| |
|
|
Premium Members Get Photo Album Image Load Feature
Eric, put some air in that tire.
|
|
 Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Premium Members Get Photo Album Image Load Feature
Eric,
Seeing those pix you sent me so long ago is great, and it points out two things.
First that I was very slow at putting up pix because it took me so much time to do it, and also that I was so slow that I just lost your pix.
Second that it is great to see all of the members being able to add and delete their own stuff to the board as they choose and not depend on me to do it.
Were you using the "Hunstiger Method" (MS Paint) or some other resize approach?
Dennis
TractorPoint
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Premium Members Get Photo Album Image Load Feature
I'm fairly certain that the best way to shrink pics for web use is to start with smaller but uncompressed camera images. The compression done by my camera just isn't very good. I'm certain that's true for images that use text. Of course to start with small camera images, you'd have to know the pics were intended for low-resolution screen use and accept that the images wouldn't be much good for anything else.
I've added text to full sized images and then scaled them down for screen use. Text is much crisper if I shrink the pics before adding text. In photo images, I've had apples disappear from trees and flowers disappear from pickerel weed in both printed and screen versions. They're still there in full sized screen views, but shrinking and compressing the images causes detail to disappear.
Another issue I've had with my garden variety digital camera is that the small extreme short focal length lens used seem to cause a lot of perspective distortion unless the camera angle is horizontal. Point the camera down to take a pic of somebody in a chair and the corners of the walls converge at the top. I've had to use correct the perspective with my graphics editor to keep the people looking normal and where they were living from looking like trapezoids. The solution here would be a digital camera with a 'real lens' but those sure are pricey.
Despite my 'issues' I imagine that Dennis's how to will produce perfectly acceptable images for use on the site, and the service is a good one to have.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Premium Members Get Photo Album Image Load Feature
I think I have 5 or 6 resolution settings on my camera. Knowing I was going to post the pictures here I shot on the lowest setting and still got 128 kb per picture.
I did an experiment using the lowest and highest setting to take the same picture a few seconds apart. It resulted in one frame with 122 kb and another with 1.2 mb
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Premium Members Get Photo Album Image Load Feature
i did the same, and found that its better to use lowest setting on cam for posting to site
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Premium Members Get Photo Album Image Load Feature
I'm using Paint Shop Pro, have Corel also. I tried the puter Paint program. I must be missing something real easy here. Color Depth? What setting? Like Mark said Cutters' look real good. Cutter can you tell us what/how you did it. TYPE SLOWLY! SO I CAN UNDERSTAND the process  !!!
Thanks Harvey
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Premium Members Get Photo Album Image Load Feature
I think Cutters pics have been hanging around the web site for a long time. I clicked on them and they are all 60 kb+ so they do not meet the current criteria.
Harvey, lets start with the camera. My camera has a memory card. If I use the highest quality/resolution settings the memory card only holds 12 pictures. If I use the lowest/"internet transmission" settings the card holds 70 images. So the amount of data in the images is different depending on how you set the camera.
If I try to squeeze a high resolution pic down to 30 kb it would be a thumbnail because I am reducing it from 1.2 million down to 30 thousand.
When I reduce a low resolution pic form its original 120 thousand to 30 thousand I get something the size of a postcard.
There are two ways to reduce that I know of, and I am certainly no expert. I have examples of both in my pics.
The first two are cropped. I cut the heart of the photo out and sent just the center. All of the unnecessary background was trimmed and deleted.
The last three are shrunk. The entire image is intact, it is just smaller overall. It is important to shrink horizontally and vertically using the same percentages.
If you look at Plots pics some of his are shrunk vertically only and he looks kinda squished.
The horizontal and vertical shrinkage is what I do in Paint...Image...Stretch, except I don't stretch, I shrink by reducing the dimensions to 55 percent of the original size.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Premium Members Get Photo Album Image Load Feature
Dennis;
I have photopaint and adobe but could not resize the picture but was trying to compress the files to size. Yes I resorted to Marks method after hours of play.
Eric
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
|
Premium Members Get Photo Album Image Load Feature
Mark You did an excellent job of typing slowly. Had to chuckle about shrinking vertically... I do that to the wifes pic's shrink vertically !!! It keeps me in trouble...
I guess I'll have to shoot a couple for this project and see if pixeles reduced in camera is different than software reduction. I usually carry extra flash cards so I can shot on highest quality. I never know when that shot of something special will come.
I've been resizing and reducing pixels per sq inch with software. It seems the only way. Camera is also only changing pixels per sq inch.
Thanks for shedding light on Cutters quality work.
Harvey
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
|
|
Gas Generator Weather Protecti
04-23-2003, 20:24 
Pics
Reply
Digg It 
Del.icio.us 
