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
|
|||
|
|||
Very disappointed with ACDSee 7 image display quality!!
I posted a message a few weeks ago about the lack of image display quality with ACDSee 6.0 compare to ThumbsPlus and Photoshop album. At the time, someone from ACDsee kindly posted a message saying 7.0 will be released soon and it contains updated image display routine. So finally 7.0 have been released. I was very excited and downloaded it and tried it. Much to my surprise, the "improvements" in image display quality seems to be rather insignificant and the image display quality still pales in comparison to ThumbsPlus 6/7 and Photoshop Album. In fact, I don't see any difference between ACDSEe v6 and v7. How do I judge image quality? I usually view my image in full screen mode, fit to screen, kind of like what you see when you do a slide show. With ACDSee, some of my images appears soft compare to what I see in ThumbsPlus. If I resize the actual image to my screen resolution, then the resized image matches what I see in ThumbsPlus, and is noticibly sharper than what ACDSee displays with the original image using the new "bicubic" resampling method. Which makes me wonder, is it really bicubic? Or did they just change the option name? Picture is worth a thousand words, so I will post one example where the difference in display quality becomes quite apparent. http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~chiry/...82300_0128.jpg http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~chiry/...128_resize.JPG The picture itself is rather simple, I think the focusing could've been a little better, but it does show the difference rather well. 1. download both images into an empty folder. 2. using acdsee 6, 7, or whatever version, set to full screen mode, fit to screen, and view both images. (If your screen resolution is not 1027x768, then you need to resize the original image to whatever screen resolution you have using acdsee) 3. now, press space bar and toggle between the two images. The difference in sharpness is very apparent. Pay special attention to the pearl like necklace and the wood chips next to the lady's foot. On the resized image, the necklace appears noticeably sharper than what ACDSsee renders with the larger image. 4. now do the same with ThumbsPlus, you will see that there's no difference between the display quality of the two images. I am very disappointed, what ACDsee uses for image display resize is obviously not bicubic resampling, or some cheap version of it (?). Come on ACDSee, you cannot spend all your time on adding (useless) extra features while make no improvements in the core display engine!! It frustrates me most that when I use ACDSEe to actually resize the image, it does look pretty good. Raymond |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
writes:
Picture is worth a thousand words, so I will post one example where the difference in display quality becomes quite apparent. http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~chiry/...82300_0128.jpg http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~chiry/...128_resize.JPG How are you displaying these? The "resized" image is 768x1024, not 1024x768. Neither one will display at 100% without cropping or resampling on a 1024x768 screen. On my machine, the full-size image actually looks better using ACDSEE 2.43 (the "Classic" version). My screen resolution is 1152x960, and when displayed in normal mode with title bar and status bar, the full-size 1200x1600 image gets resampled to exactly 600x800, 50% scale. The 2:1 resampling ratio gives a nice clean-looking image despite the program using cheap nearest-neighbour resampling. The smaller image is displayed at 78% scale, which does not give a nice integer resampling ratio, and there are jaggy edges in the roof, the pearl necklace looks like it's a string of mismatched sizes and colours of pearls, and the ground under her feet simply appears weird. Using Irfanview instead, both images appear identical on screen. (I have the "Use resample function for fit-options and full-screen mode" box checked). Basically, Irfanview can be told to use the same algorithm when downsizing for screen display as it uses for permanent downsizing of images, while ACDSEE 2.43 (and 7, by the sound of your report) uses a faster but poor-quality downsizing for screen display. Because of this, I use Irfanview as my default single-image display program, even though it takes a while on my P3-700 system. ACDSEE's image quality is simply unacceptable for any sort of critical viewing. On the other hand, I use ACDSEE to browse a whole directory full of images; its ability to load and decode the next image while viewing the current one speeds up the process a lot, and I prefer its user interface. I'd really like to be able to use ACDSEE for everything, but will not as long as its screen display quality is inferior to other programs. It made sense to use "quick and dirty" nearest-neighbour downsampling when PCs had 25 MHz and 200 MHz CPUs (and Irfanview still does that by default). But when many people have 2-4 GHz CPUs, they really ought to be able to use some of that CPU power to get good-looking screen images. Irfanview allows you to choose that (with a further choice among several different resampling filters), but it seems ACDSEE does not yet. Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
James,
Can you help me with the following problem. I have asked this newsgroup before, but no ones the answer. After several editing sessions using the ACDSee 6.0 editor I ended up with several pages in the TIFF image file. How do I delete the pages that I don't want. There is nothing in the manual about this. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LCD monitors | Nostrobino | Digital Photography | 111 | August 30th 04 02:50 AM |
ACDSee 6 image help, PLEASE | Howard | Digital Photography | 1 | August 22nd 04 09:05 PM |
digital cameras and flash = poor image quality?? | michaelb | Digital Photography | 25 | July 3rd 04 08:35 AM |
still image quality | paul flynn | Digital Photography | 1 | June 28th 04 11:07 PM |
compacts with SLR image quality??!??? | Bandicoot | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | June 17th 04 06:56 PM |