Image looks a bit blurry, while the original is real sharp

[Marc Profile Private message]

Hello,

I'm working with Proshow Producer 5.0.3276 and I'm having trouble producing a good looking presentation.

I want to make an executable which I want to play on my laptop. The screen resolution of my laptop is 1024x768.

Now as I am new to Proshow Producer I want to make a test, so I have a photo which I resized to 1024x768 pixels and that photo looks really sharp.

I load the photo into my slide list and choose for Publish -> Executable.

At Playback Startup I have tried the settings at Window Size: 800 x 600 and I have tried 1024 x 768
At Quality both Image as Video Quality is at 100% or Max

At Show Settings I have an Aspect Ratio : Custom 1024 x 768
and I have unchecked the 'Show TV Safe Zone"


When I now publish the show to an executable and play that on my laptop, the image looks not sharp at all. When I open the photo (which I used in the show) on my laptop it looks really sharp. So somewhere in the show the image-quality is going down.

Can anybody help me please so I can create an executable where my photos look exact the same as the are?

Thanks in advance.

[DonM Profile Private message]

Search General Discussion for "Poor Image Quality" there are a number of posts that describe the issue you are experiencing. ProShow 5 requires access to greater video card memory for higher quality when EXE runs on PC.

This is not an issue when the output is rendered into a video and then displayed.

Don

[Marc Profile Private message]

Hello Don,

I tried the search, but sometimes the English is too difficult for me to understand (especially when technical terms are used).

But on my desktop (which is new and has lots of memory) the output is blurry as well.

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

You really should not change the image aspect by editing it prior to using it in ProShow ... good recipe for problems (unless you really know what you're doing).

In Preferences | Playback, check to see that your software playback is set ti 1024x768. Now, it can be higher if you want but, it's a fallback resolution in case the GPU acceleration is not enabled. That is, the program will use this resolution to create your EXE file.

If GPU acceleration is enabled, the program is supposed to export your EXE at a high resolution. When enabled, the GPU Accelerated Rending status is given with a green bar directly beneath the section title (and say that it is enabled). If it is RED, you are using the software fallback resolution (and it will say that it is not enabled). You can force the GPU Acceleration by unchecking the "automatic" checkbox (the first checkbox of the 3) and manually selecting the next two (Enable GPU accelerated playback, and Enable GPU Accelerated previews). If you are unable to do anything to these checkboxes, your video card does not support the GPU acceleration feature.

Since you say that your computer is new, I would strongly suspect that your video card DOES support GPU acceleration. But, make sure that it is enabled. That should fix the problem.

During CREATE EXECUTABLE, Quality settings should be Image Quality = 85% or better (I'd go for 100%) and Video Quality = Max (High and Very High might also work ... but I like the best ... some people's computers, however, -- like older laptops -- might not be able to handle the volumes of data required to create a smooth playback).

You can set your playback window size to any size you would like. It has no effect upon the resolution of the final product ... just the playback size.

Now, I am not saying this will fix the problem ... but there is a good chance the problem is in this area. If it does not fix the problem, there might be another problem ...

Dale

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Since you say that your computer is new, I would strongly suspect that your video card DOES support GPU acceleration.

Reading through Dale's advice and spotting the quoted statement, I looked back at your original post, noting you were using a laptop, which may or may not have a separate video card. If it doesn't, if it's using video built into the mother board, this could be a problem. Maybe not, but it's worth checking.

Barbara

[jlwilm Profile Private message]

Another thing you can check is to launch the program, then do a Help, About ProShow.

This will bring up a dialogue box and somewhere near the bottom it will give a GPU Benchmark rating. My older XP system has a rating of 28 and will NOT produce a sharp executable. My newer Win7 system has a rating of 47 and does produce a sharp executable. Frankly I wish it were a lot higher - well north of at least 100, BUT I have also access to PSP 4 and use that for my slide shows.

One of the issues is that it is the capability of the system on which the EXE is played that will determine if the displayed result will be sharp or not. And, you never know/don't always know what that is going to be.

For my situation, I will not be upgrading anymore unless Photodex does something to fix this - and I have no reason to believe they will.

[hardsoftware Profile Private message]

My older XP system has a rating of 28 and will NOT produce a sharp executable. My newer Win7 system has a rating of 47 and does produce a sharp executable. Frankly I wish it were a lot higher - well north of at least 100, BUT I have also access to PSP 4 and use that for my slide shows.

jlwilm, By system, do you mean a laptop, or desktop? Just curious. My system is a desktop with Vista from 2007. It has a GPU rating of 127, but it does have a discreet video card as opposed to using video from the motherboard so that probably makes a difference. Can't comment much on how it makes executables since I haven't done that much at all.

Ben

[jlwilm Profile Private message]

Ben,

Both systems are desktops one from about 2004 (WinXP) and the other from 2006 (Now Upgraded to Win7Pro). The XP system is primarily for Internet access and the Win7 for Photoshop, Lightroom and other image processing stuff.

Yeah, I know, I should update, but the systems work fine for what I do, which is not gaming and not a lot of graphics intensive operations.

Oh, and both with separately installed video cards.

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

When Producer 5 came out, I ended up having problems because of the older video card I had. When I replaced it, all the problems disappeared.

Barbara

[hardsoftware Profile Private message]

I've not upgraded my system yet either. Still running a 32bit 3gb ram system instead of 64bit 12gb ram system, albeit it is a quad-core from 2007 and i've never upgraded the operating system from Vista. This thing does just fine for what I throw at it. I do some gaming, mostly adventure games though, but I do a fair amount of video editing and of course Slide shows, and I do some photoshopping without photoshop using mostly Elements version 5. Once I start doing more Hi Def video, which I haven't done yet, that will signal for me that it is time to upgrade since the rendering time for Hi Def is so much longer than regular video because of the small amount of Ram that I have. Adding Ram to this system would be useless due to it being a 32bit system.

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Ben, you'll be one happy camper when you go for a spiffy 64-bit system. I sure was. Now, instead of tapping my fingers impatiently while waiting through 10 seconds of something, I tap them impatiently during 5 seconds of something.

Barbara

[hardsoftware Profile Private message]

Barb, I will probably build my next system from the ground up. I used to do this in the early part of the last decade, and used to do it when I worked for DEC long time ago.

[jlwilm Profile Private message]

I should add that my Win7 system is a "recycled" Dell Precision 690 Graphic Workstation - with dual ZEON quad core processors, 64 bit and 10G RAM memory.

I upgraded to Win7 when I discovered that Lightroom 4 would no longer run on XP systems.

The 64 bit upgrade was really quite impressive on the performance boost for Photoshop and Photomatix, just that Old Graphic Workstation (2006) ain't what it used be!

[hardsoftware Profile Private message]

I should add that my Win7 system is a "recycled" Dell Precision 690 Graphic Workstation - with dual ZEON quad core processors, 64 bit and 10G RAM memory.

And you get less than 50 on your GPU acceleration score in Producer? That is shocking. Mine is one quad core, 3g of ram Vista unit, but the video card itself is from 2007 has 640mb of ram, hardly up to todays standard of over a gb of video ram.

I may have to try the executable experiment just to see what my unit does. If I do, I will post my results here.

Ben

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Barb, I will probably build my next system from the ground up. I used to do this in the early part of the last decade, and used to do it when I worked for DEC long time ago.

That's what I did, but I didn't put it together myself, having my tech do it for me. I bought the specific parts I wanted, and he connected everything, including his finger to one of the fans while it was running. He was careful to not bleed into the components.

Barbara