Which yields better quality images?

Which yields better quality images?
If I "send" my slideshow from iPhoto to iDVD? Or if I start in iDVD and import a slideshow from iPhoto?

That’s the same thing.
The problem is that iPhoto needs to make a movie of the slideshow to export. This inevitably involves compression. Then, when iDVD prepares the movie for burning, it also compresses. Many folks find the quality drop off too great when the material is doubly compressd.
One solution is to create the Slideshow in iDVD, though that has limitations too - no Ken Burns effect, fo instance. But there’s only one layer of compression.
Another way is to create the Movie in +as high a quality as possible+. Some ways to do this: Export the slideshow from iPhoto using the new high quality options. Alternatively, use another app that has more export options - PhotoToMovie, Final Cut Express, perhaps even iMovie HD - to get a high quality movie, and so minimise the impact of the compression.
Regards
TD

Similar Messages

Which is better quality for watching a pre downloaded movie airplay or HMDI?

I have the new Retnia. I have an apple tv and high quality HDMI cable. If I want watch a 900P movie from my laptop to my up to 1080p tv which would be more reliable/better quality? BTW the movie is predownloaded so it WOULD NOT be streamming.
Thanks!

My guess is the HDMI cable will yield better quality than AirPlay. Since you already have an HDMI cable and a Mac that supports AirPlay, why not try both for yourself then report back here with your results?

H.264 vs. MPEG-4 video, which is better quality?

Which is better quality? H.264 or MPEG-4? Is one more compressed than the other? I'm putting video on my iPod and also may want to output to television from the iPod, so I'd also like to know which is better for that as well in addition to which is better in general.

H.264 is significantly more compressed than typical MPEG-4. MPEG-4 naturally would be better quality to the discerning eye, and is not as dependent on the speed of your processor and the strength of your GPU as H.264 is. I managed to get a 320 x 240 video of H.264 compressed to be 200 Megabytes for a 2.5 hour video. On a G5 iMac 1.8 Ghz the playback was fine. Trying the same video on a slower Mac there was significant amount of stuttering of the video itself. Experiment with some one minute shorts and measure the file size and see which has better quality on what you are playing it back on. If you can tell the difference, then go with the higher quality format. Certainly keep a higher quality format burnt to DVD in case you need to recreate from the original.

MPEG-2 vs. mini DV - Which is better quality?

I want to transfer video from VHS tapes into iMovie. Which is going to give me better quality?:
A) Copy VHS to mini DV tape on my camcorder and then import into iMovie.
or
B) Copy VHS to DVD with my VHS/DVD recorder combo player and then transfer the DVD to iMovie using Apple MPEG-2 Player.
Thanks!
David

Hi Greg,
VERY good question! I think, we have three groups:
* the poor guys who have bought a "dvd camcorder"...- I don't have a clue, why I should record on a mini-dvd instead of a cheap tape...- the compression codec used on such machines is by definition! no editable format, so you allways need workarounds...
there should be a warning on that boxes "for playback only!"
(besides: the mpeg2-format allows to store video that way, you can edit it later, has to do with i-Frames etc... but that is not the way, Sony & Co goes...)
* using "older" homebrewn dvds...- ok, maybe somewhere are the old tapes... but where? and on that tape where do I find THAT scene? isn't it easier, to throw the DVD I made and copy that into iM?..... again: people see the fantastic pic quality of a DVD made with iDVD and think, "press play and record!".. THAT would be nice
* re-edit commercial DVDs... you made your personal version of StarWars, Episode XVII, and you are not that good in CGI as ILM... so, you want to copy a few frames from the disc on your shelf...- or, "forget all that plot, I want all Bruce Lee fighting scenes on ONE disc!" (<< ... "favorites", as we do in iTunes with playlist!)
you could make BIG Bucks with a 49$ tiny, shiny white box, analogue-in >> firewire out, which is recognized by iM....- ;-))

Touch or Classic? Which is better (quality)?

Which is better in terms of sound quality?

Classics. The Older 5.5 gens and Older series Ipods. The Newer 5.5 gens and the 6th Gens use a new sound chip. Same as for the Ipod Touches but Im not 100% sure with the Iphones.
Be careful though, The Ipods with that use the old style sound chip, which is far superior in quality of sound, wasn't soldered well and the chip can seperate with The constant temperature change and unobserved pressure applied to the unit when its in your pocket, book bag... ect.
Now Im not going to say that is 100% positive. Its just from experience owning a few new and older Ipods/Iphones.
Besides, How many older Mp3 plays can literally blow out your Earbuds{quality earbuds} if played too loud. I owned Bose Series{IE 2} in ear headphones and klipsch In ear Headphones{S5I Rugged series}.... The Key word is "Owned" lol.
Find an Older model that works great and compare it to the newer models. You will Hear the DIfference... or make you deaf in the process LOL.

Does Pro-Res codec yield better quality from AVCHD files than AIC?

Hi folks,
I use FCE4 and ingest AVCHD for editing. I'm wondering if, for example, I ingested with the Pro-Res codec (eg. such as when using Final Cut Pro or FCX), would that be a higher quality transcoder than the inherent Apple Intermediate Codec that is part of FCE4? In other words, if I upgraded my software, would I likely get better quality?
FYI: I shoot with a single chip AVCHD camcorder, in case that matters.
Thanks,
Vixter

If you are running Lion, then FCPX is the only way forward unless you go with a non-Apple editing suite. For what it's worth, I think FCPX has gotten a bum rap overall. It's quite powerful compared to the old FCE even with its current limitations. Apple will continue to improve the program over time, and no one should discount the foresight that Apple actually does have in its product lines. The FCPX user interface and the method of editing is quite different compared to FCE, and takes a lot of adjustment if you were familiar with FCE or FCP. For general purpose editing, even prosumer editing, FCPX is quite an application, even if it's not quite ready for broadcasters & professionally employed editors.
The best way to find out is to try it out - it's available as a free 30-day trial so you can see for yourself whether or not it works for you. You can read all about it elsewhere and of course people in these forums have their opinions one way or the other. As I long ago discovered about wine, there is no definitively good or bad wine ... just wine that we ourselves like because it satisfies our individual tastes and conditions. I don't concern myself with Robert Parker's opinions. In fact I think a lot of his 95+ rated wines stink! If you follow my drift ...

For composite editing, does DVCPRO yield better quality than AVCHD in FCE4?

Hi folks,
From what I understand, DVCPRO is much less compressed than AVCHD. If so, then, would it also be true that FCE4 would output a "cleaner" end product (i.e. for DVD, after undergoing significant composite editing/rendering) if I used DVCPRO rather than AVCHD? (It's my understanding that you should start with the highest quality... least compressed... raw footage as possible for composite editing).
Thanks, in advance, for your expertise!
Vic

Panasonic does not make a camera with the HFC-150 model designation. Do you mean the AG HMC-150?
If so, the camera records AVCHD (which is a VERY highly compressed format) and which will need to be translated into AIC to run in FCE. AIC was designed to deal with long GOP formats starting with mpeg 2 HDV. Its great value is it translates that difficult to edit frame structure into an all "I" frame format. However, it was not the most graceful format for color detail.
Having said that, while the HMC-150 is capable of very good images, most consumer video is so badly recorded (really poor lighting, wandering auto white balance, wandering auto focus, hand shake, etc) there is no way one can tell what the camera is capable of let alone if one codec is better than another for output.
If you already have FCE, see what the material looks like. You may find it perfectly adequate, even splendid in telling your stories.
If you want to see other options, I believe Premiere has a trial version and Apple has a trial of FCX. Do your own A/B/C comparision.
Have fun.
x

SaveAS() not generating better quality images

Hi
I created jpegs of a pdf, however the quality is bad.
Is there a way to improve the quality?
jsObj.saveAs("FILENAME.PDF" & ".jpg", "com.adobe.acrobat.jpeg")

how do i get to that, thru the menu?
which mensu commands?
also is there a way to directly write code to make this setting so it will be done automaticlly thru code than have to change it manually?
thanks

Slow burn vs Fast burn (which is better quality) fact or fiction

Ok again I would like to know the official answer to this question because from the response last time, I'm not really confidence with the answer.
IS IT FACT THAT IF YOU USE WAV BURNER AND BURN AT A SLOWER SPEED COMPARED TO FASTER SPEED THE QUALITY BECOMES BETTER BY PROOF?
IF THIS FACT OR FICTION.
SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE SOME LONG YEARS EXPERIENCE PROOF.

Sorry, can't wait until someone clocks what I've said, 'cos I might be going out soon, so thought I'd write it up first...
The difference between the HHB and the Mac burner is... nothing much. The actual tray and laser workings are probably the same in both units. The extra dosh for the HHB covers the casing, functionality and the convertors - it's basically a hardware version of WaveBurner, and we all know hardware versions cost more than software versions.
Therefore, in my alleged test there should only be one of the four that shows any difference, and that's the real time recording via analogue. The other three, all remaining in the digital domain, irrespective of speed, should give the same results, because data is encoded in the same way, no matter how you do it. It would be interesting to see if there is any difference, but I doubt the equipment I've got would be sensitive enough to monitor it (or would allow me to zoom in and see the difference enough to post here). With that in mind, the human ear isn't going to hear it.
The only REAL difference the speed option gives you is reliability of burning. The faster you get, the more prone it is of making an error in the burning process, but this can sometimes come down to the quality of the disc itself. Not all discs are the same, as I guess most people have realised to their horror at some point (data).
Just a final note. I'm working with a voice-over artist for TV and radio, and the stations are happy to receive the files as MP3's via email. Who'd have thought that would happen when MP3 came out?!? Just goes to show people are putting a perspective on the quality standard for final use. But I'm still sending AIFF files though, MP3 makes me shudder as an original! And here we are worrying about CD quality...

'Which is better quality?' EVGA or MSI - Nvidia GeForce GTX 760

Hiya
I am looking for feedback and suggestions on which manufacturer creates the best video card hardware particularly the 760 I am currently looking at two cards but am also open to other suggestions and feedback on cards
has anyone had any experience with MSI video cards?
these are the two cards I currently have in mind
EVGA SuperClocked 02G-P4-2765-KR GeForce GTX 760 2GB
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130932
MSI Gaming N760 TF 2GD5/OC GeForce GTX 760 2GB
newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127745
does the MSI have any advantage over EVGA in longevity with something like solid state Japanese capacitors? I am kinda looking for a card that will last the longest with out warranty support ect
and do MSI cards have rust problems? I thought I would ask just to be sure when I made a account I saw this thread at top of forum with a picture that will surely haunt my dreams
forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=171735.0

This is an MSI forum. Discussing competing brand's products is not allowed. The MSI card is a great one. Google it and check online reviews.
Quote
and do MSI cards have rust problems?
No, I'm using all kinds of MSI vgas for more than 10 years and have never seen anything like the pic in that thread. It's something the user did physically to this card as that doesn't happen just after time.

Which yields a better quality slideshow?

Which yields better quality images?
If I "send" my slideshow from iPhoto to iDVD? Or if I start in iDVD and import a slideshow from iPhoto?

It's probably more a matter of personal preference than anything else. Allegedly, a track ripped at aac 128 sounds "better" than a 128 mp3. You should rip a track with which you are familiar in both formats (and perhaps at different bit rates) to see which you like the best.

Which has better export quality. imovie 11' or adobe premiere?

has anyone used both? which has better quality when you export it? I notice that imovie downgrades the quality when exporting by a LOT. It looks great inside imovie and looks terrible once exported!

Hi
I can only guess - (have no Premiere) but
Depends on what will be the end result. DVD or publish on YouTube etc. or saved on an USB-Memory to be Played on PlayStation 3 and alike.
If DVD - then most probably Adobe Premiere is better (if it can export interlaced video to iDVD) - iMovie'08 or 09 or 11 can not do this - they discard every second line resulting in a sever loss of quality.
I use
• iMovie HD6
• FinalCut any version
And they do deliver full quality over to iDVD
If other end results - then it most probably doesn't matter.
Yours Bengt W

What gets better quality for watching video.. airplay mirroring or HDMI cable

I have the new Retnia. I have a apple tv and high quality HDMI cable. If I want watch a 900P movie from my laptop to my up to 1080p tv which would be more reliable/better quality? BTW the movie is predownloaded so it WOULD NOT be streamming.
Thanks!

My guess is the HDMI cable will yield better quality than AirPlay. Since you already have an HDMI cable and a Mac that supports AirPlay, why not try both for yourself then report back here with your results?

Which is better if either?

I'm capturing through a Sony HDV deck (HVR-1500) just wondering would it produce a better quality image capturing via HD-SDI into Proress 422 (HQ) than a Firewire 400, and if so how come.
Much Thanks, Matt

Capturing HDV as ProRes won't produce a better image at all, no matter if you capture it via firewire or HD SDI. You got what you got....it was compressed when you shot it. What Capturing as ProRes will do, is make it easier to edit. Take up more space, but easier to edit.
And forget capturing as HQ...that just wastes more space. Regular ProRes is fine.
Shane

How do I get a better quality for my image?

Hi,
I have created a logo for a business online and I now need to use it for letter heads, business cards etc and when i copy it straight from the internet into a word document it looks very blurry and unproffesional. What can i do to make this better?
Thanks
Chloe

Hi Chloe -
Did you create the logo using Photoshop CS6? When you place an image on a website and then copy it staight from the website, you risk losing some of the quality of the original file. Outside of placing the logo directly into your word document using the original file, you can maximize the quality of the logo you're placing on your website by using the Save for Web function of Photoshop.
You can access this function by going to File > Save for Web...
This will allow you to adjust settings so that you can get an image with a small file size suitable for using on your website while still maintaining a high quality image.
Here is a short tutorial from Lynda.com on using the Save for Web functions of Photoshop CS6:
I believe that the blurriness that you are describing is an issue with Microsoft Word, which we probably won't be able to help you much with. However, if you have access to it, Adobe InDesign is an alternative to creating documents that intregrates better with high-quality graphics.
Good luck!

Which yields better quality images?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for