Several folks here still have dial-up connections which take awhile to load photos.
In another thread, I posted large and small versions of some pics, but the small ones were too small.
I’v attached several photos to this message:
And a message in the Sandbox has them all in the message itself: http://forums.taunton.com/tp-thesandbox/messages?msg=1062.2
TopLarge.jpg is the “origianl” at 1030×532 pixils = 326KB file size
I produced several snmaller versions, reducing to 80% in each case:
TopLarge-x80 at 824×426 p; 206 KB
TopLarge-x80x80 at 659×341 p; 135KB
TopLarge-x80x80x80 at 527×273 p; 88.4 KB
TopLarge-x80x80x80x80 at 422×218 p; 59.6KB
For folks with dial ups, which seems to be the best combo of details and download time?
(May I suggest looking at the PT valve threads and the condensation/mositure on the right pipe (at the blue arrow) for points if reference.)
Edited 11/19/2005 6:42 pm ET by rjw
Edited 11/19/2005 6:45 pm ET by rjw
Replies
I'm on high speed and downloading isn't aproblem. I still preferred the 60kb size because I could get a basic grasp of what I was looking at. If it interested me, I could then open the larger ones to get a closer look.
Praise the computer gods for high speed internet! I spent years with the dialups because I was out in the sticks. It isn't fun sometimes.
blue
136kb. looks good to me.
I've found this size as a good guide on my posting. Sometimes some mystery thing makes them a bit too big. Not often. 640x480 approx. 135-150 kb's.
It's not the load time so much as the size on the screen. I've got a 19'' monitor and sometimes you have to scroll around so much, you miss the entire picture. Then there's the goofy picture some large files produce.
A great place for Information, Comraderie, and a sucker punch.
Remodeling Contractor just outside the Glass City.
Quittin' Time
without dowloading those, I would comment that I usually save at about 720 wide for landscape views and 72 pixels per inch.I dowload 100 to 200 size, but shy away from the larger unless it seems good and important. i've even downloaded over a thousand but that is when I need to spend time on the throne in my library for a while.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Calvin,Set your screen resoultion to 1024 by 768.Go to "start" >settings >control panel >display >settings. Ther you will see a slider about 2/3 of the way down, on the right hand side. Slide that to the 1024 by 768 setting. Then tell it yes, when it asks if you are sure. Watch for the little window that asks if you want to keep the settings. Say yes again.Also, if you used Mozilla as a browser, the pics that are too large for your screen will be resized, to fit your browser window. You can turn that feature off or on. But even with it on, if you get a large pic that is resized to your screen... And you want to see it in the larger size, to get a better look at detail... Simply click once on the image.
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of coloured ribbon. - Napoleon Boneparte
this one worked best for me.. i have high speed cable
View Image
i reset my camera so my res. gives me a pic less that 100 kb
and i get large prints..
i use the same pics to blow up details for my customers in my CAD program and print them out on 24 x 36 .. or 18 x 24 prints.. the image is usually about 5x7 to 8x10
this one is 640 x 480 ( 78 kb )
View Image
luka says it's good enough for wallpaper
Edited 11/19/2005 9:20 pm ET by MikeSmith
>>Good enough for wall paper?????Heck, hang that puppy up over the wall paper!
View Image
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Edited 11/19/2005 10:33 pm ET by rjw
Bob, the point to the good enough for wallpaper comment is this...The pic is a good size, screen-wise and file size both. Easy to see, and easy on the modem.But Mike's images have another advantage over most... Pixel density.When his 640 by 480 pic is enlarged to fit my 1024 by 768 screen, it doesn't end up looking all grainy and pixellated like most people's smaller pics do.That's because for some reason, his camera is able to keep a larger number of pixels in the picture, yet still keep the file size smaller.I think I want the same camera he uses.=0)
A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of coloured ribbon. - Napoleon Boneparte
Yeah, it was a joke.Some cameras have mutiple settings for the .jpg compression; mine has low, medium and high compressionThe effects are only notice at high magnifications, and mainly along hard edges.Attached are snips from 3 pics at differing compressions, but same resolution. The top pasted clip is at the lowest compression, the bottom at middle, and the insert on the right at the highest compression. (All were taken at the same resolution, 1600 x 1200.
The differences get lost when I try to resize the compositie shot: to see the differences best, down load the image and view it at increased magnification (not increased pixel size) in a graphics program.
Look closely right next to the logo lines for the differences.The original files sizes were 848KB, 527KB and 220KB, respectively
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
Edited 11/20/2005 6:32 am ET by rjw
136kb took about 1 minute to come in. 60kb took about 11 secs w/out too much loss, 89 kb didn't seem to be any bigger, and took 18 secs. 207kb took about 37 secs and gave a clear pic.
so it's a compromise...if we need tremendous detail, 207kb and up I think, for 'ideas', something smaller.
Tho' what I usually do for pics is "right click > open link in new window" and read something else whilst waiting.
All the best...
To those who know - this may be obvious. To those who don't - I hope I've helped.
I've got my camera set to 0.3M (300 KB) for pictures I post here. Then I run it through a tool (Photoshop in my case, since I have it; Infranview would do the same) and save it as JPEG Medium. Saves as 640x480, 72 pixel. A typical picture ends up in the 28K to 38K range, and is still large enough and clear enough to see the details.
FWIW, I use PaintShop Pro. A lot more features than infraran(sp?) and a lot less $$ than Photoshop (Tough to get exact comparisons with the slew of features in the various options for both, but one version I have on my laptop came as part of Corel's Small Business Edition office suite for very little money. (Hmmm. checking prices, I see I got an amazing price when it was introduced)Info on PsP at: http://tinyurl.com/ceojwNote, there is a trial version available as well, I don't know if any features are deactiviated in the trial vesrion.
View Image
Sojourners: Christians for Justice and Peace
rudi... are those riser lights ? and what's the black thing next to one of the "riser lights ".... nice stairs !
View ImageMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike,
Thanks - it was just finished, and we're lovin it!
The step lights are from SPJ (model SPJ17-02A), 18W low voltage. I wanted to see the step but not light the whole yard.
I wondered if someone would ask about the "black thing" - no surprise it was you <grin>. That's a line for the drip irrigation. We love plants in pots but they are a PITA to water; now they will be arranged on the steps & deck and watering will be automatic.
FYI, the deck is Machichie, a secondary timber from Central America with similar characteristics to Ipe but $1.20 a lf cheaper. Finished with Cabot's Austrailian Timber Oil.
Wayne