# Image Quality Loss with iDVD



## Cocoburner (Jan 12, 2008)

I recently created a slideshow using images from a recent trip on iDVD for some friends to watch on their big screen tv. I'd never used the software before and though I liked how easy it was to put it together, I was far from impressed with the image quality. Quite bad, actually. Slideshows in iPhoto are FAR superior.

The images were in large file jpg format. From what I understand, iDVD compresses the images to a much smaller size that a standard TV screen can handle. Is there any way around this? For example, if I save my images in a .tiff format, and then import them into the program, will the image quality be better?

I'd like to know how to improve my image quality before spending another DVD and, especially, a lot of time on another project.

Hope someone can give me some advice. 

Thanks very much in advance


----------



## shoe (Apr 6, 2005)

try setting it up using 16:9 settings


----------



## Cocoburner (Jan 12, 2008)

*16:9*

I'll give it a whirl and see if it makes a difference.

Cheers!


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*Try this previous thread...*

http://www.ehmac.ca/anything-mac/49818-idvd-slideshow-resolution-question.html

I believe you'll never get the same quality as you get on your computer using iPhoto or anything else but FotoMagico is a great application to use and allows you to maximize your resolution as much as possible when burnt to DVD. Don't forget your blowing up your images even more from computer screen to that nice BIG TV screen, so they'll be some degradation of image quality.


----------



## a7mc (Dec 30, 2002)

To those suggesting using 16:9, I'm curious why you would suggest that? 16:9 in iDVD is anamorphic, which means it's the SAME resolution as 4:3, but stretched to 16:9 ratio. There's no extra pixels, it's still the same resolution, and it covers a wider area. If anything, the quality would be worse (stretched pixels looks worse than native).

Why does it look better in iPhoto? Because you're seeing the full resolution images. iDVD will compress to standard definition resolution PLUS you have interlacing to deal with (which is why the images could appear to be "flickering"). You have resolution compression (down to 720x480), PLUS Mpeg compression (which is crappy), PLUS interlacing = crappy.

That's why iMovie likes to add the Ken Burns effect... the slow zoom minimizes the effect of jaggies from low resolution and interlacing.

A7


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

i used idvd for a slideshow...once. never again!

fotomagico is the way to go. great app and great quality. sure, it won't be as good as the originals, but i haven't experienced any flickering and my cilents have yet to complain.
cheers,
keebler


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

*I didn't see any lost of quality...*



a7mc said:


> To those suggesting using 16:9, I'm curious why you would suggest that? 16:9 in iDVD is anamorphic, which means it's the SAME resolution as 4:3, but stretched to 16:9 ratio. There's no extra pixels, it's still the same resolution, and it covers a wider area. If anything, the quality would be worse (stretched pixels looks worse than native).
> 
> Why does it look better in iPhoto? Because you're seeing the full resolution images. iDVD will compress to standard definition resolution PLUS you have interlacing to deal with (which is why the images could appear to be "flickering"). You have resolution compression (down to 720x480), PLUS Mpeg compression (which is crappy), PLUS interlacing = crappy.
> 
> ...


between the 4:3 and 16:9 on a DVD with my 42" widescreen TV. I did one slideshow (same pics etc.) on Fotomagico as 4:3 and then again as 16:9. No difference. Would that be because of Fotomagico?


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2008)

with NTSC video you just don't have a lot of resolution to play with so using tiff's wont really help matters any, not to mention the fact that the video is also interlaced. For best quality I would suggest avoiding motion with the pictures and have them show in a static position. Introducing motion+interlacing+lossy formats == bad quality thats much more noticable. Just my opinion.


----------



## Cocoburner (Jan 12, 2008)

Thanks for all the replies. I'll have to noodle around with different settings and see what I can come up with, taking all this advice into consideration.

The DVD I made had no motion. Just photos and audio. I'll do some more reading, and will continue to watch this thread.

Again, thanks all.


----------

