acdsee full screen display resampling quality lacking?
 

Has anyone noticed that ACDSee (4.x, 5.x, 6.x)'s full screen display
(reduce to fit) resampling quality to be lower than that of ThumbsPlus
and Adobe Photoshop Album?

A few years ago I picked ACDSee to be my image viewing application
because at the time, it has the best image display quality when I use
full screen display and reduce to fit option. Other program I've tried
does not produce a smooth image as ACDSee does.

I had the opportunity to try Adobe Photoshop Album, and the current
version of ThumbsPlus, and to my surprise, I noticed the image
displayed by those two apps appears to be somewhat sharper, especially
on some images. The display quality of Photoshop Album seems to be the
same as ThumbsPlus, but ACDSee was noticeably softer in comparison.

One image I have, it was a huge scanned image, 4000x4000, in ACDSee,
there were a lot of rough edges that I can see, but on ThumbsPlus, the
image were reduced nicely and everything was very smooth and sharp. If
I shrink the image in using ACDSee to screen resolution, it is also
displayed smoothly.

I think ACDsee has not improved its resampling algorithm over the
years, at the time it was pretty good, but now comparing to other
applications, it's being to show its age...

If you haven't noticed this, I invite you to download ThumbsPlus or
Photoshop Album and try it out. It'll be an eye opener for you or
anyone who cares about image quality and has been using ACDSee for a
while.

Raymond

Raymond,

We have updated our resizing code in the upcoming ACDSee 7, which is due out
in a few weeks. You should notice improvements - resizing being only one of
them. I suggest you download the trial when it becomes available, should
you wish to re-compare. Release == Soon.

Thanks for your comments - we're always interested in improving our
products.

--
James Addison
http://www.pjsoft.ca
http://www.acdsystems.com


wrote in message
...
Has anyone noticed that ACDSee (4.x, 5.x, 6.x)'s full screen display
(reduce to fit) resampling quality to be lower than that of ThumbsPlus
and Adobe Photoshop Album?

A few years ago I picked ACDSee to be my image viewing application
because at the time, it has the best image display quality when I use
full screen display and reduce to fit option. Other program I've tried
does not produce a smooth image as ACDSee does.

I had the opportunity to try Adobe Photoshop Album, and the current
version of ThumbsPlus, and to my surprise, I noticed the image
displayed by those two apps appears to be somewhat sharper, especially
on some images. The display quality of Photoshop Album seems to be the
same as ThumbsPlus, but ACDSee was noticeably softer in comparison.

One image I have, it was a huge scanned image, 4000x4000, in ACDSee,
there were a lot of rough edges that I can see, but on ThumbsPlus, the
image were reduced nicely and everything was very smooth and sharp. If
I shrink the image in using ACDSee to screen resolution, it is also
displayed smoothly.

I think ACDsee has not improved its resampling algorithm over the
years, at the time it was pretty good, but now comparing to other
applications, it's being to show its age...

If you haven't noticed this, I invite you to download ThumbsPlus or
Photoshop Album and try it out. It'll be an eye opener for you or
anyone who cares about image quality and has been using ACDSee for a
while.

Raymond

Raymond,

We have updated our resizing code in the upcoming ACDSee 7, which is due out
in a few weeks. You should notice improvements - resizing being only one of
them. I suggest you download the trial when it becomes available, should
you wish to re-compare. Release == Soon.

Thanks for your comments - we're always interested in improving our
products.

--
James Addison
http://www.pjsoft.ca
http://www.acdsystems.com


wrote in message
...
Has anyone noticed that ACDSee (4.x, 5.x, 6.x)'s full screen display
(reduce to fit) resampling quality to be lower than that of ThumbsPlus
and Adobe Photoshop Album?

A few years ago I picked ACDSee to be my image viewing application
because at the time, it has the best image display quality when I use
full screen display and reduce to fit option. Other program I've tried
does not produce a smooth image as ACDSee does.

I had the opportunity to try Adobe Photoshop Album, and the current
version of ThumbsPlus, and to my surprise, I noticed the image
displayed by those two apps appears to be somewhat sharper, especially
on some images. The display quality of Photoshop Album seems to be the
same as ThumbsPlus, but ACDSee was noticeably softer in comparison.

One image I have, it was a huge scanned image, 4000x4000, in ACDSee,
there were a lot of rough edges that I can see, but on ThumbsPlus, the
image were reduced nicely and everything was very smooth and sharp. If
I shrink the image in using ACDSee to screen resolution, it is also
displayed smoothly.

I think ACDsee has not improved its resampling algorithm over the
years, at the time it was pretty good, but now comparing to other
applications, it's being to show its age...

If you haven't noticed this, I invite you to download ThumbsPlus or
Photoshop Album and try it out. It'll be an eye opener for you or
anyone who cares about image quality and has been using ACDSee for a
while.

Raymond

Raymond,

We have updated our resizing code in the upcoming ACDSee 7, which is due out
in a few weeks. You should notice improvements - resizing being only one of
them. I suggest you download the trial when it becomes available, should
you wish to re-compare. Release == Soon.

Thanks for your comments - we're always interested in improving our
products.

--
James Addison
http://www.pjsoft.ca
http://www.acdsystems.com


wrote in message
...
Has anyone noticed that ACDSee (4.x, 5.x, 6.x)'s full screen display
(reduce to fit) resampling quality to be lower than that of ThumbsPlus
and Adobe Photoshop Album?

A few years ago I picked ACDSee to be my image viewing application
because at the time, it has the best image display quality when I use
full screen display and reduce to fit option. Other program I've tried
does not produce a smooth image as ACDSee does.

I had the opportunity to try Adobe Photoshop Album, and the current
version of ThumbsPlus, and to my surprise, I noticed the image
displayed by those two apps appears to be somewhat sharper, especially
on some images. The display quality of Photoshop Album seems to be the
same as ThumbsPlus, but ACDSee was noticeably softer in comparison.

One image I have, it was a huge scanned image, 4000x4000, in ACDSee,
there were a lot of rough edges that I can see, but on ThumbsPlus, the
image were reduced nicely and everything was very smooth and sharp. If
I shrink the image in using ACDSee to screen resolution, it is also
displayed smoothly.

I think ACDsee has not improved its resampling algorithm over the
years, at the time it was pretty good, but now comparing to other
applications, it's being to show its age...

If you haven't noticed this, I invite you to download ThumbsPlus or
Photoshop Album and try it out. It'll be an eye opener for you or
anyone who cares about image quality and has been using ACDSee for a
while.

Raymond

Hi, thanks for the information. I will try it when it is available!

Can I also request to bring back the ability to define custom
thumbnail size? I prefer 'square' thumbnail size, such as 96x96. I
take a lot of vertical pictures and I don't want them to be compressed
by the default 80x60 thumbnail selection... The defaults in version 6
works ok if most of the pictures are horizontal...

Thanks again.

Raymond

In rec.photo.digital James Addison wrote:

Raymond,

We have updated our resizing code in the upcoming ACDSee 7, which is due out
in a few weeks. You should notice improvements - resizing being only one of
them. I suggest you download the trial when it becomes available, should
you wish to re-compare. Release == Soon.

Thanks for your comments - we're always interested in improving our
products.

A few years ago I picked ACDSee to be my image viewing application
because at the time, it has the best image display quality when I use
full screen display and reduce to fit option. Other program I've tried
does not produce a smooth image as ACDSee does.

You've probably tried this, but just checking; have you tried using
Irfanview?

Sourish

"Sourish Basu" wrote in message
...
A few years ago I picked ACDSee to be my image viewing application
because at the time, it has the best image display quality when I use
full screen display and reduce to fit option. Other program I've tried
does not produce a smooth image as ACDSee does.

You've probably tried this, but just checking; have you tried using
Irfanview?

Sourish

I've seen a marked difference in the quality of the images that are
displayed on Kodak's free EasyShare software. over that of a couple of other
applications that I use. Not only are the images smoother, but the colors
look truer. I can't quite put my finger on it, but they seem to have better
tonality.

Kodak just released an upgrade to EasyShare, and it can be downloaded on
their web site.

wrote:
Hi, thanks for the information. I will try it when it is available!

Can I also request to bring back the ability to define custom
thumbnail size? I prefer 'square' thumbnail size, such as 96x96. I
take a lot of vertical pictures and I don't want them to be compressed
by the default 80x60 thumbnail selection... The defaults in version 6
works ok if most of the pictures are horizontal...

Thanks again.

Raymond

Well, it's a little late to put in requests for version 7, as it's
coming out Real-Soon-Now, but I'll say it again: you'll be pleasantly
surprised - you might find what you're looking for. I hope so. ;)

--
James Addison
http://www.pjsoft.ca

wrote:
Hi, thanks for the information. I will try it when it is available!

Can I also request to bring back the ability to define custom
thumbnail size? I prefer 'square' thumbnail size, such as 96x96. I
take a lot of vertical pictures and I don't want them to be compressed
by the default 80x60 thumbnail selection... The defaults in version 6
works ok if most of the pictures are horizontal...

Thanks again.

Raymond

Well, it's a little late to put in requests for version 7, as it's
coming out Real-Soon-Now, but I'll say it again: you'll be pleasantly
surprised - you might find what you're looking for. I hope so. ;)

--
James Addison
http://www.pjsoft.ca

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 18:47:29 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

One image I have, it was a huge scanned image, 4000x4000, in ACDSee,
there were a lot of rough edges that I can see, but on ThumbsPlus, the
image were reduced nicely and everything was very smooth and sharp. If
I shrink the image in using ACDSee to screen resolution, it is also
displayed smoothly.

First off, you can't compare two displays unless they are both
displaying at the same resolution. If you zoom in on the ThumbsPlus
display to the same level of magnification as you use in ACDSee
you'll see identical image quality, just as you noticed.

Second, any seasoned photographer and graphics editor knows to turn
off any display resampling so they can see the true resolution and
detail of their photos from the actual pixels. Image display
resampling methods alters this when you zoom in to view the photo.
It smoothes them out, makes them look much nicer than they actually
are. In effect, you're looking at your photos through rose-colored
glasses.

Unless you're using the software for a slide-show ONLY, there's
absolutely no reason you should turn on any resampling algorithms
for viewing your images. Turn off all resampling for image displays,
or you'll never see all the errors and faults in your photography
that everyone else will see when you send your digital photos to
them. They're not going to put on the same rose-colored glasses that
you are so fond of just to make your images look better. Resampling
methods should ONLY be used for upsizing and downsizing images for
final output, never at any other time.

I wonder how many people forget to turn it off image display
resampling in their browser when looking at camera test photos and
editing software reviews online? This probably accounts for much of
the conflicting opinions that I read. Opera browser allows me the
option to turn off resampling, that's why I use it.