CD Burner

RobS · Oct 31, 2005

Thanks Jim, those are exactly the ideas I need when I do something to the "good" PC. Yes, this one is internal and I do have a bay for it. I plan on adding it to the existing CD-ROM for copy capability.

I plugged the camera into the kids PC last night and got a message about a highspeed device plugged into a non-high speed USB port. It worked fine but did seem to take a while. I don't recall getting that message on the other computer so it must have high speed ports?

The ONLY reason these pics are on the kids computer in the first place is I had it with me over the weekend for the BIL to do some work on. He did get it working and it made a fine home for the pics I needed to clear out of the camera /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

MossRoad · Oct 31, 2005

One suggestion when archiving...

Make at least two CDs and test them in other PCs before deleting anything off the PC or camera. Then keep one CD at home and the other set at a relative's house, work, or the safety deposit box. Also, make new CDs every year. There is some question about how long the shelf life of CDs actually is and blank CDs are very, very cheap. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

jinman · Oct 31, 2005

Rob, I don't want to put a damper on your purchase, but for a few dollars more, this DVD Burner from TigerDirect for $89 would be high on my list. If the burner is as good as my LG cell phone, it's worth every penny of that $89. This one also will burn in the DVD-Ram format. That's really handy if you ever get into video.

Also, I'm not putting down what MossRoad suggested at all, but my company has been backing up data for our archives since 1995 on CD-Roms. We started when CD recorders were $2,500 for 2x burners that produced more "coasters" than good CDs. We have had extremely few failures. Making dual copies for archives and keeping your most valued CDs in an offsite location is darn good advice. We do both of those things to ensure long-term integrity of our data.

buckle97 · Oct 31, 2005

I plugged the camera into the kids PC last night and got a message about a highspeed device plugged into a non-high speed USB port. It worked fine but did seem to take a while. 

I assume since you refer to this PC as the kids PC, it must be an older machine. You get the message because this PC has the older USB 1.1 (non-high speed) ports and your camera is capable of USB 2.0 (high speed). You probably didn't get that message on your other PC because it is newer and has USB 2.0 ports. USB 2.0 will definately transfer files faster than USB 1.1.

Lawrence

RobS · Oct 31, 2005

Ahh, success. The install of the Walmart (Samsung) CD burner went well. I needed much smaller hands and better eyes (bifocals = bad) but it's in and running. I posted one pic from the weekend in the Fall Colors thread, towards the bottom of the last page.

Now I just need to automate the process of image resizing for TBN /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gatorboy · Oct 31, 2005

( Now I just need to automate the process of image resizing for TBN ) 

Give BreezeBrowser Pro a try. 30-day Free Trial.

RobS · Oct 31, 2005

I used IRfanview, resized to 640X427 and reduced the quality to 60%. That gave me a 94K image which snuck under the TBN limit. I'll be OK if that recipe works every time. One of my packages lets me save a recipe and apply it to other pics. Once I get used to it all, I'll play with that /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

jinman · Nov 1, 2005

( I used IRfanview, resized to 640X427 and reduced the quality to 60%. That gave me a 94K image which snuck under the TBN limit. I'll be OK if that recipe works every time. One of my packages lets me save a recipe and apply it to other pics. Once I get used to it all, I'll play with that /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif )

Rob, I think you can drop down to 30%-40% easily. Sometimes I go down to 20% with very little degradation. My 640x480 images are typically in the 60k range. Having said that, some images with lots of consistent colors will produce very small images, but ones with lots of subtle tones like pictures of trees and earthtones will be bigger because of the way the JPEG algorithm works. Also, if you scan a table or schematic with lots of thin lines, keep the quality high (I prefer 80%). Lines will produce compression artifacts very quickly. Actually, for tables or illustrations, I prefer PNG to JPEG.

I remember back in the "good ol' days" when TBN's limit was 200k. That was easy to make, but Muhammad's storage quickly disappeared and he had to make an adjustment to the policy. Being on a dialup, I really appreciated that drop in picture size. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RobS · Nov 1, 2005

Thanks for the tips Jim. I'm still developing the "feel" for the relationships between pixel size, image quality, content and file size. My mind wants an equation but I haven't seen one yet. Still, plenty of fun learning about it all /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gatorboy · Nov 1, 2005

( I used IRfanview, resized to 640X427 and reduced the quality to 60%. ) 

That's an interesting size ... why don't you just size them to a simple 600x400?