Why do my images look good in PSE8, darker & more saturated in browsers, etc.?

I've been creating some images using PSE8. The images look good, bright in PSE8. But the files, when saved as jpgs or as tifs appear darker and have more intense color when viewed through web browsers and Windows Picture & FAX Viewer. (the total effect is, the images look different, worse.) The same images on the same computer viewed on the same monitor look different in PSE8 and when viewed through other programs. This is not a printing problem, per se. The files print as they appear on the browsers etc. when I print them through PSE8. This is a problem that happens consistently with many different images.
It seems as if PSE8 is interpreting the files uniformly differently than these other programs. HELP!!!

I don't know what the eRGB profile is -- where did you find it?  Usually there is a profile with the name "sRGB IEC61966-2.1" or something very similar.  If your Windows is insisting on a default profile for your display, that's the one to set it to.
Your issue almost certainly is caused by a defective color profile.  PSE 8 is a "color managed" program, which means that it uses the color profile associated with your display to reproduce colors more accurately on the screen.  If the color profile is defective, and you adjust a photo in the Editor to look right, then the adjusted photo won't reproduce accurately when you view it through a non-color-managed program (Windows viewer, browsers) or on another system with a proper color profile.
So to fix this issue, you need to either remove the profile entirely (not sure why Windows XP won't let you do that) or associate "sRGB" to the display.

Similar Messages

  • How can I make my images look good when exporting to PDF document?

    Hello! I'm struggling here with a PDF Brochure that I need to create (intended for web only, not print).
    There are two images that look horrible and pixelated when I create my PDF file. I have tried everything, making the images bigger and smaller, using 72 dpi images and 300 dpi ones. Everything results the same way... It looks perfect in my InDesign file, but in the PDF it looks all damaged. Here are two screen shots, one of how it looks in the PDF and one of how it looks in InDesign.
    Could you please tell me what I need to do to guarantee that the image looks good quality in the PDF? (My document is 40cmx20cm, I don't not if using cm is affecting the document).
    To export to PDF I'm using the option: Adobe PDF pressets --> Smallest file size.
    If you can help me I would really appreciate it!
    Thank you,
    Nataly.

    beer and no prepress schrieb:
    If it's for the web, why not export to JPEG?  Why PDF?
    Terrible idea. In a JPG the text will not be alive, you loose all interactivity.
    And making JPGs with InDesign is not what the program is meant to make.

  • Why do my images look washed out...

    Why do my images look washed out after I have worked in Photoshop CS6 and saved them in Finder? I have been a Photoshop user for a while now and have never experienced this problem. It started 2 months ago and no one can seem to tell me why or how to fix it. I am a professional photographer and I have clients waiting on their images but I can't send them looking as horrible as they do. My workflow is: drag and drop an image from iPhoto or Finder to Photoshop. I change things like levels, contrast, image size and use the healing too. Then I save to Finder so I can upload to dropbox or to website or burn to a DVD. Now when I save the image the thumbnail looks washed out, without color and looks horrible!!! I don't know if my photo files are corrupted or ? If I open the image in Photoshop or Bridge it looks fine. I would be grateful for any suggestions or explanation. Things were working just fine, but not now.

    Examining the image direct from the camera of the child on the beach, using http://regex.info/exif.cgi  there is a small embedded thumbnail (with black bars top-and-bottom to letterbox it to the LCD aspect ratio), and a small preview probably used for zooming in on the camera LCD screen, and the fullsize jpg image all contained in the one JPG file.  All three of these seem to have identical histograms other than the black-bars causing a dark peak on the thumbnail image, but otherwise the shapes of the histograms and the position of the peaks from light to dark are the same. 
    In other words the full-size JPG and the embedded preview and thumbnail all seem the same other than size so the darkened version seen in Finder is not coming from the camera.  The one issue the above website reports is that the camera JPG has a color-profile tag (name of the profile) but does not actually contain the color profile, itself.  All other versions of the image have an actual embedded profile not just the name in a tag.  It is possible that this is confusing Finder into assuming a different profile or gamma curve for the image that sRGB warrants, but most all camera images have this issue so I wouldn't expect a Mac to show images from all cameras as too dark.
    It is a mystery to me why the Finder preview looks darker, but at least in the one side-by-side provided, it does, and is different-looking than all other representations of the image from what I can see.
    At the beginning of this thread you said you were worried the photos coming out of Photoshop were washed out and had bad colors.  From my perspective, what comes out of Photoshop looks the same as what comes out of the camera, so only Finder has it wrong.  Are you seeing the darker image anywhere else besides Finder (and perhaps iPhoto which we don't have a screenshot of)?
    Most importantly does the image you see on screen in Photoshop, while you're making adjustments, look dark like the pre-PS Finder thumbnail or does it look lighter, like the post-PS Finder thumbnail and all the images on DropBox? 
    If more than just the pre-PS Finder thumbnail is darker then you may have a monitor calibration issue that needs to be addressed, otherwise just ignore the pre-PS Finder thumbnail when evaluating if the image needs any adjustments and assume they are all ligher than the Finder image.
    BTW, I tested for a sRGB vs AdobeRGB mismatch, and if an sRGB image is assigned an Adobe profile then the colors become more intense but the whole image does not become darker so that can't explain what is happening. 

  • Help! Why do my images look overly sharp and appear to download?

    I recently updated CC and now my images look overly sharp when I'm batching or working at a smaller size. When zoomed in at 50% they look fine. Is there any way to fix this? It's very difficult to work with everything looking so warped at a smaller scale. Also, when I open a file after batching and running an action it appears to "download" line by line instead of just opening. What is going on?

    When I am batching multiple images and running actions, I don't want to view them at 100% they are huge files. 24 megapixels, on average 60.5M and 3925x5945 at 300 dpi. That's REALLY zoomed in. I was not having this issue with CC until I updated it and now everything looks warped at a smaller scale. I want to know why it changed and how to change it back.

  • Why do my images look blurry when opened in photoshop?

    Hi! i was just wondering if i could get some help with a problem i've been getting since yesterday.
    Before yesterday morning, my photoshop was working just fine but then yesterday morning when i opened this image.
    It would look like this
    instead of it looking like the first image above, the thing though is when i export the image from photoshop as a png, jpeg or any other it looks normal again like this.
    This is the first time this has ever happened so i'm not really sure about what to do.
    I'm using photoshop cs6 and i've also uninstall and reinstall photoshop about 2 times now but it doesn't fix it
    so if anyone can help me that would be great.
    Thanks.

    ssprengel wrote:
    The screenshots you’ve posted look very similar to me, but they are all composed of tiny dots not a continuous-tone image.
    Yes.  They don't make any sense to me either.  Are we supposed to be looking at a blank dark gray rectangle, or has the upload process failed the OP ?

  • HELP, why does saved image look too sharp when re-opened in Photoshop but normal in Windows viewer?

    Been using Photoshop Elements 7 for several years and this has never happened before!  I applied sharpening to an image and saved two copies: PSD and JPEG.  When I re-opened the PSD file it looked WAY over-sharpened.  In Photoshop Editor I then opened the JPEG and it too looked way over-sharpened.  But the strange thing is that when I view the JPEG in the Windows Photo Viewer it looks normal!  Just as it did when I originally saved it.   I decided to try an experiment.  I opened the PSD file that now appears overly sharpened and saved a new JPEG.  I then opened the new JPEG in Windows Photo Viewer -- and it looks normal, even though it was saved from the PSD file that looks over-sharp!  I then opened the same, newly saved JPEG in Photoshop -- and it now looks oversharp and distorted, just like the PSD file.  Can anyone tell me what is going on here?  I'm completely confused!  Hope someone can help me figure this out.  Thanks!

    The over sharpening may have caused a color shift.
    You might have better luck using the adjust sharpness command. Enhance<Adjust Sharpness.
    Skip down to "Precisely sharpen an image" on the help page listed below for info on adjust sharpness command.
    http://help.adobe.com/en_US/PhotoshopElements/7.0_Win/WSAC75B090-7431-4b74-B4DC-C5B02EBC4C BF.html
    Here are a handful of links which might be of use about USM.
    http://photocritic.org/unsharp-mask-sharpening-photos-photoshop/
    Note: You will not be able to do the manual USM segment in the above article as Photoshop Elements does not include the Apply Image Command. It does give some start settings to try out.
    http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/Photoshop_Elements/sharpening/USM_2_amount_ra dius_threshold.htm
    http://www.naturescapes.net/122004/tg1204.htm
    http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/unsharp-mask.html
    USM for haze removal added as it can be a useful thing to know:
    http://www.lonestardigital.com/photoshop_quicktips.htm
    Several sharpening methods discussed including highpass sharpening.
    http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/Photoshop_Elements/sharpening/1_sharpening_in troduction.htm
    Highpass sharpening:
    http://www.essential-photoshop-elements.com/high-pass-sharpening.html
    http://nyfalls.com/article-photoshop-high-pass-sharpening.html

  • Why are my images looking oversharp/pixelated when opened in CS from LR

    When I open up my images in CS from LR they look oversharp when zoomed out to view the whole image.  You can see it in her hair in this image
    When I zoom in closer it looks fine
    Any idea how to fix this?
    TIA!
    Amanda

    What is there to fix? When zoomed out that far, your monitor can not display all the pixels needed. If you could fix anything, it would be increasing your screen resolution assuming it is even possible. Most video cards have a hard coded limit just like the monitor has a limit. To go beyond those limits would require purchasing a new card and/or monitor.

  • Why does the image look faded?

    Hi all
    I have a photoshop image that is quite black - when I cut & paste it into indesign it looks correct, however when I drag or place the image in, it appears a bit faded.
    Does anyone know what might be causing this?
    Thank you

    (but the preview is still affected)
    When there's transparency on the page the soft proof is via the transparency blend space profile—your document's CMYK profile if it is CMYK. It's the same as turning on Overprint Preview. If your placed image is RGB the preview is showing you what will happen when it converts to document CMYK.
    In Photoshop you can get the same preview by setting the Working CMYK profile to match your ID profile and turning on Proof Colors.

  • HT201528 IDVD version of videos pause momentarily about every ten seconds and diagonal lines are ziggy. Image looks good all the way through the process and even on idvd

    I am trying to make a dvd from a video I shot with a Sony HD avchd camera on a new mac mini running mac os x version 10.7.4
    I'm using an up to date  Imovie but copied IDVD version 7.1.2  and the support libraryt from an up to date macbook.  The video is about 40 minutes long.  It looks beautiful all the way from teh camera to playing it on idvd, but when I play the dvd on a player or in a computer it stops momentariily about every ten seconds and the picture is ziggy on diagonal lines.
    Also, if I try to save the movie as a .mov file there is no audio.
    Can't I move idvd to my new computer?

    Hi
    Why is the picture better all the way to iDVD - then degrades on the DVD
    • DVD is as standard - interlaced SD-Video
    If You need better then only way is via Blu Ray
    • iMovie'08 to 11 - can not deliver this any way known to me to iDVD - first step in the degradation process
    Use iMovie HD6 or FinalCut to do this delivery to 100% of what's possibly
    Jaggy diagonal lines - mostly due to the use of iMovie'08 to 11 as they only deliver every second line in an already limited quality as interlaced SD-Video - taking away 50% doesn't improve a bit
    Jumpy movie -. most often due to feeding iDVD wrong frame rate and forceing it to convert - IT DOES this BADLY. I use JES_Deinterlacer (free on internet) to do this and it does this even better than pay applications.
    iDVD can only deliver 25fps (PAL) or 29.97fps (30fps) (NTSC) - so feeding it
    • 24 i or p
    • 50p or
    • 60p
    Will not improve at all.
    If iMovie'08 to 11 are only option - Then
    • DO NOT - Share to iDVD - as this too degrade the final product
    • I do - Share to Media Browser - and as - LARGE - Not HD or other resolution as this too degrades quality
    More can be said on this - My long note follows - if of interest.
    DVD quality  
    1. iDVD 08, 09 & 11 has three levels of qualities. (version 7.0.1, 7,0.4 & 7.1.1) and iDVD 6 has the two last ones
    • Professional Quality
    (movies + menus up to 120 min.) - BEST (but not always for short movies e.g. up to 45 minutes in total)
    • Best Performances
    (movies + menus  less than 60 min.) - High quality on final DVD (Can be best for short movies)
    • High Quality (in iDVD08 or 09) / Best Quality (in iDVD6)
    (movies + menus up to 120 min.) - slightly lower quality than above
    Menu can take 15 minutes or even more - I use a very simple one with no audio or animation like ”Brushed Metal” in old Themes.
    About double on DL DVDs.
    2. Video from
    • FCE/P - Export out as full quality QuickTime.mov (not self-containing, 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 and the Ken Burns effect NOT is used. Instead just drop or import the iMovie movie project icon (with a Star on it) into iDVD theme window.
    • iMovie’08 or 09 or 11 are 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 e.g. x4 or x1 (in iDVD’08 or 09  this can also be set)
    This can also be done with Apple’s Disk Utilities application when burning from a DiskImage.
    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). For SD-Video - if HD-material is used I guess that 4 to 5 times more would do.
    5. I use Verbatim ( also recommended by many - Taiyo Yuden DVDs - I can’t get hold of it to test )
    6. I use DVD-R (no +R or +/-RW) - DVD-R play’s on more and older DVD-Players
    7. Keep NTSC to NTSC - or - PAL to PAL when going from iMovie to iDVD
    (I use JES_Deinterlacer to keep frame per sec. same from editing to the Video-DVD result.)
    8. Don’t burn more than three DVDs at a time - but let the laser cool off for a while before next batch.
    iDVD quality also depends on.
    • DVD is a standard in it self. It is Standard Definition Quality = Same as on old CRT-TV sets and can not
    deliver anything better that this.
    HD-DVD was a short-lived standard and it was only a few Toshiba DVD-players that could playback.
    These DVDs could be made in DVD-Studio Pro. But they don’t playback on any other standard DVD-Player.
    Blu-Ray / BD can be coded onto DVDs but limited in time to - about 20-30 minutes and then need
    _ Roxio Toast™ 10 Pro incl. BD-component
    _ BD disks and burner if full length movies are to be stored
    _ BD-Player or PlayStation3 - to be able to playback
    The BD-encoded DVDs can be play-backed IF Mac also have Roxio DVD-player tool. Not on any standard Mac or DVD-player
    Full BD-disks needs a BD-player (in Mac) as they need blue-laser to be read. No red-laser can do this.
    • 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.
    • How it was recorded - Tripod vs Handheld Camera. A stable picture will give a much higher quality
    • Audio is most often more critical than picture. Bad audio and with dropouts usually results in a non-viewed movie.
    • Use of Video-editor. iMovie’08 or 09 or 11 are not the tools for DVD-production. They discard every second line resulting in a close to VHS-tape quality.
    iMovie 1 to HD6 and FinalCut any version delivers same quality as Camera record in = 100% to iDVD
    • 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 JES_Deinterlacer_3.2.2 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 play-backed 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 choice 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
    unclemano wrote
    What it turned out to be was the "quality" settings in iDVD. The total clip time was NOT over 2 hours or 4.7GB, yet iDVD created massive visual artifacts on the "professional quality" setting.
    I switched the settings to "high quality" which solved the problem. According iDVD help, "high quality" determines the best bit rate for the clips you have.
    I have NEVER seen iDVD do this before, especially when I was under the 2 hour and 4.7GB limits.
    For anyone else, there seem to be 2 places in iDVD to set quality settings, the first is under "preferences" and the second under "project info." They do NOT seem to be linked (i.e. if you change one, the other is NOT changed). take care, Mario
    TO GET IT TO WORK SLIGHTLY FASTER
    • Minimum of 25Gb free space on Start-Up hard disk
    • No other programs running in BackGround e.g. Energy-Saver
    • Don’t let HD spin down or be turned off (in Energy-Save)
    • Move hard disks that are not to be used to Trash - To be disconnected/turned off
    • Goto Spotlight and set the rest of them under Integrity (not to be scanned)
    • Set screen-saver to a folder without any photo - then make an active corner (up right for me) and set
    pointer to this - turns on screen saver - to show that it has nothing to show
    Yours Bengt W

  • Why does my image look wrong in liquid layout?

    I'm making a site for an artist and tried using a liquid layout in CS5. I also made one in fixed like I usually do. The width on both is 1260 and the header image on both is 1260 px wide.
    On the dh5 (fixed) one, the header is centered. On the dh7 (liquid) one, the image, which is a title, is moved slightly to the left. Is this fixable or should I just stick to fixed layouts?
    dh5: http://bethniebuhr.com/dh5.html
    dh7: http://bethniebuhr.com/dh7.html
    Thank you.

    Hi
    The problem with the header in the semi-liquid layout, (not liquid as it has a max and min width) is that being an image it has a fixed height and width and this is causing your problems.
    Using images in liquid and semi-liquid layouts requires a completely different work-flow to what is required in a fixed layout as one must allow all the images to expand within their designated areas and ensure they still retain their aspect ratio, all of which is possible but will require much more work in learning that that normally required.
    PZ

  • Why is the image in the Print window darker?

    Hi,
    I use the same ICC profile in my regular viewer as in the Print window. The difference is 1/3 to 1/2 stops. Any ideas as to why and how to correct it, and...which is the most accurate?
    Thanks,
    Raphael

    it looks stretched taller.
    I think you have Anamorphic material.
    Start a new Sequence. Go to Sequence > Settings and click the Anamorphic checkbox.
    Select a clip in the Browser. Press command and 9. Find Anamorphic in the column on the left.
    Click next to it in the Clip column to place a check mark there too.
    Edit into the timeline.
    Does that look better?

  • Image looks grainy in Photoshop CC but not in CS5

    All of my images look grainy int he dark areas in CC, but not in CS5.  Is there a display setting that I'm missing?  Side note, the saved images look fine.  They only look bad in the CC UI.
    Screen shot of CC
    Screen shot of CS5
    Photshop CC and CS5 64-bit on Windows 7

    morganj_8 wrote:
    Oh and lastly, I really didn't appreciate how UTTERLY rude and completely unhelpful "station_two" was.  It seems he/she prefers to get on here and find ways to criticize and nitpick vs. actually try to help or find solutions for people. I wonder if that level of disdain could ever be necessary towards a total stranger who is just asking for help?  I hope their life improves and they don't feel the need to take it out others through tech support message boards.  Props to sharmstr for being so cool about it all.
    Well if that's how you are going to be!!!!        Station is OK, but this is an old thread, and there was a full moon back then.
    So is it a display problem rather than a performance one?  I think it was mentioned that the artefacts a not there on saved documents. It is also one of those issues that would be fixed by resetting preferences, because the cache levels would go back to four.  It actually says right there on Preferences > Performance in the History & Cache section  'Set cache levels to two or higher for optimum performance' .
    There is so much good information right there among the oficial help pages
    http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/photoshop-cs6-gpu-faq1.html
    Which makes it very disappointing that Tech Support couldn't track it down.  I suspect they work more from Expert Systems than their own knowledge, so they have a bit of work to do there.

  • Quick, easy ways to make images look better?

    What are the best ways to make images look a bit better? I shot my footage using a pretty bad camera, so quality already isn't the greatest, but what is the best way to make images look a bit more "movie-like"? The 3way color correstion is nothing for me, it's too hard to make images look good, they'll quickly turn too yellow or red, etc... Something to improve contrast maybe? Using Image Control: Brightness and contrast (bezier) doesn't seem to help much.

    Okay, I took a couple of screenshots:
    http://www.majhost.com/gallery/TheDarkBrickX/Random/film/afbeelding_1.png
    http://www.majhost.com/gallery/TheDarkBrickX/Random/film/afbeelding_2.png
    http://www.majhost.com/gallery/TheDarkBrickX/Random/film/afbeelding_3.png
    http://www.majhost.com/gallery/TheDarkBrickX/Random/film/afbeelding_4.png
    Now I don't know alot about image quality or color, but I think there is not enough contrast? It all looks very cold. Luckily, image quality isn't the most important thing in this project, but it would be nice to be able to touch it up a little bit.

  • Exported images looking different in different browsers

    I've just published a set of images to my website using a publishing service from Lightroom 5, sRGB. The images look different when viewed in Chrome and Firefox browsers, Chrome looking fine but Firefox displaying them with a red cast. The also display with the red cast in some parts of the OS X Finder but not in Lightroom or Photoshop.
    I've run one of the images through Jeffrey Friedl's online exif viewer and it's telling me there's no colour space metadata or embedded colour profile in the images ( http://goo.gl/Ouqkis). this would make sense as far as the strange colour goes but I thought Lightroom always embedded a colour profile?
    I've had a couple of suggestions that revolve around changing firefox settings but really I just need for the images to work in any browser, without visitors having to care.
    Does anyone have any thoughts
    Sample screen grab, Chrome to the left, Firefox to the right.

    kimaldis wrote:
    Firefox and OS X's Cover Flow view both showed the red cast until this am. Now neither of them do.
    Ah ... hang on, I had a second, wide gamut monitor attached to the computer yesterday, mirrored display. Now it's not. I'd been mostly viewing in the main monitor (Macbook Pro), that was the one that was out and I wasn't checking the second monitor much after uploading. I'm willing to bet that was it. Second monitor affecting colour management on the first .....
    This is what you are seeing and why everything now looks fine on your MacBook's display, which is NOT wide gamut:
    http://www.gballard.net/photoshop/srgb_wide_gamut.html
    Here's a screenshot of an sRGB profile ColorChecker image file with and without the profile in FireFox and Chrome browsers. All four browser images look identical on my non-wide gamut display...what do you see?
          With sRGB Profile embedded                 Without sRGB Profile
    As long as the images are sRGB profile it doesn't matter whether the color profile is embedded or not.

  • Why can't my HD to SD SHORT film look good? Best Encode?

    I have a 12 minute short film on HDV. I imported it to FCP5 and then DVDSP4 and created an HD-DVD and it looked GREAT. Then I found out my computer is pretty much the only DVD player that can play the HD-DVD I had created. Thus began my journey to make a decent SD-DVD, and so far I am not even close...
    HERE'S WHAT I'M DOING:
    1. I used FCP to downconvert from HDV to DV (I don't have access to the camera to use it downconvert option). I'm sure this step is where the quality drops at least 4 generations!
    2. DVDSP5 > Preferences > Mode: Two Pass VBR, Bit Rate: 5.5, Max Bit Rate: 8.5, Motion Est: Best
    IMAGE PROBLEM:
    Lots of pixelation in darker areas of the screen. Places i could see in HD are now just black and pixelated black at that.
    TWO QUESTION:
    1. My main annoyance is this: When I burn the DVD, it only burns about 20% of the DVD (HD-DVD would use 60%). I have the space on my DVD-R, why can't I utilize this space and burn 90% of this space with data to make my film look good?
    2. iDVD did a better job of making the SD DVD look good. So I know there is something i could do. I've never used Compressor. How can I encode my HDV for use in SD DVD environement in DVDSP5?
    Any help will be much appreciated... I hope answers to these questions helps others as well...
    Best,
    AJ

    AJ -
    Thanks for your reply -I hope i can clarify below.
    Yes i have been editing the sequences using native HDV 1080i.
    When comparing the output of the converted formats here is what i did.
    I have a Sony a HC1 HDV Camcorder. I captured and edited all clips with native HDV. Then i recorded back the HDV material back into the camera (HUGE issues with doing this in FCP - but ill leave that to another thread)
    From there i did two things
    1) I sent the native HDV Final Cut sequence to compressor and set it to DVD, 90Min, Best quality, 2pass VBR. I burned a DVD with DVDSP4 with this encoded sequence
    2) i played back the HDV Sequence from my sony camcorder back into the television directly - but using the composite video output (not using the high definition component output).
    3) I set my Sony HDV cam to output via firewire as standard DV (eg - i let the camera do its own HDV to DV downconvert). from there i recaptured back into FCP, compressed with the same compressor settings, and sent to DVDSP4
    I compared side by side the content from all three options. Hands down Options 2 and 3 looked MUCH better than option 1.
    Here is what i noticed
    1) A lot of motion artifacts with option 1. This especially when the camera pans and moves. I think this has to do with the way interlacing during downconversion happens. If i run the FCP sequence through a de-interlace filter it actually does come out better - though not as smooth since you are loosing 1/2 the frames.
    2) A lot of digital artifacts. pixellation and such like. It looks almost like one of those old VCDs in terms of image quality.
    I had searched the forums and found that many other people are having the same problems - so i know that i am not alone on this one (unfortunately). I do find it frustrating that a very expensive >$1000 application suite which claims to support HD has so many issues with editing in HD (this is just one of the issues.. others are that you cannot reliably export HDV back to tape, there are issues with editing multi-cam with HDV with more than 3 sequences... etc..).

Maybe you are looking for