PUBLIC ADVISORY: Pictures

Photoshop! Image>Image size; increase the resolution (from std. say, 72 to ~150 pixels/inch) then resize the image. This prevents the loss of too many pixels during the resizing process. Care must be taken that you do not produce the world's first 20M postage stamp.

Oh yes, when saving .jpg always select highest (12) quality (the tiny bubbles or sparks might be really important on this forum).

Hope that helps,


O3

[Edited on 28-1-2007 by Ozone]

I know I'm guilty of this; I'll sort it out sometime soon. I've been meaning to get them off of image shack anyways and upload them onto SMDB, (I'll need chemoleo's help on that one )

Resizing Pictures and Image Editing How To

I use L-View Pro 1.D2/32. Old, and small. A shame it doesn't do bilinear (or other) filtering on scaling.

A popular freeware program is Irfanview, which I think is available for most OSes.

Incidentially Woelen, I use MS Paint for my electronics schematics.

Tim

I have a 19" high resolution monitor , 1920 x 1440 , .20 mm dot pitch , but it is entirely beside the point what resolution capability you have , when as a general rule by far the conventional web browsing is setup for 800X600 resolution desktop setting , as that is the best tradeoff for legible size of printed material , in mixture with images . 800X600 is just pretty much the screen size selected for general use . But remember that is the total screen real estate in full screen mode , and the actual available viewing area within a normal displayed and framed page is only a smaller box , displayed as an active portion of that 800X600 pixel space .

Here is what 480 pixels wide looks like .



Here is what 500 pixels wide looks like . See how the image
is just approaching the limit of the borders for the frame in which the text is appearing ?

<-----------------------------------------------text formatting width----------------------------------------------->



As you can see the text formatting width is at 500 pixels ,
and then the word wrap should occur for the next line .

Posted images are not clipped at the 500 pixel width limit
so that is what screws up the text formatting , where posted images appear in the same "box" as the text .

Another formatting problem is due to the message reply box not being at the same 500 pixel width setting so that its behavior in word wrapping follows precisely that behavior as the displayed message when it is posted . Everybody bitches at me for my strangely formatted messages , when it isn't my fault at all .....but the screwed up forum software ,
which can't match the word wrapping that is done in the reply box where the reply is being typed with what occurs in word wrapping that is actually displayed .


[Edited on 29-4-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

These fellows must be wearing lenses the thickness of
coke bottle bottoms

Me , nowadays I navigate mostly by smell .

You sound like you are about as blind as I am
We need a jewelers loupe to read our wristwatch

I use 1.75 for onscreen reading , and 2.25 for printed material , even more for fine work on IC's and such .

One of the uses of the large monitors is so that farsighted old people can sit back farther and focus
at a lower diopter ....right ?

W3C compliance supposedly makes a lot of problems disappear , as it displays an adaptable page which provides good viewing for a range of maybe 3 or 4 different resolutions upwards from and including 800X600 .

http://www.w3.org/WAI/ut3/eval/

Indeed it is the height of folly from a technical standpoint
to be viewing a 19" highres monitor at 800X600 because
of software based rendering limitations . But when it comes to M$ , you don't get whatever you thought was so great that was being advertised . Bill's too cheap to hire the best and do it right . That's why it is perpetual
patch and fix and new versions , mostly trying to get it right what wasn't done right in the first place . Windows
is the never finished work in progress modeled after
Howard Hughes spruce goose . It flies just in time to
be superceded by the next version , and then you wait for that to fly right the first time too , observing a vicious cycle that is a money transport from your pocket to Bill's The entire rest of the computer industry follows
the same template .....racketeering gone high tech .
Inkjet printer cartridges are a glaring example of a deliberately crippled technology . Reminds me of that
old Steppenwolf song " Pusher Man " .

The resolution issue is also about user AGE , and old eyes , combined with the lack of entirely flexible and convenient font sizing selection in a stepwise manner being provided by many OS's still in use , nearly as old as the users and their old machines ......tens of millions of which are still in everyday use . If the native capability of the OS was what it should be , it would accomplish the same function of the accessibility magnifier seamlessly and automatically , without having to invoke it as a special tool .

I don't get one operating system fully tweaked and
customized to my liking before M$ comes out with a
"new improved" OS .....which until it is in SP3 isn't
generally worth a damn anyway and could be called
a public beta .....until the next time for an upgrade ,
which would probably be more honestly called SP3 .
What incarnation of NT is Vista anyway #9 ? , and will the
new M$ OS's start having roman numerals when they run out of catchy promo names ?

The problem you speak about of not using the monitors capability is OS related . Hell , I haven't even looked into
XP , or even WinME , much less the current bendover BF from M$ "Vista" to see if seamless font scaling is available
without a registry hack . You would think that capability
would be a "DUH" no-brainer for *ANY* OS costing
>$200 as a native capability . One certainly should be able to select fonts on an incremental numerical point sizing , as opposed to merely "small" or "medium" , ect. But M$ in its infinite wisdom hasn't set it up that way .
You can select it that way within word processing apps ,
but not across the entire GUI as a universal setting .
If there's a fix I don't know about there , please tell me
and I'll go up to the 1024X768 , which is almost there
for me but not quite , because of the text size diminution
even at the largest text size setting .

Hey I don't like it either ....I don't even like still running
Win98 as a base OS on my main drive , and XP on a
boot select ( along with a few tens of millions of other people)....but I'll do that until hell freezes over ,
before I'll spend $10K on "upgraded" OS specific software
every time that a new round of obsoleted good software
is made legacy status by the next offering from Fisher Price .....er , I mean microshaft . The software cartel
can sell it somewhere else .

DOS , like rock and roll ( and Linux ) is here to stay

And think about all the portable stuff out there now ,
where the resolution is definitely an issue without some sort of adaptive scaling , because of the small screens
on PDA's and the like or even notebooks . Going too high
on webpage resolutions will cause real headaches there .

[Edited on 8-5-2007 by Rosco Bodine]

I think the problem is more than just the browser .
A WC3 compliant web page does fare better than the
others , and probably causes fewer browser crashes as
well as rendering more legible pages .

I have a search and destroy program which will actually
do a non-MS approved complete removal of IE to allow
for a clean reinstall or replacement . I think they call it IEradicator .

A couple of warning dialogs appeared while I was resizing things , saying that some of my programs would not display properly with the contemplated resolution
and other changes , giving me a dialogue confirmation to abort or proceed , a sure sign that the machine doesn't like what is being done and will only change if dragged kicking and screaming . Anyway I chuckled
when I saw the go/no-go dialogue warning , and thought
what programs exactly was it that might not display properly ....maybe programs like Winblows and Internet Explorer to name the first two of all the programs on the machine , none of which would later display properly ?
Sometimes those dialogue warnings have a gift for understatement ! And on the other hand sometimes they are total BS like an unsigned driver warning when there is only one driver ever written for that particular hardware ....so then what else , but ignore the warning and proceed .

I use imageshack for convenience, as it'll autoresize to forum format. But now I'm writing up photo essay style posts, I am bothered about how long they'll host them for, and will start using the sites own host.

I've used gimp to resize. I'm not sure, but I think it can do batch processing. If not, there's likely a plugin that'll do it. And it's free.

If it's too dark, washed out or the colour balance isn't right, Gimp is handy to clean up a photo quickly. One option I particularly like is to go to 'levels' under (I think) colours on the toolbar, squeeze the side bars in to the edges of the spectrum in the photo, then slide the mid bar around to get it how I want it. Makes a piece of shit look remarkably edible.

For example, I took this fairly standard image of Sarah Jessica Parker


And exposed to the gimp mechanism to get this


[Edited on 11-7-2010 by peach]