PDA

View Full Version : Pix Test



daron
11-27-2006, 09:40 PM
Just trying! Tulare 2006. 1919 Best (?) 75.

Daron

Northart
11-27-2006, 11:43 PM
Somehow I just don't understand the reason, for thumbnails, to an intermediate size picture of 457x343 pixels, to an expanded regular size picuture of 640x480 pixels, that does not even fill the screen.

Seems like a half a cup a coffee at the restaurant, or watered down whiskey to me.

Why jump through the hoops for the picture ????? I want the real full picture right off !

Just plumb disappointed .

Cat Spotter
11-28-2006, 12:36 AM
I'm likewise finding it a drag that we have to first click on a thumbnail, then the end result comes up as a small final photo, although Joe said he will be increasing the image size soon.

Like you, Northart, I also really miss the full size image coming up immediately, the way the old board used to work. I had some discussion with Joe a while back regarding the other ACME board, and how photos were handled using the same initial thumbnail method.

I totally understand his point for employing thumbnails, how users on a slow dial-up get bogged down when many large image files need to be loaded. However for those of us on faster cable or DSL broadband hookups, this makes it very inefficient for us having to click on each thumbnail in succession to view the full images.

My suggestion was (and is) that to be fair to both camps, the default user preference be set for thumbnails. But to provide an option so those of us on broadband could change our individual preference setting to bypass thumbnails and receive full-size images automatically.

Quality photos are a vital part of this board, in my opinion. There are some great photographers who post. Just to mention one, 98j's full-screen photos of hillside farming in Oregon are always superb. And there are so many others that I don't have space to list. You're all appreciated!

Fine tuning, Joe, just a suggestion for fine tuning. The new board is basically great. I really appreciate your efforts to date and thanks for all the hard work you've done.


- Richard

digger dee
11-28-2006, 01:54 AM
Me too. Can I also request we get full size pictures straight away. Thats is one feature I preferred in the original BB over the 'antique caterpillar machinery enthusiasts' site.

OzDozer
11-28-2006, 03:29 AM
It comes back to how much the ACMOC bosses are prepared to spend on bandwidth.
It's alright to demand big pics, up front .. but when the bill arrives for the massive bandwidth that has been used up, with everyone and his dog, posting huge pics .. and huge numbers of pics .. of every show they've been to .. the tune might change .. particularly if ACMOC increases its annual membership fee, to cover the bandwidth charges.
I seem to recall, this was a huge sticking point, not so many years ago, on a former ACMOC BB setup.

The simple fact of the matter, is that most BB hosting companies want big $$$, for any sizeable amount of bandwidth used .. and big pics, combined with big numbers of pics .. use up bandwidth, in a big way ..
I agree that the big pics are great .. and the biggest single reason for them .. is showing details on the likes of parts pages.

However, the bottom line is .. for a few extra clicks, you can store huge pics on photo-hosting sites, for no or very little cost .. and you can store thousands of pics for long periods.
I've used ImageShack for nearly 2 years now, and never had a single problem, with hosting them on that site, and linking to the ACME BB.

The ACMOC membership and bosses had better put their collective heads together, to come to some agreement about how much they wanna pay to store the thousands of big pics that will get posted .. and lot of those ACMOC BB stored pics might not meet every ACMOC members approval.
At least if they're stored on some photo-hosting site, it ain't costing any ACMOC member a red cent.
After all, hundreds of thousands of people selling on eBay, myself included, use these photo-hosting sites, every day of the week, and find the arrangement works just fine.
Just my .02c worth for today .. whether you're in agreement or not .. :)

Cat Spotter
11-28-2006, 07:12 AM
My major point on my above post was wondering if a feature can be added to the BB so those who chose can access a personal preference setting which can be voluntarily changed to allow for full-size images appearing without thumbnails.

That way thumbnails are left in place as a default setting, so users on slow dial-ups can pick and chose what to download.

If that feature could be implemented, seems like it would help everyone.

The issue of hosting bandwidth is a whole different thing. On the old board, I always hosted my own images myself, as it made for far faster and easier uploads, plus saved bandwidth on the ACMOC server.

- Richard

King of Obsolete
11-28-2006, 07:21 AM
plus the full picture kills the dial up users. when i was on dial up, i used to click on and walk away. could never click on anything by swishy.

thansk

gwhdiesel75
11-28-2006, 07:39 AM
King - I thought you were still on dial-up. How are you getting the www today? GWH

gwhdiesel75
11-28-2006, 07:43 AM
BTW Richard, I think you have a good suggestion. I'll pass it on to Joe.

You always know where OzDozer stands on things! I don't know how much extra bandwidth costs - I assume that OzDozer is correct. However, if necessary, ACMOC might cough up more $ for this project for bandwidth. But let's see how things go first. We know that it will take some time to modify the board to meet the preferences of the users. This was always part of the plan. Thanks for your comments.

GWH

Joe_Black
11-28-2006, 07:57 AM
We're good on bandwidth from the server-end. The thumbnail decision is based on the fact that the bulk of visitors to the old tractors sites are still on dial-up. This may not represent the majority of posters but it does the majority of visitors.

The suggestion to make it a user choice is a good one, and at the time it was made at ACME there wasn't a way to do this. Perhaps with the new version of the forum software it may be or there could be a mod out there to do the same thing. I'll look into it.

While I appreciate any and all suggestions here, please keep in mind that here I take my direction from ACMOC proper and George outlines above. ;)

Old Magnet
11-28-2006, 08:11 AM
You guys are missing the point completely here, or at least half of it. The thumbnail and limited size picture is useless for scanning readable materials that are so often requested. Check the posts on the D6-9U blade and the D2 radiator. If you can read those scans you have better eyes than me and I for one have no intention of running hundreds of archived files through Imageshack just to make up for a cheap approach to bandwidth. Course if all you want to show is tractor pics then go for it.

Walt66A
11-28-2006, 08:31 AM
I think I can give an opinion from both sides. At work, big pics are no problem, because we are on high speed. But at home, I hate them because it takes forever to load on the dial up. I skip a lot of them, because I don't want to wait all night for a large number of pics to load. For me, the thumbnails are nice, because I can pick out which ones I want to see full size.
I'm sure the problem of full size pic size will be addressed, once the fine tuning is done.
As far as switching back and forth to see the thumbnails, my cure for that was to go to Mozzilla Firefox for a browser. That way, I can load several pages at once, in tabs. I love it!

Joe_Black
11-28-2006, 11:03 AM
You guys are missing the point completely here, or at least half of it. The thumbnail and limited size picture is useless for scanning readable materials that are so often requested. Check the posts on the D6-9U blade and the D2 radiator. If you can read those scans you have better eyes than me and I for one have no intention of running hundreds of archived files through Imageshack just to make up for a cheap approach to bandwidth. Course if all you want to show is tractor pics then go for it.
I'm in agreement with you OM on your point, but you can get effectively readable scans at 640X480. I will be upping the limit to 800X600 very soon, but if the scans aren't legible at 640X480 the next step up isn't going to help much. Unfortunately there are so many different ways to get a scan from the page to an upload that it's difficult to produce a one-all-be-all tutorial, but you just have to play with your technique until you find what works.

No worries with bandwidth though, we've got plenty and currently aren't even scraping 3% of what's available. At ACME the site hasn't ever exceeded 14% of available bandwidth, and ACMOC has the same type of hosting plan.

gwhdiesel75
11-28-2006, 12:06 PM
Of course I'll help Joe any way I can to serve our readers and posters. We will just have to see what changes you folks desire, and compare with what is doable. GWH

Old Magnet
11-28-2006, 01:33 PM
Thanks Joe, I believe the 800 by 600 will work ok. Will experiment and try some out later.

Old Magnet
11-28-2006, 01:52 PM
Joe B,
Why can't the picture size be the same as it was on the old ACMOC BB where the width was best at about 750 to 800 but there was no restriction on the length. Very common to have a document run up to 1000 in length like when posting instructions or specifications for example. These documents will become quite distorted when compressed in height. Best to consider this now if there is going to be any chance of building archives.

Joe_Black
11-28-2006, 02:00 PM
Hmmm... I'm used to each page being a separate image, so haven't considered the idea of making one long image with several pages on it. I can think of some negatives (from an administrative aspect) so will need to look into that, and of course present a pro/con argument to the powers that be if we're to consider that here.

Thanks for the insight!

Old Magnet
11-28-2006, 05:28 PM
Joe,
Not talking about trying to get multiple pages on one long page, I'm referring to some pages requiring more than 480 or 600 in length to get one full page. Nothing new, that's what the old BB had......when it worked. I don't see what the big deal is or why the previous configuration can't be left as is. What happened to the auto-resize option ??. That could be used to keep the huge oversize pics in check if need be.

D4Jim
11-28-2006, 07:51 PM
I agree with OM that it would be advantageous to allow greater picture lengths in posts. It would be especially helpful for scanned pages from manuals and books that are typically "taller" than they are wide.

Kelly
11-28-2006, 09:22 PM
Am in agreement with OM on the sizing of the pictures, especially on the subject of instructions and specifications.

Delta Dirt
11-28-2006, 11:30 PM
Understand where Magnet is coming from on the length----but I have checked the "properties" (right click mouse---click on Properties) on some of the thumbnails and am finding a wide variety in size in different postings.

For instance on the radiator post---I had scaled the scan down to roughly 600x450, but when I posted into the radiator post thumbnail, I came out with a 100x66+/-. In checking the properties on some of these thumbnails---I am getting a much larger size thumbnail (and a much larger picture when enlarged). Apparently----we ain't all going through the same process of preparing the picture for posting. Anybody got any ideas on what the differences are???

I looked at the Image Shack and Photo Bucket programs----probably gonna be best for my old worn out brain to stick with the browse thumbnails---even if I can't read them. (think my "upstairs" clutch is slipping more and more each day)

Ready (and easy) access of archived information definitely needs to be the long range program for the board to be shooting for. If its easy to upload into archives---it will get uploaded and saved. If its a pain in the ass---very little will get transferred into the archives. Then one day, the old codger with all the information house burns, or he happens to "catch the train" and the treasure chest of information and knowledge is long gone forever.

I definitely am not complaining or criticising what we have here now, but while we are discussing the subject, I hereby urge the ACMOC leadership to support Joe Black's needs and recommendations to fully develop this new board so as to maximize archived information capabilities. It will benefit us now and many more users for the future.

Delta Dirt

Old Magnet
11-29-2006, 09:45 AM
Well said DD,
Which brings up a question for GWH and his offer of support.
GWH, as spokesmen/liason for ACMOC and manager of this project, it would help if you would share the vision and direction for the new BB.
What are the plans (long & short) for archieving materials, both written and pictures? How will space for hobby related advertisers be handled? How about a listing of sources for much needed parts and services?
Is anyone keeping track of and implementing the many fine suggestions that have been discussed so many times? What do you anticipate the BB will look like say two years from now?

Without a common vision and direction we are all fishing in the dark and wondering what to expect.

So far the biggest improvement I see in this new BB is it's reliability plus it is getting JB's attention. Well done, but I would like to see a "world class" operation and for that to occur we need to be sharing common objectives, goals and vision. Amen:D :D

Frank Fox
11-29-2006, 04:25 PM
I like it, keep up the good work, I see improvements every time I come to the forum. Thanks J.B.
Frank Fox

Old Magnet
11-29-2006, 08:01 PM
Thanks Joe,
The 800 x 1200 pic size and 293kb file size should take care of it.

Test

Hmmmm...my computer says this pic is 786 x 1037 with a 188kb file size
It should be larger and clearer than what I got?????

Old Magnet
11-29-2006, 08:57 PM
Joe B,
Something is not right here. I posted the exact same picture on the old BB and it comes out larger and quite legible. What gives?????

OK, got it!!!! I didn't see the magnification + symbol on the first pass. Looks good.

Al Letts
11-29-2006, 09:07 PM
Well

When I C a picture I like, I save it on my drives. Then it's my responsibility to have it however long I want it. From time to time I dump picture file folders to CD's.

Web hosting isn't too expensive these days and storage isn't either. Check a PC magazine for what the large scale houses are charging and compare that to what the ACMOC membership brings in yearly.

Al

Kelly
11-29-2006, 09:08 PM
Let me try this one also.


What you think, boys?

Joe_Black
11-29-2006, 09:09 PM
Joe B,
Something is not right here. I posted the exact same picture on the old BB and it comes out larger and quite legible. What gives?????

OK, got it!!!! I didn't see the magnification + symbol on the first pass. Looks good.
LOL, yeah that gets a lot of folk. And here I went to all the trouble to show they were same! :D

Delta Dirt
11-29-2006, 09:58 PM
Kelly & Magnet---

Looks good to me----I believe that dog will hunt Joe (and thanks).

Delta Dirt

Northart
11-29-2006, 11:37 PM
See how this works

Northart
11-29-2006, 11:43 PM
Trying again

Old Magnet
11-30-2006, 07:58 AM
Hi Art,
Looks good to me. We'll call it the bicycle lane:D :D

Northart
11-30-2006, 01:31 PM
Still want to know, why we have the 3 step picture viewing process.

1st Thumbnail.
2nd Then intermediate picture
3rd The Expand picture to regular size


The final picture is great, but what is the purpose of the intermediate (TEXT Pix, the ones by Kelly and OM ) blurry one ??

Trying another : Huh this one stays the same.

Guess I'll quit trying to figure out why and just accept the process.

Joe_Black
11-30-2006, 03:18 PM
Still want to know, why we have the 3 step picture viewing process.

1st Thumbnail.
2nd Then intermediate picture
3rd The Expand picture to regular size


The final picture is great, but what is the purpose of the intermediate (TEXT Pix, the ones by Kelly and OM ) blurry one ??

Trying another : Huh this one stays the same.

Guess I'll quit trying to figure out why and just accept the process.
The 2nd and 3rd "steps" are a feature of Internet Explorer and has nothing to do with the forum here. The idea is to "squeeze" big photos down to where you can quickly view them, and by hovering your mouse over the photo you then get the enlarge icon. You can turn this feature on and off within Internet Explorer by going to Tools > Internet Options > Advanced > Multimedia and then there's a check-box by "Enable Automatic Image Resizing". Just uncheck that box and click Apply and you'll go straight to the full-size image. :)

Delta Dirt
11-30-2006, 04:47 PM
NorthArt---

Hope you are making progress with the photo program----but regardless of your "progress" or "confusion", thanks for the "camel in the parking lot" picture.

I passed this on as a "safety tip" to my son who travels alot working off shore siesmic----right now they are in dry dock in Bergen, Norway. With a safety tip like that----he might win a safety award from the company.:cool: :D

Delta Dirt

Northart
11-30-2006, 11:04 PM
Hello JB & GWH,

Finally making some progress, with your answers ! The Computer Insitutionalized language seems to be the key to understanding WHY ?

This is worse than 5th,6th,7th,8th,9th, grade English, which I have a better command of;than some so called modern college grads , Thanks to my Teachers , Ann Lundmark, Viola Olson, Victor Voelker !

Just check out the local newspapers and the Journalistic reporters ?? Now even the Internet ! Can't even spell !

Funny how I thought they were, so mean and strict, which turned out to be for my ultimate good !

Funny how the picture program worked good on the previous BB ??

The confusion is not on my part ! I have never seen an explanation as to WHY ! Till now.

Soooo ! I assume now, that you realize the importance of the final product for the viewer, user, customer, member, etc.

That is the way I view it, not caring for the minutiae.

bruce oz
11-30-2006, 11:16 PM
hello northart ,here is a pic post help page from swishy from the other side ,it is the same way to post pic here ,hope it helps ,bruce oz



swishy pic post help page - http://www.antiquecaterpillar.net/ACF_v2/showthread.php?t=650