Quality Is Poor

[Colby DuLin]

Noneof my video settings have been touched and the video quality looks good on other apps like Loom. In my screenshot, you can see that the preview of me is very clear, whereas the actual video window is very pixelated and blurry.

This is a known issue that Zoom has not adressed yet. Good if tickets are submitted to zoom support so attention gets pointed towards this issue:

-else-having-problem-with-Logitech-webcam-with-the-new/td-...

Thanks! Our admin got "permission" for us to have 1080p quality. What has been interesting is that my video quality will shift depending on whether I am alone or in a meeting. Most times, though, it now works as it should.

Zoom's video quality is based on who is presenting and the amount of bandwidth. Unlike Webex or GoToWebinar, You don't upload a slide or video presentation to a cloud infrastructure for that company and push the presentation from there. This means in general, lousy upload video bandwidth and lots of people will result in a bad visual experience. Zoom is a best-effort platform and isn't the best for large webinars.

I tried adjusting the Story Size - thought maybe Fill Background would cause the images not to compress, but it doesn't "take." What I mean by that is I change the radio button to Fill Background and hit O.K., but it defaults back to Scale to Fit.

If this is happening within your slide, however, it may be that your recordings are scaling down. This usually happens when you insert into an existing project that has a Story Size different from your recording size.

I'm quite disappointed with the poor quality of screen capture video. Even with the settings maxed out for publishing the video I capture from my screen, the video quality is terrible. I have to use another program to capture the video, then insert into Storyline.

Hi Colin. I'm sorry you're disappointed with the screen recording output. This article describes our best practices for high-quality screen recordings. If you're still seeing a loss in quality, we're more than happy to have a closer look with you.

I do not see that we received a response from Bryan or Wendy, so I don't have an update to share. If you can share your file in a support case, our support engineers can investigate and determine what's causing an issue. We'll reach out soon after testing!

I'm trying to use Teams for internal team video call meetings (located in the same building, different offices, same network & internet connection). We've tried with 5 users and the video quality is poor - not high definition at all, very blurry and/or blocky.

I've seen those articles, but don't think they help me any. Bandwidth is fine, we're only using with 4 users so I'm sure we're not hitting the (6000?) port NAT pool size limit, all ports are allowed out etc - and video works, just the quality is poor.

Zoom video conferencing works fine, so why won't Teams? It's that basic there doesn't seem to be any settings to tweak, it should just work...? Have the same problem whether using teams desktop app or web client.

It isn't as simple as bandwidth. You have to consider other factors too like packet loss and jitter. Lookup one of he users in Teams who had an issue and look at their call history. Then dive into the call details. It will give you a detailed report of what the issue is. User call history is much better than the dashboard.

@UKITGuy Would like to see if you find solution. It seems like every platform except for MS Teams has video adjustment or filter options either built into app or optional manual control and general video quality of MS Teams is extremely poor -- regardless of my connection or device used (phone OR current surface!)-- I think MS needs to actually improve their app itself. :( (Teams is my LEAST desirable video app service. I ONLY use it when the invites I receive call for Teams or I avoid it because it is so poor whether I am looking at the other people or my stream to them.)

I'm a novice in both photography and the Adobe products but am fast becoming addicted. Anyway, I have noticed that when I save my crisp, edited images from Lightroom, the quality of the image drops dramatically. I'm attaching a screen shot of both the Lightroom image as I would like it to appear and the saved version plus my save settings. Many thanks for your help with this newbie. - Melissa

You are using software in that case. You are using Apple's preview. It is fully color managed but uses a different scaling algorithm to scale down large images to the much lower resolution of your display than Lightroom does. This will make images appear much softer than they looked in Lightroom. If you export in 16 bit tiff, your images will be very

You are using software in that case. You are using Apple's preview. It is fully color managed but uses a different scaling algorithm to scale down large images to the much lower resolution of your display than Lightroom does. This will make images appear much softer than they looked in Lightroom. If you export in 16 bit tiff, your images will be very close to identical to what you have inside Lightroom. What you should try is to actually scale down to a much lower resolution sRGB jpeg (say 800 pixels on the long side) and to use output sharpening. You'll see it will look very crisp.

It's version Lightroom 5, on a MacBook Air. Not sure what you mean by image viewer... I'm literally just double clicking in my image which is saved on my desktop. Is this where I'm going wrong?? Thanks, appreciate the help

I have a Image Class MF743CDW laser printer. I bought the printer in October 2022. The print quality has never been very good. The colors are dull and the text seems to be faded. I have installed the latest drivers. I am lost at this point. Does anyone have any suggestions? My ink status is 20% on all cartridges.

So, yes, I still have it. My client gave it to me to get rid of or use. I figured I would everntually sell it at a very good price when the opportunity arose. I have a small IT business and occasionaly, I have an opportunity to help my folks out with used equipment. Most of my clients are very small.

A few weeks ago, I thought that the opportunity had arrived. I had to reset the login so I had to talk to tech service. I got lucky. I talked to a very knowledgeable tech who I think resolved my issue.

It appears that my issue was caused by LOW BLACK INK. When the black ink is low, it conserves black ink and this issue can occur. There is an option to ignore the low black ink condition and continue to use ink as usual. .

If the prints are faded, it could be caused by the type of paper you are printing on, the settings or the hardware/toner. In this situation, you can start by reseating the toner and gently shaking the cartridges to make sure the toner is evenly distributed. After that, you can try cleaning the fixing assembly if you continue to have issues. If the prints continue to look faded, you can try adjusting the printer gradation.

Hey Joliet_Tech... I'm your neighbor here in Shorewood

Did you ever figure out your image quality issues with the MF743? I've LOVED all my canon laser printers, but this one has been a nightmare for me. I don't know if I should suffer the loss and get a set of Canon genuine toners or just get a whole new printer. I've had good luck with OKI/Samsung LED color printers in the past. I'm really sad about my canon because my old imageclass d480 is my favorite laser printer of all time; albeit monochrome. The MF743 refuses to perform any of the cleaning operations. I've tried a factory reset. I'm to the point where I want to throw it out the window and have a toddler-style-crying-temper-tantrum! Images are dull and almost look like printed negatives....color is all wrong. Did you keep your MF743?

I read this question, Bad or Poor more severe. I'm uncertain if I fully agree with the answer about "bad" being worse than "poor", since poor people still can be good though... Being economically poor and criminally bad, is something different than being of poor quality and bad quality.

I was thinking of using "low quality" and "poor quality" - but I guess "bad quality" may also be an option. The problem is that I'm uncertain if "low" or "poor" is the worse of them (I thought it low was higher quality than poor, but I may be wrong)... In any case, it's not obvious what's what.

I was intrigued by the "adjective ladder" data in a writeup by Hicks et al. cited by a linked answer to a related question in the comments, but I wanted to see it as a graph with error bars to help me gauge similarity and variance. I've plotted it below.

The study has its own similar list of eleven items (abysmal, awful, bad, poor, mediocre, fair, good, great, excellent, amazing, phenomenal). Choosing a subset of six of those would simply entail taking every other: abysmal, bad, mediocre, good, excellent, phenomenal). For five, remove either abysmal or phenomenal.

Be careful not to pick terms that are too obscure! "Abysmal" and "Middling" just aren't popular words. (Though note that popularity is not the same as familiarity.) Consider checking Google Ngrams. Here are the most obscure words out of the 24 on the list (since WWII):

This paper had good methodology, randomizing the list, asking subjects to sort it, then rate it, and a few other tasks the helped them determine subjects' familiarity with each term. They found that "middling" was left blank by most participants, presumably due to a lack of familiarity.

3a8082e126