If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Sourish Basu" wrote in message news 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
HandyAndy wrote:
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. When I view my digital camera images, I view them full screen, fit to screen, without any borders/windows to distract me. Unless you have very large monitors that runs 3000x2000 resolution, you have to shrink the image. When you shrink the image, resampling takes place. Different program uses different methods to shrink the image. Using a better algorithm does NOT mean you are looking at your photos through a rose-colored glass, it actually gives you a much better approximation of how the image is supposed to look when properly scaled down to your screen resolution. With a properly calibrated monitor, one should be able to see differences in resampling algorithm, especially on some photos. I'll even say that, using a bad resampling (fast) algorithm, you are making your image worst than what it really is. 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. Well, to me, when I view the image, I want it to look its best. I DO want the "final output". I think what you are basically saying is, if you edit the image, then you better check the image at 100% view instead of relying on whatever resampling algorithm the program uses... Raymond |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Possible to Repair Canon S45 Display Screen? | Steve Goulding | Digital Photography | 1 | September 8th 04 01:07 AM |
full frame 35mm display | k | In The Darkroom | 17 | April 3rd 04 04:23 AM |