staggerlee said:
I'll submit:
For proper audio performance, use a 300B as the regulator pass tube for the TV sweep tube output stage.
😀
AF - I sent you an email. Please respond 🙂
woody said:
AudioFreak said:
oh No! I sure hope not! There is NO reason that images posted should be over 100K. It just isn't needed for web viewing. Slows down everything for no reason at all. Just because some people here don't know how to use a camera or image software....
Do we need an image wiki?
It's really a non-issue since the full image isn't displayed / loaded with the rest of the page. Only thumbnails (typically less than 10k) get loaded with the page.
Hi Pan,
I don't entirely agree. Sometimes even a fairly small image needs huge compression to get under 100Kb and it doesn't do the subject of the photo any good. 200Kb would allow good quality... IMHO.
Simon
I don't entirely agree. Sometimes even a fairly small image needs huge compression to get under 100Kb and it doesn't do the subject of the photo any good. 200Kb would allow good quality... IMHO.
Simon
The 100K limit is OK for photos. However, I've had a heck of a time getting decent looking pdf's of schematics under that limit. At that resolution the designators are right on the edge of being illegible. Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I've tried a lot of things to improve the situation.
I'd say that at least 200K is needed as a decent minimum. 600K would be luxurious.
Graeme
I'd say that at least 200K is needed as a decent minimum. 600K would be luxurious.
Graeme
Hmmm..... looks like I DO need to start an image wiki. 😉
Rare, rare, rare is the image posted here that really needs more than 100K. Bigger than that is just a PITA.
For photos. Use jpeg - medium to low quality compression is just fine.
For graphics and schematics, use GIF. Or if you like PNG-8.
For details, use a close up!
Sorry for the OT. Pet peeve of mine.
Rare, rare, rare is the image posted here that really needs more than 100K. Bigger than that is just a PITA.
For photos. Use jpeg - medium to low quality compression is just fine.
For graphics and schematics, use GIF. Or if you like PNG-8.
For details, use a close up!
Sorry for the OT. Pet peeve of mine.
I agree in principal, and I know a lot about manipulating photos and graphics, but 100Kb is NOT always enough. I'll keep saying it 
Anything over about 640 x 480 with lots of detail will need to be over 100Kb to lot have serious compression artifacts.
A Wiki on this sounds like a grand idea.
Simon
Anything over about 640 x 480 with lots of detail will need to be over 100Kb to lot have serious compression artifacts.
A Wiki on this sounds like a grand idea.
Simon
then use an intermediary for files bigger than 100k or bigger then 1000pixel.SimontY said:I agree in principal, and I know a lot about manipulating photos and graphics, but 100Kb is NOT always enough. I'll keep saying it
Anything over about 640 x 480 with lots of detail will need to be over 100Kb to lot have serious compression artifacts.
A Wiki on this sounds like a grand idea.
Simon
But don't direct the intermediary to auto download big files.
Make it compulsory to thumbnail the big files and let the member choose which pics to download.
Cal Weldon said:
Perfect. And that's a tough one because of all the foliage detail.
It can be done. (And I may budge a bit to, say, 150K. The trouble is that most images will hit that size then, even when they don't need to.)
So yeah, we need to get working on an image wiki - it would be a good thing.
That's my front boulevard. You can see at least one neighbour running like h@ll before we fired it up. 🙂
I guess we are going a little off topic but there it was just a couple SS receivers. I now have bigger stuff and don't use the set up the same way.
Back to topic.
Back to topic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.