Is my monitor not coping with the number of pixels in my shots
Ken
at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom in they get
sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or photography says
perhaps the photos, these days, have too many pixels and the screen is
cramming them in and so distorting what I see. Couldhe be right or what?
Help please - Ken
Don Stauffer
Few monitors today can fully resolve the high pixel count cameras.
Do you have a Mac or a PC? Macs rate pixels per inch, while PC monitors
give the total number of pixels in each direction. My monitor is 1440 x
900 pixels. That is a total number of 1.3Mp, so I cannot resolve even
my older 3MP P&S, let alone my 10Mp SLR.
David J Taylor
Ken,
Ensure that your monitor is running at its native resolution, and not an
interpolated one. If the monitor, on the box, says, for example 1680 x
1050 pixels, and sure that your computer is sending 1680 x 1050, and not
1024 x 768 pixels......
Cheers,
David
Not Given
"David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:wViJl.20166$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
the screen. so a 1024x768 may be stretched to fit a 1280 x 720 field so that
can be distorting the image.
ray
Or what. Specifically, your software is not doing what it should be. The
image should look sharp at any resolution.
Matt Clara
news:75luumF1...@mid.individual.net...
Then why do images in Photoshop look like crap at 66%, but great at 50% or
100%?
David J Taylor
[]
> Then why do images in Photoshop look like crap at 66%, but great at
> 50% or 100%?
Interpolation?
David
nospam
<stau...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> Do you have a Mac or a PC? Macs rate pixels per inch, while PC monitors
> give the total number of pixels in each direction. My monitor is 1440 x
> 900 pixels.
huh? macs list the number of pixels too. a 15" macbook pro is 1440 x
900.
John Passaneau
Photoshop give a true image for judging sharpness at 100%,and any
magnification that is divisible by 2 there after. This due to the
interpolation system to make the image fit the screen. Most screens are
running at about 72ppi, (take the number of pixels of one side of your
screen and divide by the length of that side and see) so the software
has to decide how to reduce the image to fit on the screen. Some
software does it better than others.
John Passaneau
nospam
wrote:
> Most screens are
> running at about 72ppi, (take the number of pixels of one side of your
> screen and divide by the length of that side and see) so the software
> has to decide how to reduce the image to fit on the screen. Some
> software does it better than others.
displays haven't been 72ppi in a *long* time. they're around 100-130
ppi now.
J�rgen Exner
Distortion and out of focus are two very different things.
Yes, depending on settings a wide screen monitor may very well distort
the display if the monitor resolution has a different aspect ratio than
the display settings on the computer side. Can your graphics card
produce wide aspect ratio and is it set to the native resolution of the
new wide screen monitor?
For "focus": others have already pointed out that modern cameras have a
far(!) greater resolution than any consumer level monitor and therefore
the display software has to interpolate. Some does it better, some
worse, and some magnification/shrinkage factors work better than others.
jue
Ken
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:49f5b9ee$0$16041$815e...@news.qwest.net...
My monitor is set at the resolution it said in the manual 166 x 768?
Ken
ray
Possibly because Photoshop is crap. I don't have problems like that with
GIMP. Obviously there is less to do to resize to 50% than something like
66% - at 50% you can simply 'average' each 2x2 block.
J�rgen Exner
>My monitor is set at the resolution it said in the manual 166 x 768?
???
That must be some typo somewhere. Even 30 year old VT200 had a higher
resolution.
jue
nospam
wrote:
> > Then why do images in Photoshop look like crap at 66%, but great at 50%
> > or 100%?
>
> Possibly because Photoshop is crap. I don't have problems like that with
> GIMP. Obviously there is less to do to resize to 50% than something like
> 66% - at 50% you can simply 'average' each 2x2 block.
if you zoom to a non-integral multiple of pixels, you *will* get
artifacts, even in the gimp. photoshop cs4 uses the gpu for zooming
which eliminates artifacts at any zoom level, even non-integral ones.
Ken
"J�rgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ooqbv41ejmt1ka3oh...@4ax.com...
Oh dear -- Sorry!
1366 x 768
Ken
Ken
Again I am sorry - it is out of focus - I really must try harder but
bedbound at the moment ill and struggling but trying to sort this one out as
I have a load of pictures to work on before the weekend for my daughter.
Ken
David J Taylor
.. but what is your PC set to?
David
ray
You really should experience problems only if the software is using a
simple decimation procedure - i.e. simply throwing out points - e.g. for
50% throw out every other point; for 66% throw away 1 and keep two, etc.
Any sort of mathematical processing of the image should give you a decent
image.
N
You're ignoring moire.
--
N
ray
Yup.
Ken
"David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
It is set to 1366 x 768 - I do as I am told :-)
Ken
"Ken" <no...@none.co.uk> wrote in message
news:49f5af7d$0$2482$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Would it be better if I reduced the picture size before I started playing
with it in the software. Just a novices thought?
Ken
Ofnuts
Is the monitor connected using a VGA or a DVI cable?
Is the screen sharp with other applications (text, etc...)
--
Bertrand
David J Taylor
> "David J Taylor"
[]
>> .. but what is your PC set to?
>>
>> David
>
> It is set to 1366 x 768 - I do as I am told :-)
Thanks, Ken. Then it sounds as if the software you are using to view the
image may be responsible for the lack of sharpness you are seeing. When I
look at the pictures from my 10MP DSLR (or 7MP compact) on my display
(which is 1600 x 1200, i.e. 1.92MP), the images are completely sharp, but
limited to the 1.92MP resolution of the display, of course. I'm talking
about viewing at normal distances, and using the computer display instead
of paper prints.
Cheers,
David
Chris Malcolm
Because it uses a crap size-changing for view interpolation
method. Irfanview and I believe Gimp are among the several editors
which do it better.
--
Chris Malcolm
Ken
"David J Taylor"
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
Thanks David I will try and look through differing software. I have an old
Photoshop but use Ulead PhotoImpact (don't laugh!!).
Ken
Ken
"Ofnuts" <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote in message
news:49f6b2f7$0$4850$426a...@news.free.fr...
Hi Bertrand
VGA cable and screen is sharp well sharper with other applications.
Ken
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Because it uses a crap size-changing for view interpolation
> method. Irfanview and I believe Gimp are among the several editors
> which do it better.
bullshit.
Ken
> look at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom in
> they get sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or
> photography says perhaps the photos, these days, have too many pixels and
> the screen is cramming them in and so distorting what I see. Couldhe be
> right or what?
>
Just tried the shots in Corel paint Shop X2 and they look substantially
better than in Photo Impact X3. Will now try and find my old copy of
Photoshop to see what they look like in there. I wonder if there is any
other software that would be better. Shame as I can get around the Photo
Impact. May try a trial of Elements. I have the time so why not?
And thanks for all the help so far much appreciated
Ken
Matt Clara
news:280420090947133517%nos...@nospam.invalid...
I second your "bullshit"--I have and like Irfanview, but Chris's assertion
is patently, and obviously, untrue.
Matt Clara
God, you're funny! This is the first I've ever heard anyone claim that GIMP
is better than Photoshop (other than on Linux, where Photoshop won't
natively run). Delusional, much?
ray
Well, excuse me. I was not aware that 'possibly' constituted a 'claim'.
So, who's delusional? BTW - yes, I do run Linux, so for me GIMP is
obviously superior.
Chris Malcolm
The delusion is yours. No claim was made that Gimp was better than
Photoshop. The claim was that in one very specific area -- image
resizing for viewing -- Gimp was noticeably better. You must be new
around here, because several have made that same observation after
comparing the two in the past. It's one of Photoshop's well known
specific weaknesses (at least in some versions of Photoshop on some
hardware).
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
> bullshit.
Interesting argument. Is there anything inside it apart from the
obvious?
--
Chris Malcolm
Ofnuts
Switch to DVI nevertheless... Only DVI guarantees that a pixel in your
video card ends up on the same pixel on the display. VGA is still
fundamentally an analogic output.
--
Bertrand
ray
GIMP is a free download.
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>> Then why do images in Photoshop look like crap at 66%, but great at 50%
> >>> or 100%?
> >>
> >> Possibly because Photoshop is crap. I don't have problems like that with
> >> GIMP. Obviously there is less to do to resize to 50% than something like
> >> 66% - at 50% you can simply 'average' each 2x2 block.
>
> > God, you're funny! This is the first I've ever heard anyone claim that
> > GIMP
> > is better than Photoshop (other than on Linux, where Photoshop won't
> > natively run). Delusional, much?
>
> The delusion is yours. No claim was made that Gimp was better than
> Photoshop. The claim was that in one very specific area -- image
> resizing for viewing -- Gimp was noticeably better.
either it's better or its not.
> You must be new
> around here, because several have made that same observation after
> comparing the two in the past. It's one of Photoshop's well known
> specific weaknesses (at least in some versions of Photoshop on some
> hardware).
so now it's only with some versions on some hardware? can you say
'edge case' ?
cs4 uses the gpu for zooming and rotating, without any artifacts at
all. gimp doesn't.
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Because it uses a crap size-changing for view interpolation
> >> method. Irfanview and I believe Gimp are among the several editors
> >> which do it better.
>
> > bullshit.
>
> Interesting argument. Is there anything inside it apart from the
> obvious?
see my other post.
Ken
Thanks will give it a try.
Ken
Ken
Will give it a go but so frustrating as I can use my current software with
my eyes closed - well not quite:-)
Ken
Bob Larter
>
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> message news:oCyJl.20534$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Ken wrote:
>>> "David J Taylor"
>> []
>>>> .. but what is your PC set to?
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>
>>> It is set to 1366 x 768 - I do as I am told :-)
>>
>> Thanks, Ken. Then it sounds as if the software you are using to view
>> the image may be responsible for the lack of sharpness you are
>> seeing. When I look at the pictures from my 10MP DSLR (or 7MP
>> compact) on my display (which is 1600 x 1200, i.e. 1.92MP), the images
>> are completely sharp, but limited to the 1.92MP resolution of the
>> display, of course. I'm talking about viewing at normal distances,
>> and using the computer display instead of paper prints.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>
> Thanks David I will try and look through differing software. I have an
> old Photoshop but use Ulead PhotoImpact (don't laugh!!).
Ken, try downloading Irfanview (free) & see if that fixes the problem:
<http://www.irfanview.com/main_download_engl.htm>
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Malcolm
> In article <75ovbvF...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >>> Then why do images in Photoshop look like crap at 66%, but great at 50%
>> >>> or 100%?
>> >>
>> >> Possibly because Photoshop is crap. I don't have problems like that with
>> >> GIMP. Obviously there is less to do to resize to 50% than something like
>> >> 66% - at 50% you can simply 'average' each 2x2 block.
>>
>> > God, you're funny! This is the first I've ever heard anyone claim that
>> > GIMP
>> > is better than Photoshop (other than on Linux, where Photoshop won't
>> > natively run). Delusional, much?
>>
>> The delusion is yours. No claim was made that Gimp was better than
>> Photoshop. The claim was that in one very specific area -- image
>> resizing for viewing -- Gimp was noticeably better.
> either it's better or its not.
You really can't understand the idea that something can be better in
one respect and worse in another? Would you say that women are better
or worse than men?
>> You must be new
>> around here, because several have made that same observation after
>> comparing the two in the past. It's one of Photoshop's well known
>> specific weaknesses (at least in some versions of Photoshop on some
>> hardware).
> so now it's only with some versions on some hardware? can you say
> 'edge case' ?
Something whose behaviour improves with improved hardware or a later
version is not necessarily an edge case, and could be very far from
being an edge case.
> cs4 uses the gpu for zooming and rotating, without any artifacts at
> all. gimp doesn't.
There's nothing the gpu can do that the cpu can't, except do it
faster. And there are some sophisticated image transforms cpus will do
which gpus won't, because they can't be done quickly. There's no
special property of a gpu which means it can avoid image artefacts the
cpu can't.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
I haven't Photoshop myself, but I've heard some who have compared both
express disappointment and sometimes annoyance at Photoshop
inferiority in that area, and others claim no difference at all. I've
seen technical experts explain the difference by referring to the
different algorithms emplyed. Since it's an area which is improved now
and then as better and sometimes faster methods of resizing are
devised, I conclude that at least some extant versions of Photoshop on
at least some hardware weren't the best.
--
Chris Malcolm
Ken
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49f80b03$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Ken wrote:
>>
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>> message news:oCyJl.20534$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Ken wrote:
>>>> "David J Taylor"
>>> []
>>>>> .. but what is your PC set to?
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> It is set to 1366 x 768 - I do as I am told :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks, Ken. Then it sounds as if the software you are using to view
>>> the image may be responsible for the lack of sharpness you are seeing.
>>> When I look at the pictures from my 10MP DSLR (or 7MP compact) on my
>>> display (which is 1600 x 1200, i.e. 1.92MP), the images are completely
>>> sharp, but limited to the 1.92MP resolution of the display, of course.
>>> I'm talking about viewing at normal distances, and using the computer
>>> display instead of paper prints.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> David
>>
>> Thanks David I will try and look through differing software. I have an
>> old Photoshop but use Ulead PhotoImpact (don't laugh!!).
>
> Ken, try downloading Irfanview (free) & see if that fixes the problem:
> <http://www.irfanview.com/main_download_engl.htm>
Yes thanks I will give it a try.
Ken
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>> Because it uses a crap size-changing for view interpolation
> >>> method. Irfanview and I believe Gimp are among the several editors
> >>> which do it better.
> >>
> >> bullshit.
>
> > I second your "bullshit"--I have and like Irfanview, but Chris's assertion
> > is patently, and obviously, untrue.
>
> I haven't Photoshop myself,
yet you insist it's worse.
nospam
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
specifics?
> There's no
> special property of a gpu which means it can avoid image artefacts the
> cpu can't.
cs4 can zoom to any level without any artifacts using the gpu. zoom to
29.47% or 71.94% and it's just as smooth as 50% and 25%. it can also
rotate the canvas (not the image).
whisky-dave
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:75qpcjF...@mid.individual.net...
> There's nothing the gpu can do that the cpu can't, except do it
> faster. And there are some sophisticated image transforms cpus will do
> which gpus won't, because they can't be done quickly. There's no
> special property of a gpu which means it can avoid image artefacts the
> cpu can't.
An interesting discovery I made :-
I was editing a movie using iMovie09 on a iMac G5, which has a video ram
problem.
After exporting the movie and uploading to youtube, I found my movie had the
same video
problems. So I went back to my previous version of iMovie HD, which didn't
produce
the same video errors that my 'screen' has.
My conclusion is/was that the later iMovie09 uses the GPU RAM and that
iMovieHD(06,07)
didn't.
clips are availible here :-
http://www.youtube.com/davewhisky
cat flap : done with iMovie09
cat flap action : done iMovieHD
not the most exciting of subjects.
nospam
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> I was editing a movie using iMovie09 on a iMac G5, which has a video ram
> problem.
> After exporting the movie and uploading to youtube, I found my movie had the
> same video
> problems. So I went back to my previous version of iMovie HD, which didn't
> produce
> the same video errors that my 'screen' has.
> My conclusion is/was that the later iMovie09 uses the GPU RAM and that
> iMovieHD(06,07)
> didn't.
your conclusion is incorrect. imovie '09 is not an updated version of
imovie hd, but an entirely new application, both of which use the gpu.
J. Clarke
In that case it is the first video system in the history of the world that
can display images without artifacts.
Now you may notice them, but that does not mean that they are not there.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? "Ofnuts" <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> ?????? ??? ??????
news:49f775c2$0$28866$426a...@news.free.fr...
conversions:one DAC (digital to analog) to convert the graph card signal to
VGA, and another ADC (analog to digital) to convert VGA to something
understandable by your LCD monitor.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Chris Malcolm
see my other post.
--
Chris Malcolm
whisky-dave
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
I';ve been using imovie for a number of years now since the first iMacs
(CRT)
in the late 90s.
iMovie has been constantly updated from then to now, iMovieHD was
superseded by iMovie08 which I really didn't like also quite a few features
were missing.
iMovie09 is an improvement and usable but works in a different way from both
the users perspective and 'under the bonnet'
Please read again I said the GPU RAM not just the gpu.
Or perhaps you know the reason why the two movie applications behave
differently
nospam
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
they are two totally different applications that share the same name.
it doesn't matter whether it uses the gpu or not, it's a new codebase
with a different feature set and different bugs.
whisky-dave
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
Totally different applications that are for movie editing written by the
same company
sold by the same company in the same way.
This new 'bug' is that it uses the Graphics RAM in exporting/editing a
movie,
and therefore a hardware error with the graphics RAM produces the same
error(s) in the output file.
And it could matter that it uses the graphics CPU and RAM in that a higher
spec/speed graphics card might allow for faster processing of the movie
clips.
If I'd been using a Macmin or a macbook with shared graphics RAM
This 'bug' as you seem to call it wouldn't have shown up.
Ken
> look at my photos it seems like many are out of focus but if I zoom in
> they get sharper. My mate who usually knows nothing about PCs or
> photography says perhaps the photos, these days, have too many pixels and
> the screen is cramming them in and so distorting what I see. Couldhe be
> right or what?
>
An update in case it may be of help to others.
I have started using Picasa and at a stroke the image on screen now looks
absolutely fine. Picasa has some good features, especially the straightening
tool and thankfully my new camera churns out good images that need little
doing to them.
Ken