acdsee full screen display resampling quality lacking?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by nospam.photo@none.com, Sep 10, 2004.

  1. Guest

    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
    , Sep 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  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
    news:chsss1$8am$...
    > 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, Sep 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    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.
    , Sep 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Sourish Basu Guest

    > 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, Sep 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Jeremy Guest

    "Sourish Basu" <.35mm> wrote in message
    news:p.35mm...
    > > 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.
    Jeremy, Sep 11, 2004
    #5
  6. 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, Sep 11, 2004
    #6
  7. HandyAndy Guest

    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.
    HandyAndy, Sep 12, 2004
    #7
  8. 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
    Dave Martindale, Sep 12, 2004
    #8
  9. 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.


    >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.


    He's saying that, in the normal screen display mode, when both programs
    are shrinking the image, ThumbsPlus produces better-looking results than
    ACDSee - at the same resolution. The quality is not the same.
    Then he says that, if you tell ACDSee to resize the image in memory,
    actually reducing the number of pixels, it *does* do a good job of that.
    So the "image resize" operator uses a good algorithm, but the "reduce
    large image for screen display" does not.

    >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.


    What are you talking about? It's not possible to see the whole image
    at once *without* resampling it if it's larger than the screen.
    Sometimes you may have a choice between poor (e.g. nearest neighbour)
    and good (e.g. bicubic) resampling, but you've got to use some form of
    resampling. The only way to avoid it is to view the image at 100%,
    which is fine for looking at detail, but can't show you the whole image.
    And it's the quality of the resampling that is in question here.

    >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.


    Huh? What size reproduction are you talking about?

    >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.


    How would you suggest someone look at a whole image then? There are
    times when it's appropriate to look at bits of an image at 100%, but
    there are other times when it's appropriate to view it at 25% or
    whatever gets the whole thing on screen.

    >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.


    Automatic resizing in browsers is a different issue. But I'd argue that
    anyone doing critical image examination with a browser is making a
    mistake. Better to save the image, then look at it in your favourite
    image editor.

    Dave
    Dave Martindale, Sep 12, 2004
    #9
  10. Dave Martindale wrote:

    > 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.
    >
    > 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


    I would invite you to send your thoughts and ideas to
    and/or visit the forums at
    http://forums.acdsystems.com and put a post up. I will forward your
    posting to the appropriate people in ACD Systems.

    Thanks for your comments,


    --
    James Addison
    http://www.pjsoft.ca
    James Addison, Sep 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Guest

    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
    , Sep 13, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Splibbilla
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    678
    Splibbilla
    Mar 21, 2005
  2. Rindler Sigurd

    Lacking Message Rules in OE 6.0?

    Rindler Sigurd, Sep 29, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    509
    Brian H¹©
    Sep 29, 2003
  3. .
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    805
    ellis_jay
    Feb 26, 2005
  4. Canongirly
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,025
    Canongirly
    Aug 21, 2003
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    593
    Milan
    Oct 3, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page