[startrek76]

Conditions:
Operating System: Windows 98 Second Edition.
Archetecture: Pentium 366, BX-chip set, 256 mbytes RAM.
Hard drive: 40 GB, 31 GB free, no known bad sectors.
Pointing device[s]: MicroSpeed Trac Ball or Logitec optical mouse.
Graphice Editor: Ulead Image Pal 2.0
Image Editor, V 2.0b
Video card: NVIDIA TNT2 Model 64 (32mb video RAM)


I have got a problem which is driving me crazy. It involves the mouse and E-X-A-C-T positioning of the cursor point on the screen. And yes, it also involves graphic processing programs. A lot times with "*.jpeg" files one might want to modify them, add a strip of color, repair a "ragged" part of the jpeg, any of a lot of things. The core problem is that 80% of the time, no matter what I do, I cannot get the cursor to line up with the specific pixel [or group of pixels] I want to affect. the cursor will "jump" all around the spot I want. Up, down, right, left ... everywhere but where I want it. I use a MicroSpeed "PC-TRAC DeLuxe" an no matter HOW miticuliously I try to be in the minipulation of the ball, when I try to get fine resolution of the cursor point, I get the jump-phenom.

Do I need a higher resolution on the trac-ball?
Do I need another graphic editor?
Do I need to trash my PC and buy a MAC? [Aarggh! Not a viable solution!]

Can someone please suggest solutions to this "jump-skip" problem?

Thank You,
Rick in Los Angeles

[slipe]

Do you have another mouse you can try? You want to first eliminate the trackball.

You could go to your mouse in control panel and reduce the sensitivity. You can also right click on a blank spot on your desktop>Properties>Settings and move your hardware acceleration down one notch. That corrects some mouse problems in SE.

If the mouse jitters in other applications I wouldn’t think it has to do with your editor.

[startrek76]

Dear Slipe,

"Eliminate Trac Ball" .... ok, its history.
"New mouse" .... ok, I've broken open my last reserve Logitec optical mouse and attached it.
"Reduce <!!??!!> sensitivity." Well, er uh, THAT I don't understand, but "DONE".
"Go down one notch in hardware acceloration in mouse/control pannel" OK, done.

Both mouse and trackball behave normally in all other applications. It is only the graphic editor that has the problem, and of course the ONLY application where percision control is necessary <8-(.

Results of all modif cations = zilch, no change in the jitter in editor or degration of function in other applications.
Do you have any other graphic editors you can reccommend?

Rick in Los Angeles

[slipe]

“And yes, it also involves graphic processing programs”

“Both mouse and trackball behave normally in all other applications. It is only the graphic editor that has the problem”

It is a lot easier to try to help someone who knows what their problem is. I answer one and you change the problem. The hardware acceleration is not in the “mouse/control panel” BTW - read my previous post. But I don’t think anything I said is appropriate if you have a normal mouse except in a single program.

I suggest you uninstall and reinstall the graphics editor. Try this freebe and see if you have the same problem: http://www.freeserifsoftware.com/ser...x.asp?ref=&SP=

[Rockn]

Mice and trackballs were never meant to do graphics development because they aren't very acurate to begin with. If you want better accuracy and response from your mouse dump the ball driven mouse and get a USB optical mouse. There are no profession graphics designers that will ever use a mouse for design because it is hard to manuever and it is inaccuate. Any designer worth a damn will use a graphics tablet...expensive, but well worth it.

[startrek76]

Dear Sllipe and Rockn,

Thank you for your help.
Slipe: I have ordered the CD which has this graphics editor software. Thank you for the URL.

Rockn: A graphics tablet. Wow I wish. I'm on SSA, I have about $100 of discretionary money a month. If I remember
correctly GT's run between 300 [for a tiny one] and 1,000 for a 12x12. I don't think I can handle the savings program for that.
Thanks for the idea though. Maybe I can locate a used one.

[GwizJoe]

I agree with what everyone has suggested for you,and I have a couple suggestions myself,and perhaps a valuable question,or two for you.

???1.To begin with,why edit a .jpeg file?
As a compressed image,they are not very accurate.Can you copy the images you edit into your editing program as a .tif or bitmap? They are MUCH more accurate for a "working" image,then convert it over to a .jpeg for final publishing.Granted the files(.tif and .bmp) are much larger,but it looks like you have plenty of space to store them.And MOST editors can work with both formats.
Note:Heaven forbid saving a .jpeg as a .jpeg,that compresses it even more. (yuck!)
???2.What magnification levels have you tried in your editor?
I have often had to go up to 5-6 hundred magnification to get a pixel-by-pixel editing task done.With an 800x600 resolution setting on the monitor,you can't hardly miss a pixel block that is a 1/4" square.
???3.Speaking of monitor rez... What have you got? And what is it set at?
If you are developing images that are for internet display,you may want to look closely at how you have your system set up.Since the vast majority of the internet is developed at a 800x600 rez size,I always suggest matching your monitor settings to that.I realize that some out there with 15" monitors don't have much for options on this,but most people these days run at least 17" CRT monitors,or LCDs of comparable size.
Higher resolutions may be great for gaming,but are pretty much worthless for web developement.

I can see from the equipment you are using that this isn't high-level graphics developement,so I'd be most concerned with just the program you use.Ulead makes some fine stuff,but may not be the best for what you are doing with the equipment you have available.
I might suggest getting a download of MicroSoft's ImageComposer.It is no longer supported by mS and is distributed freely in several places.A basic meta-search will find it for you,here's one:
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/M..._Download.html

And for an image viewer/converter,I always suggest the Irfan Viewer.It is an amazing tool for anyone from a beginner to professional.
http://www.irfanview.com/

And "yes",tablets can get pretty pricey and I don't ever suggest one to anyone unless they have very deep pockets.At work,I use a 30"x40" plotting pad...,it costs about double the price of the workstation it is attached to(maybe more,I didn't ask,I don't want to know).

I don't know if this helps,but best of luck!
Let me know if you have any other issues with this stuff...

[slipe]

Originally posted by GwizJoe:

???1.To begin with,why edit a .jpeg file?

Welcome to TSG.

I would imagine that 95% of images from digital cameras are jpg. Even with cameras that can take tif the images are often taken as jpg. A 5Mp tif is 14.4Mb where a high quality jpg is about 2Mb, which is a big consideration if you don’t have extremely large memory cards for the camera. High quality jpg from a good camera is hard to tell from tif even at extreme blowups. The Minolta 7Hi started a new trend that several have followed in introducing an extremely high quality jpg – about quality 12 which is the highest. I think previous to that “high quality” was about a 9, which is still quite good.

I use raw as much as I can with my Minolta, but there are times I use jpg for cycle times. My 5Mp Oly will only do various qualities of jpg and tif, with tif impractical for my 256Mb memory card. So all of the shots are highest quality jpg.

Since most people start out with jpg files that is what they edit.

[GwizJoe]

Thanks for the "Welcome", slipe...

Yes,I am painfully aware of the digital camera thing with .jpeg images.But I guess if you want good pictures on a small storage device,you gotta' take what you can get.So,.jpeg is the obvious choice for that solution.

Like I said,I run at a 800x600 rez most of the time,so I am used to getting files that I can only "see" about a quarter of a 100% image (unedited) on my screen.I see that happen with camera images and scanner images as well.I should have suggested that they be cut down(resampled) to something fully "visable",first...,then edited.
But,I guess that all depends on what the image is being used for as a final product.

Good point though...