Loss of image quality in power point

[OFN]

Has anyone some input as to my suspicions that Power Point degrades image quality
if used as a slide show to present ones photography?

Thanks,

Oskar F. Neuhold

[pnodrog]

Unless you set the image quality power point automatically compresses the image.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-nz/po...010355184.aspx

[GrahamS]

Powerpoint is designed for graphics. There are better ways of presenting a slide show.

[Manfred M]

Powerpoint was designed to be a presentation tool for businesses, so while images (and other graphics) can be inserted into a Powerpoint presentation, the quality of the images is good enough for business presentations, but certainly not good enough for photo presentations. File size and load time are much more important than image quality. I would be totally surprised if Powerpoint is colour managed. The same thing goes for other Microsoft tools; these are primarily tools that businesses used to communicate.

I am working on a Word document right now, with lots of images and graphics and am much more concerned with conveying information, rather than wowing the readers with quality images. If I want image quality for slide shows; products like Adobe Lightroom, After Effects (if you want really funky transitions), etc. as well as other third party software manufacturers have far better tools.

[OFN]

Gentlemen, thank you for your replies. I suspected as much, but needed a second opinion.

Oskar F. Neuhold
http://adaossi.smugmug.com/

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Oskar,

Whatever method of sequencing is used, you really need to build the show with duplicate images (of the originals) that have been downsized and re-sharpened to achieve sharpest results.

The downsizing needs to be to the pixel resolution of the screen or projector that will be used for any presentation - I would advise against using the full size images, because that will leave some other software or screen driver downsizing for you and it is unlikely to sharpen.

I have no experience with projectors, but know from my experiences here that it is important to match file resolution to screen (or projector) resolution for best results, common (DLP) sizes seems to be;
800 x 600
1024 x 768
1280 x 800
1920 x 1080
1920 x 1200

Please note I am talking about pixel dimensions, do not get sidetracked into physical dimensions and dpi figures, they are unhelpful for this issue.

After the downsize, to sharpen, I'd suggest using USM at say 90% (amount), 0.3px (radius) and 0 or 1 threshold.
Although these figures may need adapting to your image content and how much cropping occurred (i.e. how much downsizing was actually needed).

Good luck with whatever it is you're presenting - and welcome to CiC.

Cheers,

[OFN]

Thanks Dave,
your advice is spot on and of benefit to anyone visiting this tread. I have found it to be frustrating having to deal with
photo clubs using projectors to critique images. Getting instructions like, "down size to 1000pix on the long side" for submitted images and such nonsense, is the start of a bad experience when looking at the projected images one has submitted. Unless the image is not re sized to the exact pixel dimensions of the projector, some software will do re sizing to fit the image. A degradation is certain, the degree depends on what software is used to view the image. Having images shown using power point is just one more nail in the coffin of image degradation.
Adding to your advise (the content is familiar to me and practiced by me), I would like to point out the importance of a calibrated monitor and projector.

It's all about manipulating pixels, from the time you push the trigger on your camera to the time you see them on the projector screen. If one is not careful, one starts with clear water and winds up with mud.

Good Light!
Oskar
http://adaossi.smugmug.com/

[jcuknz]

There is nothing much wrong in resizing to 1000 or perhaps 1024 pixels across .... the problem comes when the judge stands close to the screen, or the audience. It is like a newspaper ... you do not pixel peep a press photo .... and viewing from too close is a form of pixel peeping. I have read of ridiculous set-ups like an eight foot screen in a average sized living room and the guy was complaining about lack of IQ

We regularly see excellent shows at the clubs I belong to but the secret is not to sit in the front row ... which amuses me when I see the distinguished leading members sit there like they used to when the norm was prints and slides Projected digital images should be viewed with a similar angle of view as a print, perhaps the diagonal of the screen minimum.

Couple of other sizes for you Dave ... ..1620 x 1080 and 1450 x 1050 .... thank goodness we have got rid of 1024 x 768 not that people notice any difference when viewed from a proper distance, which was the argument put at me when I was advocating for an increase from 1024x768

I never give a file that has not been resized for the projectors in question which was the origin of my irritation of the two clubs using the above standards, both in the same town GHU And these days meeting in the same hall ....