avoid strong primary colours unless you have a good design-sense. As mentioned, check the mood, the topic, the theme. If you have black and white photos, use black, grey or white as background. Light (often pastel) colours work well with B&Ws too. This can be a very in depth discussion, but I think you get my drift. Lastly, try and maintain a flowing look/theme to your site. It's very pleasant to browse through sites like these.
    TEXT
    Placing of text is by far the biggest issue for most iWebbers. Some sites have the right colours but is ruined with text running everywhere. One site had long sentences and paragraphs (11pt font size) stretching 600px from left to right which went on forever. It's an eye sore and nobody is going to read it, especially folks above 40 something. Make columns instead. The guides work beautifully on iWeb, just like in Keynote. Make sure under preferences > Alignment Guides, both are checked. Keep these columns tidy and aligned to something on your page - a photo, your headline - something the body copy can have affliation to. Play with the leading (space in between the text).
    There are other things I would like to add ... maybe later.
    I hope this helps rather than offend. Over the last couple of weeks, I have met and corresponded with many members from this forum. It's been a delight. I thank you for trying.
    Joe
    http://web.mac.com/joeleong

  • Where to apply Unsharp Mask?

    I have multiple image layers and adjustment layers, and after doing all of my editing I would like to sharpen the image. Do I just apply the Unsharp Mask to the top most layer to achieve this OR is there some other way? Will it sharpen the details of all the layers if applied to the highest layer?
    Thanks.

    Guidelines?
    Sharpening is almost the very definition of "season to taste".
    I've seen a lot of publications that I feel tremendously oversharpen photos, making them look like some artificial construct (but like a lot of other similar publications).  A photographer friend and I were once trying to make prints that looked like those in a coffee table picture book, and we were failing for a while until we tried dialing up the Unsharp Mask to ludicrous levels.
    What I suggest you do is to try to get a feel for how what you've done on the screen is going to look as published (e.g., if you make a print, assuming that's what you do).  Then decide on a "look and feel" that you want to express, and try to consistently achieve it with your photos.
    One trick I use is to view an image at exactly 50% to try to get a feel for how sharp it will look in print.
    By the way, depending on what you're after, there are better sharpening tools than Unsharp Mask available.
    -Noel

  • Smoothcamed clip looks good in canvas, terrible when exported

    Hi. I'm working on a choppy shot taken on a boat. After applying the smoothcam filter, the shot looks much better, but ONLY in Final Cut's Canvas. When exported and played in any other program, it looks worse, jittery and streaky, like there is a translucent second layer over the original that is a few seconds off.
    Curiously, the smoothcamed clip also looks bad when played FULL SCREEN in Final Cut using the 'digital cinema desktop preview' function.
    The only time it looks good is in final cut's canvas (but not full screen).
    Anyone know why this is happening and how to get the results I'm seeing in the canvas for output?
    The temp work around I've devised is to play the clip in a large canvas and to capture with a desktop video capturing program. The clip is smooth but we're losing too much resolution.
    FYI: no luck smoothcaming in motion, which zooms in too far.
    Thanks in advance for help. 

    The Canvas is only showing you some of the pixels, smoothing out what it cannot show in full rez. You're also seeing a reduced frame rate sort of, it's progressive and your footage is probably interlaced. Smoothing attempts to do huge pixel-level manipulations and the results can be terrible and sometimes liquidy, as you have seen. Aren't there settings you can adjust down? Sorry, not at my FCP machine this morning to check that for you.
    Try hitting a few of the Motion training sites to see if ayone has something to say about smoothing.
    In Motion, you can switch off the automatic zooming feture that attempts to hide the edges bt you're going to be forced to deal with the visible edges somehow.
    bogiesan

  • When I first am looking at my newly uploaded photos in "Library", a box appears near the bottom of the photo that says "loading" (the photo looks good to me), then it is more "faded" and does not look as good.  Is there some setting on that I am not aware

    When I am first looking at my newly uploaded photos in "Library," a box appears near the bottom of the photo that says "Loading".  While it is loading, I usually think the photo looks "good".  After the photo is done loading, it looks more washed out.  Is there some sort of setting that I might have on (or that I need to turn on) so that this does not happen.  I have Lr4.  Thanks.

    Hi Tracy,
    There used to be a way to see if poster was new to the forum.., anyway - welcome to the forum.
    As I was alluding to, biggest differences in initial display are due to:
    * Camera calibration profile.
    * Auto-exposure/contrast settings (for which compensations have been auto-applied in camera, but not in Lightroom).
    So, choose a matching camera calibration profile (whether that's an option or not depends on your camera model - they're available for many but not all models) if you prefer one of them over "Adobe Standard" (the factory default profile).
    Also, your camera covers for underexposure due to non-optimal auto-exposure/contrast setting, Lightroom doesn't, so your options are:
    * turn it off in camera.
    * learn to compensate manually (or automatically via a plugin) in Lightroom.
    Of course, in addition to preferred defaults (alt-click big "reset" button in dev module), come up with some presets which are appropriate for your druthers and type of photography.. e.g. these will compensate Nikon ADL settings:
    http://www.robcole.com/LrForumSupport/ADL%20Compensations%20%282012%29.zip
    Cheers,
    Rob

  • High quality only looks good when in full screen

    I have a "15 MacBookPro using AE CC 2014.2..
    So I typed some text within AE and dragged in a high resolution photo to make a simple video. My composition size was 1920x1080.  But the photo and text always look weird, sorta pixelated, unless they are full screen.  It's like the AE video can't handle being resized whether I'm watching it on quicktime or youtube, or even while working in AE.  However the high res photo looks great at any size when I view just as a photo, using the Preview application.
    This has happened before on other videos I've made but it really bothered me because it just ruins the photo on this one.  if I make my video 720 it comes out not as noticeable but then if you try to watch the video full screen it gets blurry in the expected pixelated fashion, so that doesn't truly solve anything....I am just confused as to why after effects is not letting me make high quality videos that look good in a smaller video window (eg: the youtube video player if you don't click full screen)
    below I attached a screen shot of what is happening.  This particular screen shot is from when I uploaded it on youtube and watched it.  But if I watch it in a small window using quicktime or even in AE, it looks the same...until you blow it up to full screen then it looks alright!
    But I want people who just happen upon the video to be drawn into the photograph and bold text on screen not see some pixelated **** 

    Your thin outlines on the fonts are going to fall apart when you have the media player scaled down. Here's why. Say those thin lines are 2 pixels wide. Say the Media player is set to 600 pixels wide instead of 1920. Divide 600 by 1920 and you get .3125 (or 31.25%) Multiply 2 pixels by .3125 and you get .625 and since there is no such thing as a fraction of a pixel the media player is going to make it's best guess where those white pixels should be and adjust the color to approximate what six tenths of a pixel would look like. The result is poor quality.
    You can improve the quality by first, not using very thin lines in your design, and second, not putting high value pixels (white, red, blue, green at 255 for example) next to black ones (0). Learning how pixels behave is as important to a motion graphics designer as learning how a brush responds to the canvas for a painter working with oils. Video is limited to whole pixel brushes so you need to learn how to paint with them.

  • Select a Photo for Background, Looks Great, after Applying, Blurry

    I created my own photo for a backdrop, it looks very sharp, is 1024x768, looks great in Photoshop, in Photos on the iPad, is the correct aspect ratio & everything, and then after applying to the background, it is slightly blurry.
    At first i thought it was a scaling issue, but I verified it was 1024x768. Actually, what is stranger, I'm actually modifying one of the default backdrops that come with the thing, adding a logo, and the rest of the photo looks great, except the logo is blurry. But again - the photo & logo both look very sharp in the iPad's Photos app when I preview it prior to applying it.
    Format is PNG.
    Any ideas?
    Thanks
    Message was edited by: Mike Meyer1
    null

    I noticed this too when I took a much higher resolution graphic and re-sized it as a 1024x768 file. The iPad pixelated it and washed it out somewhat when I used it as the background. But when I went back and just tried it at its much higher original resolution/size, it was inserted perfectly and looks great as the background. Not sure why though.

  • Dvcam footage exporting "h.264 dv-pal high quality" isn't looking good?

    hello guys
    thank you for assistance in my previous post. i couldn't thank you guys for some reason.
    however this is a related issue, my dv cam footage which i have edited and export isn't coming out at good quality as is on the preview screen, its looking alot more blurry.
    the export settings i am selecting is h.264 and dv pal high quality?
    i want to burn the dv footage onto dvd video, so i need settings which will enable the best quality for this.
    can you please reccomend the settings i need
    thank you

    i don't have these options in export media...are these additonal codecs i need to buy
    ( i will have a look when i am at home to see the options i have)
    Kind regards
    Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:41:20 -0700
    From: [email protected]
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: dvcam footage exporting "h.264 dv-pal high quality" isn't looking good?
        Re: dvcam footage exporting "h.264 dv-pal high quality" isn't looking good?
        created by Jim Simon in Premiere Pro CS5 & CS5.5 - View the full discussion
    For DVD you can't use H.264.  You need MPEG2-DVD.
         Replies to this message go to everyone subscribed to this thread, not directly to the person who posted the message. To post a reply, either reply to this email or visit the message page: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4203685#4203685
         To unsubscribe from this thread, please visit the message page at http://forums.adobe.com/message/4203685#4203685. In the Actions box on the right, click the Stop Email Notifications link.
         Start a new discussion in Premiere Pro CS5 & CS5.5 by email or at Adobe Forums
      For more information about maintaining your forum email notifications please go to http://forums.adobe.com/message/2936746#2936746.

  • Text looks good in ProRes422 but not Animation codec

    I am doing a lower third in Motion and exporting the mov file to use in FCP.
    The FCP timeline is in ProRes422.
    If I export the text in Animation codec it looks jaggy and not good quality.
    If I export the same thing in ProRes422 it looks good in FCP.
    But, I can't get the transparency in the background with 422 , thats the problem.
    How can I get around this?
    In the past, with text, from Motn to FCP, I have had two video tracks with the same graphic and the top one was set to Travel Matte - Luma, and this gave me transparency, but my lower 3rd has a moving graphic element.
    Can I export in Motion with 422 and somehow get a transparent background?
    Thanks,,

    If your sequence will not render to your satisfaction in the host codec and because text cannot possibly get any better than that, you're either looking at it improperly, have something set incorrectly (render settings in FCP? Commonly missed problem), or your expectations are unreasonably high. But I'm not watching over your shoulder, no clue what you're doing or why you're doing it that way. But I know that Motion's text and pixel output is beautiful so I've got no problem insisting you have an easily corrected user error, you just need to figure out which one it might be.
    Might try Mark Spencer's articles:
    http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/smartin/story/renderingmotion_projects_in_final_cutpro/
    http://www.applemotion.net/page20/page20.html
    Why do you think a "mask" would improve the rendering?

  • Video looks good, until I export it to vimeo?

    how are you guys doing? im new to the cummunity. I have a problem with FCPX/Compressor 4. It seems when my video is in fcpx it looks good, i export via Compressor 4 & it still looks good. Now heres the problem. When you look at my video through a computer on Vimeo it looks ok, but soon as you veiw it via cell phone it looks terrible! (& we all know most people veiw media through cell phone devices) so my question to you guys is... is that just a cell phone thing? or are there settings in which i can change to make the video look good always reguardless if its on a computer or cell phone?
    http://vimeo.com/67703617   there is the video, but on a cell phone just doesn't look as right.
    it would be greatly appriciated if someone out there can answer my question..thank you!

    Terrible? No way.
    I have a 4S and I thought it played smoothly and displayed quite well – no artifacts that I noticed and very nice color as well. 
    Don't know what else to tell you.
    Anyhow, the deal with Vimeo, et al is that once you upload it, it is in their hands.  So you want to give them a version that isn't excessively compressed (and of course, progressive). And they will encode it for desktop and mobile devices.
    Good luck.
    Russ

  • Video looks good in PR but bad when exported

    Hello. I hope someone can help me out here. I am doing color corrections in Premiere Pro and it looks good but when I export it, the colors are not as saturated (it needs more color). Do any of you know the reasons why and how I can fix this?
    I read that my laptop might need to be calibrated is that true? Is there another way? How do I calibrate it?!!
    Please help me. Thanks in advance.

    like television and also the theater screen, but I know the theater screen is calibrated so I guess my video needs to be calibrated?
    i think thats what the others are getting at.
    if on your computer, premiere and vlc and quicktime all look the same there is no problem with premiere.
    if your video on your computer looks different than another screen or tv, then its calibration.
    you can adjust the saturation on your computer until it looks as dull as the calibrated theater screen, then you should have closer matching displays. in windows you may find a control for you video card, in mac im not sure.  then you can adjust saturation in premiere to your clips/timeline.  
    if you dont want to change your saturation for your laptop, you could use an adjustment layer above the footage and reduce saturation to match the calibrated theater screen. then go back and boost the saturation on clips or previous adjustment layer... once happy with saturation that way, disable the adjustment layer with the reduced saturation for export.

  • KDE fonts under Gnome doesn't look good

    Ok, most people complains about GTK fonts under KDE. I have the inverse problem, my kde apps doesn't look good into gnome.
    If I run kde, the fonts are displayed properly with small size, but if I run gnome and the run a kde app, the fonts are very big.
    When i run a gtk app under kde, the fonts are showed properly but it doesn't use my gnome theme.
    Anyone have a solution on making kde apps looking good under gnome?

    Even though it's the inverse problem, it's likely still the same solution.  Gnome has a Gconf setting for DPI.  Otherwise you change it as an option to X.  Where you do so depends on how you start up X though (startx, xdm, kdm, gdm, etc).  I'll post back once I'm in Gnome and tell you where you can change the DPI.

Maybe you are looking for