Front Bucket mod, 50" bucket out of a 60"

[dfkrug]

Just wondering about my pics, I like to put pics in every post, it's so easy now not having to resize or go thru host photo site.

Just wonder if everyone's browser resizes them, I know to large a pic is a pain to have to scroll thru. my browser resizes them to fit the screen, if I click on them they expand.

I know you did not ask me, but I thought pix as big as yours (over 1MB)
were over the TBN max limit.

They do take a long time to load, and my main browser (AOL9.1, based on IE)
shows them as 4x the area of my 19" monitor. I do have the new IE8, which
does shrink them if you ask it to, but I wonder how many use that browser,
or another one that does that. I post lots of pix, and I shoot for a full
screen view on a std 17 monitor (75KB-100KB).

Anyway, nice job on the FEL bkt.

 

[Leejohn]

I just stopped looking at the big pictures, just take to long to load when you only have dial up. Sure wish we could get hi speed without spending so much for the hookup.

 

[mars1952]

I know you did not ask me, but I thought pix as big as yours (over 1MB)
were over the TBN max limit.

They do take a long time to load, and my main browser (AOL9.1, based on IE)
shows them as 4x the area of my 19" monitor. I do have the new IE8, which
does shrink them if you ask it to, but I wonder how many use that browser,
or another one that does that. I post lots of pix, and I shoot for a full
screen view on a std 17 monitor (75KB-100KB).

Anyway, nice job on the FEL bkt.

I prefer large hi-rez pictures. I run the FireFox browser and the pictures are automatically resized to fit in the browser window. I hate it when posts have pictures resized down to slightly over sized thumbnails. How can you see how something is built when the pictures are so tiny?

When I resize my pictures for posting I never go smaller than 800x600 pixels. It does not matter what size the monitor is. What matters is the resolution the operating system (Windows) is set at. Almost no one has their Windows set to less than 800X600. I have my Windows set to 1920X1200 and a 800X600 picture looks very small. The best way to post a picture is to get a free account at Village Photos, Photo Bucket or something similar. Then you can post thumbnails in your TBN post and the large picture show up when the thumbnail is clicked. That way the post loads quickly but the hi-rez picture is there for anyone that wants it. Here is an example of a Village Photo thumbnail link:

Marshall

 

[LBrown59]

Thanks MossRoad,

Just wondering about my pics, I like to put pics in every post, it's so easy now not having to resize or go thru host photo site.

Just wonder if everyone's browser resizes them,
I know to large a pic is a pain to have to scroll thru. my browser resizes them to fit the screen,
if I click on them they expand.

JB.

That would not be so bad If that was the only post it effected but it screws up everybodys elses post in the thread.

 

[dfkrug]

It does not matter what size the monitor is. What matters is the resolution the operating system (Windows) is set at.

You set the monitor to a particular resolution on Windows computers
using the display setup tools or the video card software.

Most of us now have displays that are 17" or greater in diagonal
measurement and run XGA (1024x768) or SXGA (1280x1024) resolution.
There are some mighty big monitors out there now, for very low prices.
I run a 4:3 aspect ratio 19" monitor at SXGA resolution and the pix I post
fill a very good portion of the screen at native resolution. A good picture
editor will allow some control over the compression features of JPG images,
so a fairly large photo at native resolution on a 19" SXGA monitor can be
well under 100KB. I usually go for about 900x900 pixels. This photo is
1050x489, but is only 52KB. I have reduced the compression to its
lowest level using Adobe Photoshop Elements 7. Clearly, what I do
would not be acceptable for decent prints, but I virtually never print
any photos (and I do save the originals in case I want them later).

As for the best place to post photos, I am not a fan of the free posting sites,
though many people use them. The problem is more than just the ads.
The terms of "free" use can change at any time, and your photos will be
deleted after some period of not accessing them. I think Photobkt is 3
months, but I have not checked lately. The best place could be your own
web space, provided by your ISP. But not if you frequently change ISPs.
TBN has been around a long time, and no forum I use provides better
photo posting tools. I have been a lurker at TBN since 2000, and a poster
since 2004. I think TBN will be around for a while. Other forums have
no way to upload your own photos...you are often forced to link them to
some website where they are posted. My current ISP, Verizon,
provides 5MB of space for free, and web-based upload/editing tools. For
more space, I could pay a fee. I once had web pages on AOL's "hometown",
but they were all deleted when that service went away.

 

[Kubota 2350]

Hey dfkrug

Someone stole your 3 Pt Hitch!

 

[JB4310]

That would not be so bad If that was the only post it effected but it screws up everybodys elses post in the thread.

I thought I was posting them as thumbnails, and only when someone clicks on them would they expand.

I'm using the standard IE8 browser and even when I click on the thumbs they open just to fit the screen, if I click on the opened pic then it expands to full size and requires scrolling around to see all of it.

I have a cheapo 4MP camera now, what's gonna happen when I get a 10MP? which is all they sell now.

JB.

 

[dfkrug]

I'm using the standard IE8 browser and even when I click on the thumbs they open just to fit the screen, if I click on the opened pic then it expands to full size and requires scrolling around to see all of it.

I have a cheapo 4MP camera now, what's gonna happen when I get a 10MP? which is all they sell now.

JB, your pix come thru as way too big here, requiring the scrolling around
you describe. My cheapo DSL ISP takes longer than necessary to see them,
too. Pretty much anyone left with dialup is totally left out.

There are easy photo size reducers out there, if you do not want to use a
photo editor. Note that Windows even has one built in for quickie emailing
of photos....just right-click on a photo and hit "send-to" and "mail recipient".

As for the 10MP cameras, the high max total resolution is totally wasted,
unless you like to print giant blowup photos. Go to the "setup" menu on your
camera and lower the resolution or photo size. Many newer cameras allow
you to crop on the camera also, in Review mode.

 

[mars1952]

You set the monitor to a particular resolution on Windows computers
using the display setup tools or the video card software.

Actually if you want to argue semantics, you set the video card with the operating system. The video card then sends the signal to the monitor and the monitor will display the images if it is able. Most monitors are auto switching.

I am sorry that I did not express my point more clearly. You said:

I post lots of pix, and I shoot for a full
screen view on a std 17 monitor (75KB-100KB).

My point was that you have no way of knowing what resolution the 17 monitor is displaying. It could be anything from 800X600 to 1600X1200. Consequently you have no way of knowing if you have filled the screen.

As for the 10MP cameras, the high max total resolution is totally wasted, unless you like to print giant blowup photos.

I agree that 10MP is wasted if you only want to post pictures online (at least right now). But hi-res pictures can be cropped and the resulting image will still be pretty good. If you start with a low-res picture and then crop it you end up with a fuzzy picture.

TBN has been around a long time, and no forum I use provides better photo posting tools. I have been a lurker at TBN since 2000, and a poster
since 2004. I think TBN will be around for a while.

I pretty much agree with you here. However, one thing you might want to consider is that in 5 years when technology has more than doubled the low-res pictures posted today will still be here and most computers will be displaying 1080P (or higher) like mine does right now.

I think what I will do from now on is to post two sets of thumbnails. One set for low-res pictures stored on TBN within the TBN limits and one set for high res pictures stored elsewhere.
Good Luck, Marshall
P.S. I am following and enjoying your John Deere 4300 complete rebuild
post.

 

[dfkrug]

My point was that you have no way of knowing what resolution the 17 monitor is displaying. It could be anything from 800X600 to 1600X1200. Consequently you have no way of knowing if you have filled the screen.

I agree that you do not know, but you can safely bet that it is not below
800x600 (SVGA), and that is getting rarer. It is hard to even find new
monitors that are less than 17" anymore. But more and more people use
laptops as their main computer, and those screens are usually less than 17".
You can assume, based on computer sales, that the middle of the bell curve
is a 17" monitor, running at 1024x768. (That is only my estimate, and there
are still tons of old monitors out there, as well as those gargantuan 24-
inchers.) You are correct that 5 yr from now resolutions will be higher.

As for the ultra-high res cameras available today, you don't have to use
even half of their capabilities to make sharp cropped photos. Can you
even BUY cameras with only 8MP anymore? I sometimes use full res on
my 3.2MP camera, but on the my 8MP camera? No way. More of an issue
is how they handle less-than-ideal lighting conditions and auto ISO
settings.