Attachments

Post and discuss acoustic topics, Studio design, construction, and soundproofing here

Attachments

Postby Eric.Desart » Tue May 25, 2004 7:27 am

Added following item 7) to the rules:

    7) Attachments:
    More about this topic:
    http://forum.studiotips.com/viewtopic.php?p=3471#3471

      7.a - You want the pictures to be visible in the message itself:
      In order to prevent scrambling the Forum Layout please limit pictures to a maximum size of 660 pixels as well for the width (Landscape view) as the Height (portrait view).
      Using a width BETWEEN 660 and 800 pixels included is only allowed when the content of the picture (e.g. data tables, etc.) prevails over readability of the messages and layout of the forum.
      7.b - You need larger pictures in order to show finer details:
      Make the pictures 810 or more pixels wide. In this case the pictures will be shown as a download. When pressing the related download link the picture will be shown in a newly opened window. (It can still be useful/gentle to take users of a 1024 x 768 screen resolution, minus spare for edges, into acount)
If any of the above rules should be unclear, or the poster doesn't have the necessary software or just doesn't know exactly how to handle it, the poster can upload just ANY picture and explicitely ask for help to adjust it. The moderators will gladly help you.

2 of the best and extremely powerful graphic FREEWARE tools in existence for Windows are:
http://www.irfanview.com
http://www.xnview.com     [Also available for Mac (with some limitations), Linux and others..]
They beat most professional software in the number of file formats they can handle, and can even coop with vector formats.

They very easily allow to convert complete directories to whatever size, picture format, resolution etc.
So for people with cameras those tools can be applied without the need for individual conversion.

For individual pictures almost any Capture Tool or Picture Viewer (at least lots of them) will allow to resize those pictures and limit the resolution.

It really has no sense whatsoever to upload pictures with 24 bit colors. Browsers are VERY limited in the number of colors they can handle.
Try to avoid BMP files (very bad for the web), since they are unnecessary bandwidth consuming.
For Graphs and comparable data as e.g. Excel data tables, Excel graphs etc. GIF is the clear winner, resulting in the best quality pictures AND the smallest size.
JPG is meant, and beats GIF, for photographic purposes, but is worse for graphs, text and so on.

AND:
If one enters a picture from another site (or scanned from a book or document) which is in any way related to Copyright (and not knowing IS NOT AN ARGUMENT) the related Copyright topics as pointed out in the rules are valid.
AT LEAST THE LINK (if existing) TO THE ORIGINAL PAGE or SITE (if the page is complex to link, in which case it's explained how to get there), OR REFERENCE TO THE SOURCE SHOULD BE PROVIDED.

Best regards
Eric
Last edited by Eric.Desart on Wed May 26, 2004 6:21 am, edited 12 times in total.
Eric.Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Postby Paul Woodlock » Tue May 25, 2004 1:06 pm

620???


That's almost half the smallest 1024 w resolution? Way too small IMHO.

620 height fair enough for people with 1024x768, but only 620 wide?

Can we not have a vote on this? Even 1024 wide is small on my screen.

PAul :)
Paul Woodlock
Strange Being
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:32 am
Location: Peterborough UK

Postby Eric.Desart » Tue May 25, 2004 1:25 pm

Paul,

Sylomer does not look nicer when,

1) Acoustics Forum layout itself is scrambled.
2) I have to read your entertaining accompanying messages at the neighbors :):)
3) You confuse large with quality.
4) I have to scroll my screen to see the mouth and bottom of the Sika Primer-3 bottle.

We can always ask IDO, if he enjoys the 620 pixels (which after Dan's further message became 660 pixels), it's proof that it's OK. :)

Before judging how it looks on 1024*768 reset your resolution.
And for whatever (strange) reason HTML uses a large left and right margin next to the picture, which is influenced by the width of the preceeding column. I know this phenomenon from my own site, which make it wrongly look that one doesn't use the complete width)
We adjust to the poor members not the rich ones. :):)

But nobody stops you to use 2,000,000 pixels wide for private use :):):)

The stubborn one..... :):)
Last edited by Eric.Desart on Tue May 25, 2004 5:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Eric.Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Postby MarkEdmonds » Tue May 25, 2004 2:21 pm

For purely selfish reasons, I vote for no more than 750 wide. This is because I surf using two 800 wide windows on a 1600x1200 screen. OTOH, where the detail is necessary, bigger images are obviously better but I feel sorry for those on dial-ups.

Mark
MarkEdmonds
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:15 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK

Postby Scott R. Foster » Tue May 25, 2004 3:26 pm

Drop links for the big pics... keep the forum readable and quick loading [skinny pics].

My $0.02
SRF
Scott R. Foster
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:41 pm
Location: Jacksonville, FL USA

Postby Dan Nelson » Tue May 25, 2004 3:31 pm

I narrowed the author column 40 pixels that should help some.
Note if you need to have a large photo or drawing, to be able to see the detail you can stilll attach it however you will see a download link instead of the photo in the that case, if possible upload a thumbnail photo along the large version.
Dan
Last edited by Dan Nelson on Tue May 25, 2004 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dan Nelson
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:52 am

Postby Eric.Desart » Tue May 25, 2004 5:10 pm

Hi All

I redid testing (based on Dan's reply).
I adjusted/edited the rules and the original message of this thread accordingly.

Best regards
Eric
Eric.Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Postby Paul Woodlock » Tue May 25, 2004 6:23 pm

OK 660 it is.

As I can be rather rebellious now and again, dont worry if some of them are 661 sometimes :) :) :)

Seriously though, It's not a huge deal really. I respect the majority decision. :)

Marks says:
bigger images are obviously better but I feel sorry for those on dial-ups.


Picture size and download times aren't related. The download time dpends on the file size, and not the picture size. This is purely a monitor issue.

ON a lighter note.... I don't understands how anyone can work with 1024x768. I ditched that res about 5 years ago. Spend your life scrolling and zooming. ARRRGHHH!!!

I actually use 2 x 19" montors for music making giving a total of 3200x1200, and it's still NOT ENOUGH. I'm adding a third for the new studio.

19" monitors ( CRT ) are cheap these days.


Paul :)
Paul Woodlock
Strange Being
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:32 am
Location: Peterborough UK

Postby MarkEdmonds » Tue May 25, 2004 6:35 pm

Paul Woodlock wrote:
Marks says:
bigger images are obviously better but I feel sorry for those on dial-ups.


Picture size and download times aren't related. The download time dpends on the file size, and not the picture size. This is purely a monitor issue.


Yep, you're right - with jpgs its actually a function of compression ratio and the detail variation in the picture.

You know what I meant though! :)
MarkEdmonds
 
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 9:15 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK

Postby Eric.Desart » Tue May 25, 2004 7:14 pm

Paul Woodlock wrote:OK 660 it is.
As I can be rather rebellious now and again, dont worry if some of them are 661 sometimes :) :) :)
Paul :)


I don't...... I just delete them ........ :):):)

And I know you want to test me now ....)
The still stubborn one :):)
Eric.Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Postby Dan Nelson » Tue May 25, 2004 7:16 pm

Paul Woodlock wrote:OK 660 it is.

ON a lighter note.... I don't understands how anyone can work with 1024x768. I ditched that res about 5 years ago. Spend your life scrolling and zooming. ARRRGHHH!!!


Paul :)


I tried to put a large monitor in my laptop but it just won't fit. :)

Dan
Dan Nelson
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:52 am

Postby Paul Woodlock » Tue May 25, 2004 8:36 pm

Dan Nelson wrote:
Paul Woodlock wrote:OK 660 it is.

ON a lighter note.... I don't understands how anyone can work with 1024x768. I ditched that res about 5 years ago. Spend your life scrolling and zooming. ARRRGHHH!!!


Paul :)


I tried to put a large monitor in my laptop but it just won't fit. :)

Dan


LOL! :)
Paul Woodlock
Strange Being
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:32 am
Location: Peterborough UK

Postby Paul Woodlock » Fri May 28, 2004 12:15 am

Greetings Folks

OK, 660 was done on the last photo batch.

However, one thing that is highly annoying when posting is the unnecessary 'INFORMATION PAGE' that appears after a post is made. It's bad enough when posting one message, but when posting a batch of pictures having to wait for that page to load ( along with it's time delay ) is soooooooooo tedius.

It's bad enough on broadband, so in the spirit of being kind to those on dial-up, can I ask it be removed? PLEASE! :)

IMO there's no need for that page anyway. Those who wish to return to the main topic list can clck on the 'path' listed at the top of the page, and those wishing to return to the topic they've just posted in will be taken there automatically. BOTH of those options would be quicker than waiting for that page to be displayed.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE get rid if it.

many thanks


Paul

p.s Is it possible to increase the size of piccies that are automatically displayed to 200Kb? I've just spent a lot of time resizing them to 660, but having to make sure they are ALSO under x kB would simply discourage posting piccies further. MOST piccies that are resized to 660 will be around 80kb, but occasionally one will be a bit larger. AS wtinessed in my last piccies fest.

Even after a hard days work buildigng the studio, I'm happy to spend time preparing piccies for the diary and the benefit of the forum, but too many piccie restrictions and pointless page downloads will only ensure less piccies are uploaded. Life's too short, and I don't have a limitless supply of energy. Hope you understand :)

many thanks folks
Paul Woodlock
Strange Being
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:32 am
Location: Peterborough UK

Postby drnelson » Fri May 28, 2004 5:03 am

It should accept any file upto 2 meg, so if you would post a bmp it could be 660 wide but be over 1 meg in file size it would still display and everyone on a modem would hate you. Eric or I would then be forced to convert it to a gif.

I will look into getting rid of the info page

On a side note i found how to control the font size it should one point larger now

Dan
drnelson
Site Admin
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:18 am

Postby Eric.Desart » Fri May 28, 2004 7:19 am

Paul Woodlock wrote:Greetings Folks

OK, 660 was done on the last photo batch.

p.s Is it possible to increase the size of piccies that are automatically displayed to 200Kb? I've just spent a lot of time resizing them to 660, but having to make sure they are ALSO under x kB would simply discourage posting piccies further. MOST piccies that are resized to 660 will be around 80kb, but occasionally one will be a bit larger. AS wtinessed in my last piccies fest.


Hi Paul,

You're really overworked ....not?
Help to sort your brain a bit....
There is only ONE picture that doesn't show automatically but via a download.
This is not related to the file size.

I checked that picture:
You made it W: 660 and H: 880
In my message I said maximum Width AND/OR Height 660 pixels.

I see that you understand the Width already :):):)
Now listen very carefully ........
The Height is the Width when you FLIP your screen 90°.
Now you set your screen back in its normal position but you turn your head 90 °
What you now recognize as the Width is called the Height when you put your head back in the upright position.

Still with me? :):):):):)

So if now this 880 should become 660 then:
1) Your picture becomes automatically smaller (see the 80 kB = ca 50% of yours)
2) It will appear automatically. (see?)

Just teasing ......
Attachments
DSC03324-660.jpg
DSC03324-660.jpg (80.53 KiB) Viewed 21167 times
Eric.Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Postby Paul Woodlock » Fri May 28, 2004 2:01 pm

hehe

DOH! - OH dear, I accidentally changed the wrong dimension. :)

Smacked bottom for Paul.


btw - I used to a TV in my bedroom on 90 deg it's side, so I could lay down and watch without straining my neck :)


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Strange Being
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:32 am
Location: Peterborough UK

Postby Paul Woodlock » Fri May 28, 2004 2:03 pm

drnelson wrote:...

I will look into getting rid of the info page


COOL!!
:)



Cheers Dan! :)

Paul
Paul Woodlock
Strange Being
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:32 am
Location: Peterborough UK

Postby Paul Woodlock » Mon May 31, 2004 3:39 pm

Greetings Folks!


Any chance Windows Meta Files ( *.wmf ) can be added to the list of allowed file attachments?

wmf's are great, as they allow lots of detail (zoomable ) in a small file. :)


Paul
Paul Woodlock
Strange Being
 
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:32 am
Location: Peterborough UK

Postby Eric.Desart » Mon May 31, 2004 5:23 pm

Yep,

It's good that Dan allows vector formats as WMF, EMF, DXF, DWG etc.
For detailed plans they are better.

DAN is a MACcer. He looks down on Windows stuff :):)

And ChrisW give him some additional weapons with those Excel files :):):)
I find this the fault of Chris in fact (well meant Chris, with lots of respect for your incredible work). Something for distribution one should always make in an earlier edition of a program, not the latest edition.
Independent on whatever program one uses, if one makes something in the latest edition of a program making use of the newly added option of this edition, one asks for problems.

I still haven't seen one Excel file which can't be read in a later edition (with the exception of the old macro language), and I have at least 25000 hours Excel experience IN WINDOWS Dan.

WMF and EMF are Windows formats.

The tools I mentioned before are capable of handing those file formats.

Paul take into account that MAC users can have trouble with EMF and WMF.
I think (but must check) unless they have the one viewer also available for MAC.

For the rare ones who shouldn't know.
Vector formats store files in a completely different manner than bitmap formats.

Drawing programs as Autocad and comparable are ALWAYS vector based formats
True Type fonts are vector formats.
Etc...

They store a drawing as a definition of points as one entered them.
A line for a vector format are stored as 2 points which need to be connected.
As such by definition a vector format in completely insensitive to scaling.
It just redraws the line when viewing between the x-y coordinates he stored.

So for plans and cartoon like drawings it a very good format.

Eric
Eric.Desart
Moderator
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:29 am
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Postby Dan Nelson » Mon May 31, 2004 9:03 pm

Yep, I don't like the windows OS's at all, even if I do have one 98 machine 2-3 running 2000 and one xp. I do most stuff on my powerbook (which can run windows 2000 as well for the few times I need it.) The forum, and the test forum are on OSX boxes and the main site on linux box.
Excel came out in 1985 for the MAC the first windows version in 87

Yes we can sever wmf's however I in general prefer documents done in standards like jpeg, mpeg, txt, gifs, png, rtf since you know 15 years later when are looking for "that old document you wrote" you will still be able to open it. Microsoft on the other hand can't even decide what they are going to call their media files they come out with a new name every few years. What is a emf file? I don't think I have ever seen one

Dan
Dan Nelson
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:52 am

Next

Return to Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron