Photography - acdsee full screen display resampling quality lacking?

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

PhotoBanter.com (http://www.photobanter.com/index.php)

- 35mm Photo Equipment (http://www.photobanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - acdsee full screen display resampling quality lacking? (http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=12492)

[email protected]

September 10th 04 07:47 PM

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

James Addison

September 10th 04 10:57 PM

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

James Addison

September 10th 04 10:57 PM

James Addison

September 10th 04 10:57 PM

[email protected]

September 11th 04 02:11 AM

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.

Sourish Basu

September 11th 04 06:12 AM

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

Jeremy

September 11th 04 01:55 PM

"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.

James Addison

September 11th 04 07:38 PM

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

James Addison

September 11th 04 07:38 PM

Dave Martindale

September 12th 04 07:17 AM

writes:

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.

It sounds like ACDSee uses nearest-neighbour resampling for quickly
resizing too-large images. I still use ACDSee Classic, and it certainly
does just that. While this might have been a good choice when the
typical computer had a 100 or 200 MHz CPU clock, it produces a number of
nasty artifacts, and is a poor choice today. With today's CPUs, it
makes sense to use a resampling algorithm that filters the image
properly while resizing it.

Irfanview gives you the choice of either method, and that's why my
default image-opening application is Irfanview, not ACDSee. Although it
takes a little longer for Irfanview to calculate a properly-resized
image, the result is often much better looking and worth the wait - even
on my ancient PIII-700.

On the other hand, when browsing through a directory full of images, I
still use ACDSee because its one-image read-ahead helps a lot, and when
I'm looking at lots of images the quality of each one isn't so
important.

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...

Another interesting case is Photoshop. Years ago, Photoshop used only
nearest-neighbour resampling for screen display, but it tried to
display at sizes that used integer downsampling ratios (25%, 33%, 50%)
to minimize effects like discontinuities in diagonals. Then at some
version Adobe introduced the "image cache", which is really a image
pyramid, several copies of the same image resampled to several smaller
sizes. Photoshop uses this for displaying reduced-size versions of the
image when it can, giving cleaner-looking results that are more
representative of how the image would look if you really reduced the
image to that size.

Dave

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:45 PM.

Page 1 of 2

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page