Visual quality questions

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I want to be as clear and detailed as possible about my process and goals using iMovie and iDVD.
I read posts on this forum frequently and know that many users are having problems with the visual quality of the final product and are looking for help in finding the best method of sharing.
I use still photos exclusively in my projects. I shoot using jpeg fine or raw and I use a variety of transitions as well as the KB effect on a few of the photos when creating projects. My goal is to create a slideshow movie that I can burn to disc and give to friends.
Currently I am involved with an Apple Tech Support trying to solve a problem that is beyond the scope of these forums. Last week I was asked to create a 10 slide project using a variety of transitions and the KB effect on 2 or 3 photos, share through Export using QT, and to send it to my contact through her Mobile Me. The quality was appalling - as I knew it would be because I have tried various methods of sharing - all with poor results, with one exception. Sometimes the quality after the share is excellent but deteriorates in iDVD; sometimes the quality after the initial share itself is poor. It all depends on which process I choose. Reverting to iMovie HD has not proven successful either.
The one exception for me is to share using "Export Movie". I end with a product icon on the desktop with a title.mov signature. (I used this method last week to resend my 10 slide test project to Apple Support and my contact person commented on the high quality.) The time difference creating the project to me is telling: for example, for a slideshow project that is 24 minutes long in iMovie it takes almost 2 hours to create a movie using "Export Movie", but 36 minutes or less using any other sharing method.
I certainly have not read every post on this forum, nor do I have the expertise or skill of the people who respond to questions from others about visual quality. But I haven't seen the process I use suggested by anyone else. (I have offered my solution to the problem once or twice when I am certain that the questioner is using still photos.)
So my questions are these> Is there a difference in how iMovie/iDVD handle video vs still photo projects? Is the solution I have found to retaining high visual quality just a fluke that won't work for anyone else? I would like to be helpful to others if I can be, but don't want to waste other peoples' time if my solution really isn't a solution at all.

The problem is with imovie'08 or 09 and their way of discarding every second line
in interlaced video material. Not suited for DVDs.
Never got anything alike iMovie HD 6 or FCE/P from them.
Notes on DVD quality
*DVD quality*
1. iDVD 08 & 09 has three levels of qualities.
iDVD 6 has the two last ones
• Professional Quality (movies up to 120 min.) - BEST
• Best Performances (movies less than 60 min.) - High quality on final DVD
• High Quality (in iDVD08 or 09) / Best Quality (in iDVD6) (movies up to 120 min.) - slightly lower quality than above
2. From
• FCE/P - Export out as full quality QuickTime.mov (not selfcontaining, no conversion)
• iMovie x-6 - Don't use ”Share/Export to iDVD” = destructive even to movie project and especially so
when the movie includes photos. Instead just drop or import the iMovie movie project icon (with a Star on it) into iDVD theme window.
• iMovie’08 not meant to go to iDVD. Go via Media Browser or rather use iMovie HD 6 from start.
3. I use Roxio Toast™ to make an as slow burn as possibly eg x1 (in iDVD’08 or 09 this can also be set)
This can also be done with (Apple) Disk Util tool.
4. There has to be about or more than 25Gb free space on internal (start-up) hard disk. iDVD can't
use an external one as scratch disk (if it is not start-up disc).
5. Verbatim ( also recommended by many - Taiyo Yuden DVDs - I can’t get hold of it to test )
6. DVD-R (no +R or +/-RW)
7. Keep NTSC to NTSC - or - PAL to PAL when going from iMovie to iDVD
8. Don’t burn more than three DVD at a time - but let the laser cool off for a while befor next batch.
iDVD quality also depends on.
• HOW much free space is there on Your internal (start-up) hard disk. Go for approx 25Gb.
less than 5Gb and Your result will most probably not play.
• What kind of movie project You drop into it. MPEG4 seems to be a bad choice.
other strange formats are .avi, .wmv, .flash etc. Convert to streamingDV first
Also audio formats matters. I use only .aiff or from miniDV tape Camera 16-bit
strange formats often problematic are .avi, .wmv, audio from iTunes, .mp3 etc
Convert to .aiff first and use this in movie project
• What kind of standard - NTSC movie and NTSC DVD or PAL to PAL - no mix.
(If You need to change to do a NTSC DVD from PAL material let JESDeinterlacer3.2.2 do the conversion)
(Dropping a PAL movie into a NTSC iDVD project
(US) NTSC DVDs most often are playable in EU
(EU) PAL DVDs most often needs to be converted to play in US
UNLESS. They are plabacked by a Mac - then You need not to care
• What kind of DVDs You are using. I use Verbatim DVD-R (this brand AND no +R or +/-RW)
• How You encode and burn it. Two settings prior iDVD’08 or 09
Pro Quality (only in iDVD 08 & 09)
Best / High Quality (not always - most often not)
Best / High Performances (most often my choise before Pro Quality)
1. go to iDVD pref. menu and select tab far right and set burn speed to x1 (less errors = plays better) - only in iDVD 08 & 09
(x4 by some and may be even better)
2. Project info. Select Professional Encoding - only in iDVD 08 & 09.
Region codes.
iDVD - only burn Region = 0 - meaning - DVDs are playable everywhere
DVD Studio pro can set Region codes.
1 = US
2 = EU
Yours Bengt W

Similar Messages

Drop in layers visual quality when I change comps size -WHAT???

Hi there! So check this out. I import a progressive frame quicktime movie into AE, drag it to the new comp button in the project window and a new comp is created matching the specs of the source material.
But as soon as I change the size - width and height - of the comp in the composition settings window, the visual quality of the quicktime in the comp degrades dramatically. it's like someone dropped a fast blur on it with a value of around .5 or 1. Any ideas on what the heck is happening?
working on a 2 x 3 GHz Quad-Core Intel Mac running 10.4.11
9 GB 667 MHz DDR2 ram
Radeon X1900 w/512 MB video ram
1 TB raid
After Effects CS3 Professional vs 8.0.2.27
Quicktime 7.4.5

David & Mylenium,
I should have been more specific. Sorry. This is what's happening. The source is a 1920 x 1080 sq. pixel Apple ProRes 422 quicktime. I bring the footage into AE, key it and then prerender it.
Then I create a new comp (by dragging the footage to the new comp button) based on this prerendered footage. I do any compositing/etc i need to and then I take this final comp and render a master quicktime. Finally, I wait for my designers to tell me what size dimensionally they want the video to be ( it goes to FLV).
Once I get this info, I create a new comp one of 2 ways....
1. I drag the master quicktime to the new comp button, it makes a new comp (everything still looking fine) and then I change the dimensions of the comp to fit the designers request. As soon as I change the dimensions of the comp - the video looks like garbage. it looks like it's been slightly blurred - before and after I've scaled it down to fit the new size of the comp.
2. Sometimes I create a new comp with the dimensions the designers requested and then drag the master quicktime into it. Same thing. Blurred/bad footage before and after scaling to fit.
What in the heck is going on? Is there some strange ratio between height and width AE has to have? My footage is SQ PIX so... what the heck?
So David, when you ask if my footage is scaling to match the new comp size, the answer is no. If my footage is 1920x1080 and the final comp size is 400x340, I scale the video down so that all the action/movement of the actors fits into this size.
Mylenium, my footage and comps are SQ PIX and its the same with both OpenGL on and off. As far as for the codec, I see this with my original codecs - both DVCPro-HD and Apple Prores 1920x1080. I also see it happen with the prerendered qt's that have animations codecs.
I'm sorry for the long post guys. It's just been thoroughly frustrating. This footage should stay sharp. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. It's very strange. I've trashed prefs, reinstalled, retraced my steps and found nothing.
Time to pull my hair out. But thanks for your responses though!!

Visual quality of tabs on new FF is terrible

The new tab page (like Chrome) showed up this morning, but the visual quality is really poor. Fuzzy, no crispness, hard to read the icons.
What settings must I change before this feature is tolerable?

I'll pass that feedback on to developers. There aren't any settings that will affect the quality of the images though. Here's an article about customizing or turning the feature off - [[New Tab Page – show, hide and customize top sites]]

Poor visual quality connecting PB 15" to LCD tvs ( both HD and non HD)

I can connect my 15 " G4 PB to both my LCD tvs - one is a 19" non HD Sharp Aquos, the other is a HD 37" Sharp Aquos-
however, the visual quality is terrible- no matter what res I choose, mirrored, non- mirrored, - the fonts are fuzzy are totally illegible, making the operation essentially useless- even the screensavers and desktop pictures, icons etc. are very fuzzy
I know I have the right wires, connections etc.- the on screen action follows exactly what is on my pb- for example, opening files, etc. but the visuals are horrible-
I have browsed the posts but none seem to address this particular issue-
any suggestions would be of help-

OK, that's what I thought. Of all the ways you can connect to a TV or monitor, here is the quality from best to worst, from top to bottom:
HDMI/DVI (computer display quality via digital)
VGA (computer display quality via analog)
S-Video/component (TV display quality via analog)
Composite video (TV display quality via analog)
You are using the second worst type of connection. Nice TVs often have VGA, DVI, or HDMI ports, which can carry the high, sharp resolutions produced by computers. S-Video is but a step up from VHS videotape quality and can only be fuzzy. Technically, S-Video is only around 640x480, a fraction of what your PowerBook screen can do.
Check your TV ports again. If it has DVI, you can connect with your PowerBook's DVI port and the quality will be the best it possibly can. If there is no DVI but there is HDMI, then you can get a DVI-HDMI adapter and the quality should be just as high. If those two aren't available, look for VGA next, the quality will be good but not best. You can use the DVI-VGA adapter that came in the box with your PowerBook.
Going out the S-Video port is a last resort. I have an old TV that only takes composite video through the S-Video port, if I use the S-Video-to-Composite adapter that came in the PowerBook box. Going all the way down to composite video is the absolute last resort of all. (I'm saving up for a new TV!) However, S-Video might be the only way to connect to an affordable non-HD set.
One last thing: If you're mirroring the displays, the two resolutions must match. But if you're using extended desktop mode, the best resolutions to use are to set each display to its native resolution.

Which forum do i select to ask a visual studion question?

hi which forum do i select to ask a visual studion question?

You can click the "Volunteer for Mozilla Support" button on the https://support.mozilla.org page to go to the https://support.mozilla.org/get-involved page.
* https://support.mozilla.org/get-involved/questions

You saved me before...A quality question

I finally got my DVD made! BUT...I swear you can see every pixel on the screen. If a man has white hair, there are white pixels all around his head. Movements look like a blur of disorganized pixels, even stationary posters on the wall have their color pixels way past their borders. Jpegs look great, titles that move do not. I went over all the quality questions I could find on here, but most of them just confirmed I am in way over my head. I can not seem to change any of the settings, not the bit rate or anything else that would seem to effect the quality. I have my project set up as a DV NSTC, I did the Adobe encoder on high quality.
For an extreme newbie with a very important project due...does anyone have any tips???
Pleeeeeaaaase?
Sarah
PS...My footage came from a DVD recorder.

Sarah,
While your original footage was compromised by beginning life as an mpeg, you should not be getting the extreme blockiness you are seeing with the DVD. That being said, don't expect to be able to maintain the same quality as your original footage.
A couple of questions. Does the material look OK playing from the timeline? How are you exporting to Encore? What are your exact settings (everything and be sure to scroll all the way down...VBR, CBR, data-rate, etc)? What is your burn speed? What kind of DVD media are you using? What kind of device do you plan to play the DVD back on?
If all else fails, try a better encoder like TMPGEnc ($60?).

Visual Hub questions (related to Apple TV) and others

Hey guys,
Just bought Visual Hub to convert my stuff.
What do you recommend for the settings ?
Right now this is what I use : (NOTE : I translated on the fly from french so maybe it's a bit different)
-To : iTunes
-Optimize for : Apple TV 5.1
-Quality : BIG QUESTION HERE : I want as close as 1080p as can be, but if the source file I'm -converting is poor quality, won't this make a big file for nothing ? What should I base my choice on?
-H.264 enabled
-In advanced, I select double-pass and deinterlace, audio settings = initial
Nothing else is tweaked in advanced
so what do you think ?
I have a couple of other questions :
- What if I deinterlace a video that is not interlaced in the beginning ?
- How can I determine if a video is interlaced ?
- How can I tell if a video is in 5.1 or even full HD ?
- How can I make sure to get 5.1 on my Apple TV
- Can Apple TV play 1080p ? or is it just upscaling ?
- If A TV can output 1080p, where can I find sources file of such quality ?
Anything else that I should know of related to my questions ?
Thanks guys !!

I don't use visualhub so I couldn't suggest settings for you, but.
but if the source file I'm -converting is poor quality, won't this make a big file for nothing
Yes, that's all it will do.
What if I deinterlace a video that is not interlaced in the beginning ?
You will lose detail
How can I determine if a video is interlaced ?
Take a look at it on a progressive scan display such as your mac monitor, you will see horizontal lines in high motion areas when paused.
How can I tell if a video is in 5.1 or even full HD ?
See This
How can I make sure to get 5.1 on my Apple TV
Your content file need to have an AC3 track and you will need to play the audio through a 5.1 capable receiver or home theatre system.
Can Apple TV play 1080p ? or is it just upscaling ?
It can play up to 720p after which it upscales.
If A TV can output 1080p, where can I find sources file of such quality ?
More or less nowhere.

IChat to AOL/AIM image quality question.

This is a question about the image quality during a video chat from AOL/AIM and Trillian Pro on PCs to iChat on Macs. The details of the computers, connections and cameras are:
I'm running 10.4.8 on a MacBook Pro (2.33GHz CPU, 2GB RAM) with iChat AV 3 with a DSL connection that averages 1.24 Mbps DL and 271 Kbps UL and an external iSight camera.
My mother is running 10.3.9 on an iBook (1.33 GHz CPU, 256 MB RAM) with iChat AV 2.1 with a DSL connection that averages 155 Kbps DL and 146 Kpbs UL and an external iSight camera.
My sister is running Windows (not sure which version) on a Dell Dimension DIM4600 (2.60GHz CPU, 512MB RAM) with Trillian Pro with a DSL connection that averages 1.29 Mbps DL and 446 Kbps UL and a Logitech QuickCam Pro 4000 with QuickCam 8.3.0.
When I video chat with my mother my picture to her is good and her picture to me is good.
When I video chat with my sister my picture to her is good, but her picture to me is bad. The slightest movement causes the image to go break up into large squares that settles back down a decent image when the movement ends.
When my mother video chats with my sister, my mother's picture to my sister is good, but my sister's picture to my mother is bad. Again, the slightest movement causes the image to go break up into large squares that settles back down a decent image when the movement ends.
Also I have a friend (some kind of PC, some kind of Logitech webcam) using AOL/AIM 5.9 (I think) with cable modem connection (I don't know the speed). When I video chat with him my picture to him is good, but his picture to me is bad. Again, the slightest movement causes the image to go break up into large squares that settles back down a decent image when the movement ends.
Does anyone know if:
(1) this kind of behavior "par for the course" with PCs over the AOL/AIM network?
or if
(2) there is some "switch" in Trillian Pro and AOL/AIM 5.9 that needs to be thrown to improve the image (like the Bandwidth switch in iChat preferences)?
or
(3) is the camera or camera connection (USB vs. Firewire) that causes the problem?
Thanks.
P.S. I know the speed of my mother's DSL connection seems slow, but because our video chat images both ways are good I don't think that's the problem here.

Hi James,
I can relate to this somewhat based on AIM 5.9 to Macs.
You may be able to use the information to sort Trillian out further.
Ok first start a chat and then open the Connection Doctor from the Video menu at your end.
The Bit rate should be well over 100 for both of you.
Her Frame rate should be at least 10fps.
Now when on AIM 5.9 the framerate drops to about 1fps to the ichat end it is usually because the Pic Quality is set too high on the PC end. It then spends so long producing one frame it slows down sending the video.
To change this on the AIM app a user has to do the following.
They click on the preview tab (there are two; one for your incoming and one for their preview).
With the preview as the front tab a small icon appears to the right of the pic.
Clicking on this brings up a slider.
Sliding the slider to the left reduces the quality.
Visually you may not detect this but the effect is sort of converse in that the frames are produced faster as less detail is in them and the video frame rate goes up and therefore looks smoother.
I have not heard of Trillian needing this and consequently would not know where specifically to direct you.
I would start with the Preferences/Properties of Trillian and see if there are any setting there for output.
Look at size of the pic at their end as well as frame rates that they are aiming at.
As you say the slower 150ish connection is considered slow in many places now-a-days but is enough for 1-1 chats (min 100kbps).
The problem is likely to be a setting on the PC end.
I would also check the Trillian site for info about adjusting the frame rate or video quality. They have an extensive FAQ database.
10:51 PM Thursday; December 14, 2006

Import Quality Question

Ok I don't know much about this but,
How much audio quality do you lose when you import from a CD? Also, if the answer is lots, then does iTunes use that lossless audio encoder called apple lossless and if not where can I get and what do I need to use it? kinda 3 questions in one there...

Choose iTunes > Preferences> General pane and click Import Settings.
Choose an encoder from the Import Using pop-up menu.
You can listen to songs encoded in AAC or Apple Lossless formats in iTunes and on iPod models that come with a dock connector. If you plan to listen to your music using a different program or MP3 player, choose MP3 Encoder.
If you want to burn high-quality audio CDs with the songs you’re importing, without losing quality, choose Apple Lossless or AIFF. (Keep in mind that songs imported using this format use much more disc space.)
If you’ll be playing your songs on a computer that does not have MP3 software, choose WAV.
Choose a bit rate from the Setting pop-up menu (not available with Apple Lossless Encoder). In most cases, the default selection works well.
Higher Quality: Choose if you chose MP3 Encoder and plan to create your own audio CDs or listen to your music with high-quality stereo speakers.
High Quality: Choose if you play music in a noisy environment. This setting creates files that are about 1 MB in size per minute of music.
Good Quality: Use to fit more songs on a portable MP3 player with limited storage capacity.
Custom: Choose for greater control over the file size and sound quality.
To choose AIFF and WAV import settings:
Choose iTunes > Preferences>General pane and click Import Settings.
Choose AIFF Encoder or WAV Encoder from the Import Using pop-up menu.
Choose Custom from the Setting pop-up menu.
In the dialog that appears, choose settings:
Sample Rate: The number of times per second the music waveforms are captured digitally. The higher the sample rate, the higher the quality and the larger the file size. Don't choose a sample rate higher than the rate used to store the music originally or you'll waste space. CD quality, for example, is 44.100 kHz, so choosing a higher rate when you're encoding from a CD is unnecessary. In general, the best choice is Auto, which uses the same rate as the original music.
Sample Size: The number of bits used to store each sample taken as the music is encoded. The higher the sample size, the better the quality and the larger the file size.
Channels: If you don't have stereo speakers or if your audio files are monaural (mono files are about half the size of stereo files), choose Mono. If you'll be listening through headphones or a stereo system, choose Stereo or Auto. Auto converts monaural tracks into mono files and stereo tracks into stereo files.

First time ordering - a few quality questions

I am making a book for my mom that will have many pictures that I have scanned in and them imported into iPhoto. Has anyone noticed that printing a photo book greatly reduces the quality of their photos? The scan quality is OK, but obviously not as nice as original digital, and I don't want half the book to look like total crap.
Also, I read thru most of the threads here and noticed a lot of people talking about the dust covers in iPhoto 08 vs. canvas sticker covers (??) in previous versions. I have computers with access to both old and new versions of iPhoto and am wondering which to use. I want a hard cover book that looks professionally done... do the dust covers really not let you have an image on the front? Is it just a blank page? And does the older hard covers really have a sticker of the photo on the front??
And overall, what do you guys think of the quality of the hard cover photo books? Is 10 pages generally too thin? Should I try to beef it up a few pages? Do the pictures ever get wrongly cropped by Apple's manufacturing of the book? Do books look good?
Thanks!!

hiddenmuse:
I had a V6 theme book in progress when I converted over to V7. I looked at the new themes and the dust covers and decided that I really like them better than the glued photo cover. The dust jacket gives you some addition space for dedication and/or other information.
As far as image quality, I can't vouch for V7 as I've not ordered one with V7 as yet, today or tomorrow, but my other hardcover books were very good. Don't expect the quality you'd get in a commercial coffee table photo book as the printing is entirely different. When inspecting the photos in a large hardcover book under 10x magnification I could see the halftone pattern (dots). But not with the naked eye.
I found that the medium books had a halftone pattern visible under strong illumination with the naked eye. The newer softcover books are supposed to be printed at the same resolution as the large so that may not be a problem anymore.
Occasionally users will get oddly colored photos in their books due to some problem at the printers but Apple as been very good a correcting such problems in a timely manner.
As to the quality of the books, IMO they are excellent. I contacted Apple about printing quality and got the following response regarding materials and printing:
I contacted Apple and asked for information that I could pass on. Here's the reply I received from Apple:
"Thank you for contacting the Apple Print Products Customer Service.
I understand that you would like to know the printing process that is used and the color mode the files should be in, so you can better advise users in the iPhoto forum.
iPhoto version 4 or later, allows you to import and print files through the Apple Print Product service as RGB, grayscale, or CMYK color space. JPEG files with RGB color space are recommended for best results.
While iPhoto 2 can import files of various formats, including RGB color, grayscale, and CMYK, this version requires JPEG files with RGB color space when printing photos and books.
For more information regarding iPhoto 2, please visit the following article:
iPhoto: Color, Black and White Prints Appear Garbled or Distorted
For more information regarding iPhoto 5, please visit the following article:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=165501
Here are some of the technical specifications for the books, cards, and calendars. I hope this gives you an idea about their quality and form.
BOOKS
All iPhoto books are printed using acid-free paper for long-lasting image quality. The photos are printed at a high resolution (300DPI if you use iPhoto 6). There is no external modification--such as sharpening or contrast adjustment--of the photos; what you see in the application is what is printed in the book.
Hardcovers Books
The cover is hard-bound and covered in linen. You select the linen color during the book-ordering process. The hardcover books have a solid, stiff binding that is glued and crimped. The internal pages, measuring 8.5 x 11 inches, are printed on McCoy 100# Text Gloss paper stock.
Softcover Books
The softcover books come in three sizes:
- Large 8.5 x 11 inches
- Medium 6 x 8 inches
- Small 2.6 x 3.5 inches
All of the softcover books have internal pages that are printed on McCoy 100# Text Gloss paper stock. The large softcover book has a white cover (Kromekoteplus Folding Cover, 16 point) with a cutout on the front that reveals the cover-page photo in the book. The covers for the medium and small softcover books have the cover image and title printed directly on the cover. All of the softcover books have a glued binding and feature a thick cover of McCoy 100# Cover Gloss paper stock.
CARDS
All cards are printed on McCoy 120# Silk Cover paper stock. The postcards measure 4 x 6 inches, and the greeting cards measure 5 x 7inches.
CALENDARS
All calendars measure 8 x 10 inches and are printed on McCoy 100# Silk Cover paper stock.
To ensure the best print quality, we have chosen to use Kodak NexPress technology. The press uses a dry toner, which is fused to the surface of the paper. Please see NexPress' site for more information:
KODAK NEXPRESS 2500 Digital Production Color Press
I hope you find this information helpful in answering questions on the iPhoto forum."
Also, users expectations will vary considerably. But every book that I've given as a gift, large hardcover or softcover medium were received with much enthusiasm. I don't think your Mom will be a bit disappointed.
For every book I give as a give I create an iDVD slideshow of it to give also. Tutorial #6 describes the procedure.
Do you Twango?
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've written an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

Video freezing in fcp4/video quality question

I recorded some DV footage on my firestore fs-4 as raw dv footage. i then dumped it to my hard drive. i then imported it to final cut pro 4. when i watch the footage in the viewer window, the video freezes after about 10 seconds but the audio continues to play. it seems like the computer cant keep up with the footage? then i dump a portion of the clip into the timeline and the audio render line comes up red. i render the clip, and the clip seems to play fine in the canvas window.
Two things:
1) can I use raw dv footage without it freezing up in the viewer window? if not, how can i convert the raw dv files to quicktime files with minimun compression?
2) why does the video that plays in the canvas window look of lesser quality than the raw dv clip playing in the viewer window? is there any way to maintain that higher raw quality for the final master? if so, can that only be achieved by dumping the raw dv footage straight in from the fs-4? or can it be done thru the traditional log and capture?
sorry about the dozen questions.
Thanks.
David

If i understand you correctly :
1) can I use raw dv footage without it freezing up in the viewer window? if not, how can i convert the raw dv files to quicktime files with minimun compression?
either put the clip on the timeline and render it, or render it and export as a QT MOVIE then reimport.
2) why does the video that plays in the canvas window look of lesser quality than the raw dv clip playing in the viewer window? is there any way to maintain that higher raw quality for the final master? if so, can that only be achieved by dumping the raw dv footage straight in from the fs-4? or can it be done thru the traditional log and capture?
dont know anything about fs-4, but i would check tyhe properties of the clip then check the properties of the sequence, for example (is the clip and the seq 29.97 48K, or is one different. what happens when you render, does it help. ALSO REMEMBER THIS :
FCP usually defaults to rendering some but not all, to make sure FCP renders everything - goto SEQUENCE/RENDER SELECTION and make sure you have checks on EVERYTHING, if not keep checking until everything is checked.
then go back and check SEQUENCE/RENDER ALL - do the same thing, god knows why FCP does not default this.....
let me know
thanks ADAM

Aperture Exporting JPEG's from RAW: file size and quality questions?

Hey Everyone,
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size? I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
I've bee told that Aperture has a better compression engine and that the resulting files are of the exact same quality because the PPI and image size are the same. Is that what explains the much smaller file sizes in Aperture?
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs.
Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
Thanks in advance for your help.

mscriv wrote:
So, I'm using Aperture 2 and I've got some questions about exporting from RAW to JPEG. I shoot with a Nikon D70 so original RAW files are 5-6mb in size. After doing some basic post processing when I export the pics at "full size" with picture quality of 11 out of 12 then the resulting JPEG is about half the file size of the original RAW file. For example a 5.6mb RAW becomes a 2.6mb JPEG. The resolution in pixels per inch and and the overall image size remain unchanged. Have I lost picture quality due to the exporting JPEG being smaller in file size?
JPEG is a "lossy" file compression algorithm. Whether Aperture or PS, *every time a JPEG is saved some loss occurs*, albeit minimal at the 11 or 12 level of save, huge losses at low save levels. Some images (sky, straight diagonal lines, etc.) are more vulnerable to showing visible jpeg artifacts.
My friend who works with me prefers to edit in Photoshop and when he follows the same workflow his saved JPEG from the identical RAW file in Photoshop is minimally smaller in file size, say 5.6mb to 5.3mb. He's telling me that my Aperture edited photos are losing quality and resolution.
*Both of you are losing image data when you save to jpeg.* IMO the differences between the apps is probably just how the apps work rather than actually losing significantly more data. The real image data loss is in using JPEG at all!
Is he right, are my pics of lesser quality due to being a smaller file size?
I doubt it.
I've always been told that the quality of a picture is not in the mbs, but the pixel density.
The issue here is not how many pixels (because you are not varying that) but how much data each pixel contains. In this case once you avoid lossy JPEG the quality mostly has to do with different RAW conversion algorithms. Apple and Adobe both guess what Nikon is up to with the proprietary RAW NEF files and the results are different from ACR to Apple to Nikon. For my D2x pix I like Nikon's conversions the best (but Nikon software is hard to use), Aperture second and Adobe ACR (what Photoshop/Bridge uses) third. I 98% use Aperture.
I tried changing the picture quality in the export menu to 12 out of 12, but the resulting JPEG then becomes larger than the original RAW at over 7mbs. Can someone please help me understand this better? I don't want to lose picture quality if that is indeed what is happening.
JPEG is a useful format but lossy. Only use it as a _last step_ when you must save files size for some reason and are willing to accept the by-definition loss of image data to obtain smaller files (such as for web work or other on-screen viewing). Otherwise (especially for printing) save as TIFF or PSD which are non-lossy file types, but larger.
As to the Aperture vs. ACR argument, RAW-convert the same original both ways, save as TIFF and see if your eyes/brain significantly prefer one over the other. Nikon, Canon etc. keep proprietary original image capture data algorithms secret and each individual camera's RAW conversion is different.
HTH
-Allen

Premiere Workflow Final Product Quality Question - General

Clarification: This is just a general workflow question regardless of hardware/software/cpu/gpu. I'm also not asking about rendering times - just how the final product looks.
Do any one of the following 3 workflow methods have any bearing on the "quality" or "look/feel" of the final output of a project.
Specific effects are named in my examples just for the heck of it - the root of my question is if any given workflow with any given effects applied affects the quality of the final export/render.
#1) Raw Clip => Apply Sharpness => Apply Levels => Apply Three-Way CC => Export final product.
#2) Raw Clip => Apply Sharpness => Export Clip => Import Clip => Apply Levels => Export Clip => Import Clip => Apply Three-Way CC => Export final product.
#3) Raw Clip (sequence 1) => Apply Sharpness => Create sequence 2 and drag sequence 1 onto it => Apply Levels to sequence 2 => Create sequence 3 and drag sequence 2 onto it => apply Three-Way CC to sequence 3 => Export sequence 3 as final product.

Jim's answer is probably based on the fact that no matter what you do to a video, exporting it will degrade the quality almost every time. But that is not only acceptable, but absolutely necessary. What video would you have that did not require some adjustments, even if just a straight cut.
In any case, I think the answer you really want is:
#1 looks normal. So that's fine.
#2 will degrade the image every time you export unless you export to a completely lossless codec like Lagarith - which creates HUGE files and is totally unnecessary. It is just a bad workflow.
#3 is technically the same as #1. It's fine. No problem. In fact, it can be quite handy sometimes to work that way. Nesting does not cause the problems that exporting does.

Article Quality Question: Writing from the 1st person perspective

Hi guys,
Hope that you all had a good festive break. I've got a question for any of the TechNet Quality control group when they're around. It's relating to article perspective.
I've started an article series regarding CodePlex products for SharePoint (on this
link) and have in the past removed any first person perspectives as to make it as general as possible. It later struck me that this is somewhat misaligned as any review article is going to be viewed through the experience of the guy playing with the
goods.
So, whilst I appreciate that the TechNet wiki is mostly full of technical How to do and best practice guides, I'm wanting to add a different type of article to the wiki that can be referred too when people perhaps see that a CodePlex project doesn't have
a great deal of literature.
My question is, on that basis, would it be acceptable for me to write in a first person perspective just for these articles?
Many thanks,
Steven
Steven Andrews
SharePoint Business Analyst: LiveNation Entertainment
Blog: baron72.wordpress.com
Twitter: Follow @backpackerd00d
My Wiki Articles:
CodePlex Corner Series
Please remember to mark your question as "answered" if this solves (or helps) your problem.

Hi Richard
I've seem some wiki article authors use them, but that's only typically when the article has been rushed or not formatted properly. I'm not against removing it entirely but just wanted to check in.
Thanks for your response.
Steven Andrews
SharePoint Business Analyst: LiveNation Entertainment
Blog: baron72.wordpress.com
Twitter: Follow @backpackerd00d
My Wiki Articles:
CodePlex Corner Series
Please remember to mark your question as "answered" if this solves (or helps) your problem.

IPod Classic 160GB Sound Quality Questions

My question relates to this older thread found here http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1126861
Basically, it's that the new iPod Classics have inferior sound quality compared to older models because of the new Cirrus DAC, with reports of it sounding too bright/fatiguing/metallic/too much treble.
I love warm and laid back sound, so this concerns me and is the only thing stopping me from purchasing one. However, I am going to mainly use it in my car hooked up to a Pioneer P6100BT through USB which bypasses the iPod's DAC and uses the Pioneer one. Since I won't be using the iPod's DAC, will these sound issues not apply to me?
Thanks in advance!

The Apple Discussions thread begins in September 2007 - old 160GB iPod Classic.
This long thread suggests that the latest 160GB model has improved sound quality.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f15/7th-gen-2009-ipod-classic-160-sq-448992/
Richard

Visual quality questions

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for