Transparency of the final output image

Similar Questions

• the image to the final output size print

  Hello forumers.

  Ive been asked to do a poster A2 size 594 x 420 mm 300 dpi

  but when I enter those dimenstions my pc slows down unfortunately.

  What is the best way to get better performance?

  Thank you.

  Seems to me that your PC can be the source of the problem. Can you put the specifications, CPU, memory etc. While the size of the A2 (approximately 23.4 x 16.5 in French) - easier for me to work in inches is a good size, it's about the same size that a file directly from the D800 and without layers must be about 200 MB. While I have a pretty good system (16 GB of memory with a core i7) I can easily manage the sizes of files 5 x this size.

  I also have an old XP machine with 4 GB memory in the course of running CS3 that can, well a bit slow, to easily manage the files of 400 MB

  While 300 dpi will give a good impression, if you resampled to somewhere between 200-240 DPI, you will always get a decent print and reduce the size of the file. With a print at 300 ppi to 200 MB A2 format, resample to 240 ppi would bring the size of the file down to ~ 130 MB and 200 ppi would bring the size of the file down to ~ 92 MB

  MK

• Purple bar showing on a video on the final composite image

  Hello, I struggled to find out why this bar displays at the end of my video on its last image. Although export it does not show.

  All right. It was about 10 hours without response. Maybe we should tell muhammad that the stupid purple bar at the end of the sequence is a completely useless indication that he is at the end of the sequence. As if he didn't know that he was already at the end of the sequence. A nice black setting usually works pretty good to tell someone that they ran out of media.

  Adobe strives to protect yourself. Just ignore it. Or adjust. Or whatever. It's stupid and there is no way to turn it off. If he bothers you, please submit a feature request it to be optional. I have.

  Adobe - feature request/Bug Report Form

• Camera shake works in preview, but not in the final rendering.

  Hello. I tried Googling and searching forums and coming hands here is empty.

  I use After Effects of CS4 with the latest updates.

  I have a project with a unique model that contains an AVCHD clip related to an adjustment layer.

  I used the earthquake keyframe mode some fake camera shake by manipulating the 'Transform-> Position' field moments adaptation layer keys in the images. If I scrub through or do a preview (press 0 and let pre render) it looks fantastic with the music video of shake exactly how I like it.

  But when I save the project and add it to my queue to render the final output has * no * of the camera shake!

  I'm completely baffled as to why this might be. That said I only use AE for about a month so it is possible that I have made a simple noob mistake.

  The adjustment layer and the images are both the visible value. I see clearly the keyframes in the timeline panel and as I said the preview and cleaning shows the effect in action... But the final result (regardless of the format or resolution) have no shake in them either.

  Help!

  I just tried to do exactly the same thing and it works very well here.

  If you want, e-mail me your project folder (under the file video source) and I'll take a look: arozenfe (©) adobe.com

• Final output rendering: CPU vs CPU + GPU

  Hallo,

  I would use my Nvidia GPU to speed up the rendering of the final output of the projects of Premiere Pro and After Effects to Adobe Media Encoder. Now as far as I know, which allows the GPU acceleration for rendering of the final output in the AMEncoder really accelerating him process significantly. But I have a question about the quality of the production. The addition of acceleration GPU has an influence on the quality of the final result make? I read on some for a comment indicating that only using the CPU for the final rendered result gives results of superior quality, then when using the CPU + GPU acceleration combined? But on some other blogs I actually found that adding statements to process the two GPU speeds up the time required (becomes much faster), and actually increases the quality of the result final render?

  Does anyone know if there is a difference in quality between CPU vs CPU + GPU rendering to final output? I'm working on a 64 bit Windows 7 computer)

  Thanks in advance,

  Sebastiaan

  GPU accelerated export is expected to equal or exceed the software quality in all cases

• In regards to the final quality, what is the VERY BEST way output an InDesign to Photoshop file?

  I create a file for an online ad in InDesign... because I'm primarily a print designer, because it includes text and images, especially because this is the program I work faster.  I create the final size required for advertising.  All done, all approved. Final online publication requires a jpg file.

  So... I can export of ID as a jpg. Or, I can copy all and paste it in a new PS document, then output jpg for the web and devices. Or, I can save/export as eps/PDF and open THIS file in PS, , then the jpg for the web and output devices. There's probably more. And of course, I could just create in PS if I have TO. What SHOULD I do wind up with the clearer jpg to the correct file size?

  I think maybe this post in the PS forum, too, and see if everyone agrees on a method. Thank you, all.

  Raster InDesign export functions are questioned regularly here in the forums, so even if it's something I have never, I have a distinct feeling that it can be quite problematic.

  I would say the InDesign > export > PDF / open a PDF file in Photoshop > save for Web gives you the most control over every step of the process.

• update an image of stock adobe watermarked in the final psd after purchase?

  How automatically update you a watermark adobe stock image in a psd to the final psd after purchase?

  Hi Amy,

  This should help. https://helpx.Adobe.com/creative-cloud/how-to/Adobe-stock-creative-cloud-libraries.html

  Also, check https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/help/using-adobe-stock.html

  ~ David

• Are there already experiments with FM 2015, scaling of the image to its original size in the HTML output

  FM 12 provides the following procedure (as read in the manual) to see the images in original size in the HTML output. I did and was happy. But now in 2015 of the FM, the operation is no more.

  > >

  In the Setup file (settings.sts) you can set the image (default size) the parameters width and height to 0pt so that images in the HTML output are displayed in the original format. FM 12 it worked fine. The result was, that the style to the statement tag < img > is deleted in the HTML code output, so that the images keep their original size. But now in 2015 FM it seems there is a bug. The same procedure has the effect that the style statement is in the HTML (is not deleted) and width and height are on 0x0pt. The result is that all the images are invisible. If I disabled 'Preferred size' images in the HTML output are always scaled down in a 'random' size, nobody knows where it comes and how I can trouble or spend that in 2015 scaling of FM.
  

  > >
  

  Anyone who has ever even erperiences with the new 2015 FM?

  THX
  

  Hello

  There was a bug in the publication process of FrameMaker for which we had planned a work around to set the width and height 0pt. Now we have fixed the issue when you set 0pt as the width images will no longer appear.

  Now in your output images will seem to have the same size, such that they appear in the documents of source if preferred size is not defined. If this isn't the case, you can share your example of source document so that we can have a look.

  Thank you

  Ritesh Kumar

  [email protected]

• Transparency of the png image not displayed

  Hello

  I have a region that needs a background and an image 'up' of it.

  I can put the bottom to aid

  setStyle ("background - fx - color: #" + 123456 + ";");

  Or I can use a Rectangle of this color.

  Then I have an ImageView... spiralImgView = new ImageView (new Image ("images/spiral2.png"));

  The png itself image has transparency in there.

  So, when I add to the region...

  this.getChildren () .addAll (rect, spiralImgView);

  I just get a white background showing behind the image.

  Can someone help me solve this problem?

  Thank you

  I did no programming.  This will tell you if your image:

  (1) download and start a JavaFX scene generator

  (2) without doing any change stick "background - fx - color: #1d1d1d; ' in the box 'Style' fenΩtre 'PropriΘtΘs '.

  (3) drag and drop an Image seen in the scene from the "Library" window

  4) click the ImageView in the window of "hierarchy".

  (5) in the 'Properties' window, use the 'Image' selector to find your img disk

  If your image is often transparent is the background is not white, but #1d1d1d

• Missing images in the final product - please help!

  I use Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 to make a video trip to about 18 minutes long. This is my 11th video trip I did and the first time running on this particular problem.

  I have done editing and exported to my usual settings: H.264, 1080 p, VBR 2 Pass audio 320 bit, etc..

  The travel film is 90% video and photos at 10%. In the final product, everything works fine, including audio / music and title stills (above), but SOME shows photo images upward like a blank black screen. Even the video transitions to work, but their transition in a black screen and transitions smoothly into the next video.

  I exported now 5 times total, each time you export taking about 19 to 20 hours. Each time there are DIFFERENT images that are missing. Sometimes the image previously missing will appear in the next export, but the picture that appeared in the previous export is missing in the new. I don't understand why this is happening and I'm beyond frustrated. I'm not about to lose another day without my computer export failure.

  I'm guessing that this has nothing to do with the size of the image, but with the speed/performance of my computer 'old '. I am hoping that there is a way out of this because I spent ten days of working on this video...

  Please help if you know the solution to this problem - maybe I'd appreciate much all tracks!

  > guess that has nothing to do with the size of the image

  Maybe... but try to scaling of images to match your video before importing it

  Photo graduation for video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/450798 can help

  -HiRes images of DVD http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1187937?tstart=0

  -Body Crash http://forums.adobe.com/thread/879967

• Image resolution Question 150dpi vs 300 DPI in the final layout

  In the final a file offset color printing, does make a difference if the images in the document are 150 dpi or 300 dpi? I know that they should not be less than 150, but making it more IPR makes them really better? Or is it just that the larger file? If you think that it makes the image more, please let me know why. I would be particularly interested to hear from someone who works with a printing press. Or if there is something on the Adobe Web site, addressing this issue, please add the link.

  Thank you

  Marilyn

  I would not, as a matter of course, save a picture which was dimensioned for its final dimensions less than 300 ppi, unless there is not enough pixels to do without increasing the resolution, in which case I would put to the best resolution pixels will build at this size. It is easier to downsample later if you find that you don't need a resolution that many do not have the data you need.

  Tips for talking to the printer are not reserved for books. It will tell you what type of resolution of the image you need for any project, and it may very well have a set of custom options PDF to give you.

• Lost details and black when you export the final image

  Hi guys,.

  Recently when I finish editing a picture in LR5, I noticed that the detail of the image have been tarnished down and blurry when it was open in the develop module.

  Ive double checked everything from the color space, image format, quality level, even tried to download one of the images exported on my site in the hope that it was something wrong with the preview, but it looks the same.

  Only other thing I noticed when I discover the image in 'library' mode, it loses detail as well as the exported version. Only when its in "develop" mode is when it shows the real detail and treated quickly blacks I upgraded. And it didn't used to do this. So Im hoping that I've accidentally changed a button and it didn't...

  If anyone has information or can point me in the right direction of something that can help solve the problems or solve this problem, I would really appreciate any info!

  -Max

  Maxtson wrote:

  The only other thing I noticed is when I discovered the image in 'library', he loses the details as well as the exported version. Only when its in "develop" mode is when it shows the real detail and treated quickly blacks I upgraded.

  The library and export modules use a more accurate algorithm that the module development of resizing. Normally the previews of module development and library will look nearly identical to the less than 1:1 Zoom mode (i.e. Fit view). When they are not it is generally an indication that excessive sharpening and/or insufficient Luminance Noise Reduction is applied to the image. This causes the image to appear "lighter" and "weaker" in the library module and files for export because of excessive noise. The overview of the develop module uses a faster (less accurate) resizing algorithm in order to avoid the 'delay' when the adjustment slider. This can cause the image to appear sharper and less noisy that the library module overview to the Zoom display settings lower than 1:1 Zoom.

  As Jao vdL mentioned, 'ONLY to touch the sliders detail with zoom 1:1 to develop. ' The library module previews need to be "rebuilt" after setting in the development of a set of images module. You can do this by clicking on the image in the library module (Zoom 1:1 mode) or by selecting ALL images edited using menu library > previews > Build Standard or 1:1 previews.

  Maxtson wrote:

  And he's not used to do this. So Im hoping that I've accidentally changed a button and it didn't...

  This set of pictures were probably shot with an higher in the camera ISO setting (> 800 ISO). High ISO images usually require a 25 Luminance Noise reduction setting, or even higher if the image file is underexposed.

  What is ISO for these image files display.

  

• Confused about PPP and the size of the final image

  I'm new to Lightroom that are a lot and I try to understand how Lightroom uses pixels and determines the size of an image with a magnifying glass.  My RAW images are 3872 x 2592, 10.2 million pixels.  For a magnifying glass, I suppose Lightroom chooses a PPD that corresponds to my monitor for options FIT or FILL.  But how it determines the size of the image to display when you use a report of zoom, say 1:1.  I feel that 1:1 is the size of the actual image.  But what is this size?  When I use 1:1, the preview in the Navigator Panel displays a zoom that is only about 1/9th of the image in the center of the image.  Is it just defaults to 72 DPI for the ratio 1:1 zoom displayed or is - it something else? Another related question is what Lightroom when I export an image of say 300 PPI and resize the image to a size that would be greater than the number available pixels at 300 PPI?  Just asked for my RAW images, 300 DPI can support only 8.6 x 12.99 inches.  What's Lightroom if I select 20 x 30 inches and 300 PPI?

  Thanks, Mike

  DPI is Dot Per Inch. A printer can take a 300 PPI image, and for each pixel, it could drop 4 points, meaning that the 300 PPI image when printing is 1200 dpi, but really I never worry about DPI. And you shouldn't worry about DPI either.

• How to avoid the loss of image quality... ?

  Hi there, noob here.

  I have a lot of high resolution 1080 p. PNG images that I need to put together in a slideshow movie...

  But I can't seem to do it without significant picture quality deterioration.

  In the monitor of first preview at 100%, the problem questions (lightweight/washed out colors, blur the finer details, yucky artifacts pixely etc.) are more subtle, but still noticeable.  And then after I exported, the questions are considerably worse.

  I played around with different settings at this point... and I still had no luck.

  To put it simply, what exactly that I do to ensure the image in the final movie stills look exactly like the original .png files?  Thank you!

  (As you can see below, the colors of the final export are substantially lighter than the original and background paper texture virtually disappears)

  PRE:                                                                                                                POST:

  

  CineForm is expected to be available in a format of output in your export settings.

  QuickTime player is usually guilty displays a rendering of the more washed out of your video as the first, as discussed in this thread in this forum:

  Gamma in Quicktime vs first shift

  This could be responsible for the difference in color and contrast you see. I suggest using the free VLC Player (search and you will find) for a more accurate representation, with the caveats noted in the thread linked above.

  Regarding the vague details and artifacts, you will need to go to a high data throughput (bitrate). If all of the videos is similar to the images you provided, you can go to a CBR (constant bit rate) and experiment with settings high to see compromise between preserving detail and the size of the file. Even if you stick with VBR, the same principles apply, more the bitrate, more conservation of detail and more the output file.

  And don't forget, once you download on youtube, they will destroy anyway.

• 8-bit project, no banding in preview / rendering individual frames, but bands occurs on the final rendering.

  I work with 8-bit video that must be highly classified and darkened.

  While I was working on, I noticed when I step in the timeline and stop to look at a framework, strips are produced, but as soon as I change a setting of one of the effects of one of my adjustment layers, banding goes and everything is mixed smoothly.

  When I visited on an image preview of the same section, the output is well mixed too.

  However, when I visited the final video coder via media, banding is back and very hard.

  Why is this happening? If I'm in 8 bit mode, why and how is after effects able to show me these perfectly mixed previews not banded?

  Bands will arrive in 8-bit images if there not enough space in the color values to make the transitions smooth. For example, if you have a blue gradient which covers 250 pixels and blue 200 to 250 changes in value you will have to 10 bands of color in the gradient. If your preview is full resolution and magnification factor is 100% you will see bands if you look closely. When you return to compression MPEG problem strips is increasing especially in areas smooth transitions of color because very large blocks of pixels are averaged together and you get only a few images of the color information that represent the actual pixels in the project. You can try to improve the color of artifacts in Adobe Meida encode by checking the high quality in color options and you can also reduce color artifacts by activating multi pass rendering and increase the flow of data a bit.

  The best practice is to add some noise to the shooting so the MPEG compression more data that evolves to work with. This will tend to hide the strips by decomposing generally straight between the color values.

  If you do heavy color of ranking you should show your project to 16 or 32 bit color still better. This will remove strips in 8-bit images. Unless you have a little bit of 10 or better track and a GPU capable of driving, it is really hard to judge bands by watching a preview of the model. The info panel should show the information of the right color, but it is very difficult to actually see in the monitor, especially if you're judging a frame to nothing less than full resolution and 100%. The perfectly blended frames are probably artifacts or your eye is fooled. Purge the cache of the images to see exactly what is happening in the framework. Depending on your graphics card may be fouling up previews trying to create previews of superior quality that actually exist preferences. You could also get some funky video original data if the source is a highly compressed MPEG stream. The CPU can also add to preview search OK when the values aren't really there because on average it is the small amount of color and luminance values in the 'master' frames and frames him "gee I'm not really a framework but here is a bit of data on where I think that pixels will". Don't forget that the I'm not really a frame number box frames by 2 or 4 to one. Actual color even in real managers information can be compressed on average in large blocks as well. All this contributes to the subtle color changes problems. This is why assistance of noise.

  I hope this helps.