rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
* Running OS X on my PC!!! - 15 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
* simple question...maybe - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/25aaf8517adc4c7e?hl=en
* Now Children....Re: Anything for the Perfect Shot - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
* APS Advantix Scanner Advice Needed - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/003124f6f660709a?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 5:20 pm
From: George Kerby
On 6/22/09 5:22 PM, in article
v4mdneoDxo6vmd3XnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
<larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
> nick c wrote:
>
>>> I voted for Obama and would do
>>> so again in a heartbeat.
>>
>> You wouldn't be alone. There are many people (about 52% of the voting
>> public) who have displayed little respect for the office of the
>> president. How else can one explain Obama being elected when so little
>> is know about him or his ambitions.
>
> Because everyone knew that McCain is just another Bush. Funny how all these
> people now say they haven't voted for Bush. Obama has made so many strides
> in getting us back on course.
>
To total disaster.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Running OS X on my PC!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bb50fbf2b3ff2f37?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 5:29 pm
From: George Kerby
On 6/22/09 9:23 PM, in article
dfSdnQu3rOgxod3XnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
<larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have something
> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>
> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
Rita, you are right up there with NavASS as being nominated as
Kook-of-the-Month! Keep up with stuff you know about, like your
cross-dressing, OK. You have demonstrated your trolling more than enough
already.
== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 5:30 pm
From: George Kerby
On 6/22/09 10:08 PM, in article h1ph35$tgd$1@news.eternal-september.org,
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
> Larry Thong wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>>>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>>
>>> yeah, that's an intelligent move for folks who are mostly
>>> photographers!
>>
>> At least PC users are smart enough to do it.
>
> Of course, many are, but won't. And a lot aren't smart enough. Mac users
> have no edge in the cretin category, nor a very big one in the genius
> category.
>
>> So what you are effectively saying is Mac users are dumb mindless idiots
>> that are nothing more than appliance operators. At least PC users know how
>> to get around their system. If you don't know the basic nuts and bolts of
>> your computer you shouldn't be allowed to use one. How do Mac users fix a
>> problem, other than upgrading to the next level of proprietary hardware?
>
> What eloquence! What provocative statements.
>
> Bored?
He got tired of playing with his dildos.
== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 5:36 pm
From: George Kerby
On 6/22/09 10:22 PM, in article
2009062220220929267-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2009-06-22 19:23:21 -0700, "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> said:
>
>> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
>> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
>> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have something
>> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
>> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
>> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>>
>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
>> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
> Rita,
> Over the years the headers of your posts have consistently demonstrated
> your use of MT-NewsWatcher for Intel Mac.
> I understand you have this propensity for making provocative statements
> from time to time, mostly with tongue in cheek humor.
> You have demonstrated a method of installing and running OSX on a PC
> and that is just fine.
> Since there is OSX software you prefer to run over Wintel or Linux
> versions, the question regarding your venom aimed at Mac users is
> puzzling. This especially since there really is no sense of superiority
> amongst us "Mac idiots". Many of us use Wintel machines in other
> environments, and choose to own & use Macs as our machine of choice for
> our own reasons, just as you have chosen to run OSX on a PC. The "sense
> of superiority" you claim is a Wintel user perception
> You are somewhat hypocritical when it comes to a "sense of
> superiority", you make a point of letting us know whenever you have
> made your next extravagant upgrade within your 18 month plan, detailing
> your purchases and trumpeting the superiority of your current
> equipment. (...and I certainly envy your D3x, D3 and vault of Nikkor
> lenses, my lowly D300 not withstanding)
> Many of us here have always accepted your contributions as humorous and
> at time instructional, however with this post you have managed the
> intructional and insulting as matched pair.
>
> Also, nowhere in any of the current debate have I noted any of the "Mac
> idiots" making claims of Wintel PC idiocy for any present in these NGs
> not using Macs or like you, bright enough to run OSX on their PC.
>
> So if you want to continue running OSX on your PC that is fine, even
> though you make it obvious, based on your Nikon/Nikkor purchases, the
> purchase price of a Mac Pro is well within your means.
> Just note that not all of us "mac idiots" are actual idiots, just as
> not all of the "Wintel PC idiots" are actual idiots.
I told you and Tony a year ago that "Rita" was a kook troll and you said I
was wrong. Nowwhatjasay?!?
== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 5:38 pm
From: George Kerby
On 6/23/09 12:04 AM, in article igo045ljro49n5pgu566t6im3mqqi2egi2@4ax.com,
"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:08:45 -0700, John McWilliams bit:
>
>> What eloquence! What provocative statements.
>>
>> Bored?
>
> Trolled?
>
> :)
>
Exactly...
== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 5:43 pm
From: George Kerby
On 6/23/09 8:59 AM, in article 230620090659467270%rag@nospam.techline.com,
"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <a9ydnZY1bqJk1d3XnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@supernews.com>, Larry
> Thong <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
>
>> There's no need for PC users to take a few extra steps to load OS X when
>> Windows XP does just fine and is much more secure and user friendly.
>
> Are you on drugs or what? Compare the number of viruses for XP (I can't
> count that high) compared to the ones for OS X (NONE).
>
>> Just trying to find out what makes the Mac so special and what
>> differentiates it from a PC? I'm really not seeing a difference here other
>> than you Mac guys get to pay an overpriced premium on the same hardware.
>
> What makes the Mac special is that dumb fucks like you don't buy 'em.
They don't have the money, or the common sense to understand value of the
difference between a Pinto and a Lexus. So they go through life angry and
envious.
Fuck 'em I say...
== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 5:45 pm
From: George Kerby
On 6/23/09 9:04 AM, in article 230620090704213763%rag@nospam.techline.com,
"Mr. Strat" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> In article <q-GdnUS09PSMXN3XnZ2dnUVZ_oRi4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Somehow it seems to me that if OS X really were all that much better
>> than Windows XP, then Apple would sell it for the PC. They don't, so
>> what does that tell you?
>
> It tells me that you don't know shit.
>
> Apple is a hardware company.
But people that hate Apple cannot understand that. Marketing is beyond their
pea-brains' grasp.
== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 6:22 pm
From: Ron Hunter
John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:10:40 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
> <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in
> <48361f09-8ae7-4e3e-b2b3-fd3c469839d9@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> On Jun 23, 12:35 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Annika1980 wrote:
>>>> Why not just download the latest version of Windows?
>>>> http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/05/windows-7-rc-free-to-download/
>>> Because it's a time-bombed beta copy?
>
> And has to be removed before installed the release version!
> So you have to start over from scratch. What were they thinking?!
>
>> According to Microsoft the software has the following quirk:
>>
>> "Starting on March 1, 2010, your PC will begin shutting down every two
>> hours."
>>
>> Only every 2 hours? That's better performance than what I'm getting
>> with XP now!
>
> Then you have something wrong. On decent hardware XP will run reliably
> for months at a crack, restarted only for updates.
>
My experience has been that unless you try to work with very bad
software, WinXP needs a reboot only when the power goes off, or the
monthly upgrade cycle (second Tuesday) occurs. I did have a crash today
on my Netbook when I tried to install Microsoft's Live 3d software.
Guess the graphics card on the Netbook isn't up to the task.
Then there was the case of the Dell driver.....
Sigh.
== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 6:36 pm
From: "Larry Thong"
Chris H wrote:
>>> yeah, that's an intelligent move for folks who are mostly
>>> photographers!
>>
>> At least PC users are smart enough to do it.
>
> The average PC user is not smart.
Don't count on it, a PC user invented the Mac.
>> So what you are effectively saying is Mac users are dumb mindless
>> idiots that are nothing more than appliance operators. At least PC
>> users know how to get around their system. If you don't know the
>> basic nuts and bolts of your computer you shouldn't be allowed to
>> use one. How do Mac users fix a problem, other than upgrading to
>> the next level of proprietary hardware?
>
> I regularly upgrade parts of Macs (we run both Macs and PCs here)
You're better selling it off before upgrading
== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 6:36 pm
From: "Larry Thong"
Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's
>> sake Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>
> Then why are you using a Mac? The header on your posting gives you
> away.
Huh? I think you have me confused with someone else?
== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 6:36 pm
From: "Larry Thong"
Savageduck wrote:
> In that case he would be glad to know I am typing this response on the
> keyboard of the all metal case of a MacBook Pro 17.
> Though it makes you wonder if his plastic keyboard is going to be able
> to sustain the abuse he puts it through.
You gotta admit that machining that thing from a solid block of aluminum is
a cool idea.
== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 6:42 pm
From: Aratzio
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:36:29 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> got double secret probation
for writing:
>
>
>
>On 6/22/09 10:22 PM, in article
>2009062220220929267-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
><savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-22 19:23:21 -0700, "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> said:
>>
>>> It's amazing how all these Mac idiots are still trying to hold onto a false
>>> sense of superiority by thinking they have something better. Even the same
>>> band of lame mindless idiots we have in this group think they have something
>>> better. Funny thing is ever since Apple went Intel they now only have cute
>>> and funny Mac vs PC commercials to beacon to the mindless sheep into buying
>>> overpriced hardware. Enough of that.
>>>
>>> Anyway, here's the simple way of running OS X on a PC. For Christ's sake
>>> Windows XP kicks ass so there's no reason to run OS X.
>>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/20/macosx_on_a_pc/>
>>
>> Rita,
>> Over the years the headers of your posts have consistently demonstrated
>> your use of MT-NewsWatcher for Intel Mac.
>> I understand you have this propensity for making provocative statements
>> from time to time, mostly with tongue in cheek humor.
>> You have demonstrated a method of installing and running OSX on a PC
>> and that is just fine.
>> Since there is OSX software you prefer to run over Wintel or Linux
>> versions, the question regarding your venom aimed at Mac users is
>> puzzling. This especially since there really is no sense of superiority
>> amongst us "Mac idiots". Many of us use Wintel machines in other
>> environments, and choose to own & use Macs as our machine of choice for
>> our own reasons, just as you have chosen to run OSX on a PC. The "sense
>> of superiority" you claim is a Wintel user perception
>> You are somewhat hypocritical when it comes to a "sense of
>> superiority", you make a point of letting us know whenever you have
>> made your next extravagant upgrade within your 18 month plan, detailing
>> your purchases and trumpeting the superiority of your current
>> equipment. (...and I certainly envy your D3x, D3 and vault of Nikkor
>> lenses, my lowly D300 not withstanding)
>> Many of us here have always accepted your contributions as humorous and
>> at time instructional, however with this post you have managed the
>> intructional and insulting as matched pair.
>>
>> Also, nowhere in any of the current debate have I noted any of the "Mac
>> idiots" making claims of Wintel PC idiocy for any present in these NGs
>> not using Macs or like you, bright enough to run OSX on their PC.
>>
>> So if you want to continue running OSX on your PC that is fine, even
>> though you make it obvious, based on your Nikon/Nikkor purchases, the
>> purchase price of a Mac Pro is well within your means.
>> Just note that not all of us "mac idiots" are actual idiots, just as
>> not all of the "Wintel PC idiots" are actual idiots.
>
>I told you and Tony a year ago that "Rita" was a kook troll and you said I
>was wrong. Nowwhatjasay?!?
I'd say you are a whining douchebag with a propensity to
overcompensate for a small dick.
== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 7:31 pm
From: Annika1980
On Jun 23, 7:14 pm, ribbit <rib...@news.group> wrote:
>
> If you pulled Photoshop from a torrent, it's pirate software. You have
> to go looking all over again if you want an OSX version of it. Ask Bret,
> he know all about stolen images and pirated Photoshop.
That is a bald-faced lie! I have never in my life downloaded a
pirated copy of Photoshop for the Mac.
== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 7:38 pm
From: John Navas
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
<annika1980@aol.com> wrote in
<416e773a-665d-4806-aeba-081364eef466@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 23, 7:14 pm, ribbit <rib...@news.group> wrote:
>>
>> If you pulled Photoshop from a torrent, it's pirate software. You have
>> to go looking all over again if you want an OSX version of it. Ask Bret,
>> he know all about stolen images and pirated Photoshop.
>
>That is a bald-faced lie! I have never in my life downloaded a
>pirated copy of Photoshop for the Mac.
Funny how you included the caveat "for the Mac". ;)
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 7:40 pm
From: Annika1980
On Jun 23, 3:09 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Only every 2 hours? That's better performance than what I'm getting
> > with XP now!
>
> Then your machine is busted.
Well no shit!
>Most likely candidate is defective RAM, next most inadequate cooling.
I would list inadequate cooling as #1. Most of my probs are thermal-
related, usually when the fins in the CPU fan get clogged with dust or
Divot's cat hair.
My machine usually only crashes when I am doing video work like
rendering files in Premiere or Adobe Media Encoder. Not totally
unexpected given that it's a very old 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 machine maxed
out with 4 GB RAM and an old AGP graphics card.
Hopefully, I'll be able to get a new Core i7 machine soon.
Then I'll be able to do some serious video work with the Fab 5D2.
== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 8:13 pm
From: ribbit
Annika1980 wrote:
> On Jun 23, 7:14 pm, ribbit <rib...@news.group> wrote:
>> If you pulled Photoshop from a torrent, it's pirate software. You have
>> to go looking all over again if you want an OSX version of it. Ask Bret,
>> he know all about stolen images and pirated Photoshop.
>
> That is a bald-faced lie! I have never in my life downloaded a
> pirated copy of Photoshop for the Mac.
>
Good one Bret.
What about that crack you got to make your demo copy run as a bought
one. Does that not count?
--
==============================================================================
TOPIC: simple question...maybe
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/25aaf8517adc4c7e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 5:32 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
Nicko <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote:
>At what resolution do you save photos that you show people on the web?
[...]
>I'm having a hard time deciding what I should use as a default. I have
>been using 96ppi, because that's a compromise between 72ppi (way too
>coarse) and 120ppi(files too big?), which is the native resolution of my
>19" monitor, but will the larger dimensions of photos annoy people who
>are still running monitors at 72ppi on smaller screens?
Wrong question to ask. DPI/PPI is totally irrelevant for photos (unless
scanned) until they are displayed on a physical device like a monitor or
paper.
Rather think in size, expressed in pixel X pixel.
600X800 is a common size for web pages. It is old, and I don't think
there are still many people using monitors that small, but it has become
kind of a smallest common denominator.
For standard use when I don't expect people to zoom in or to print
photos 1024x768 is a nice compromise between load time and level of
detail.
I use larger sizes only for special purposes, like giving someone access
for printing or zooming in on details.
>that bandwidth is of much of a concern, but correct me if I am wrong
>(how many people are actually still using dialup service?).
That depends. Finland for example made a large effort a few years ago to
get every citizen high-speed internet access while I just read yesterday
that Kenia is getting its first high-speed access this week.
Anyway, even with DSL I don't like to wait for a web page to load.
Either it is there within 10-15 seconds or I'm gone someplace else.
Research has shown that on avergage 5-8 seconds is the maximum load time
people are willing to tolerate. Longer than that and they become
frustrated.
jue
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 5:44 pm
From: Nicko
Jürgen Exner wrote:
> Nicko <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At what resolution do you save photos that you show people on the web?
> [...]
>> I'm having a hard time deciding what I should use as a default. I have
>> been using 96ppi, because that's a compromise between 72ppi (way too
>> coarse) and 120ppi(files too big?), which is the native resolution of my
>> 19" monitor, but will the larger dimensions of photos annoy people who
>> are still running monitors at 72ppi on smaller screens?
>
> Wrong question to ask. DPI/PPI is totally irrelevant for photos (unless
> scanned) until they are displayed on a physical device like a monitor or
> paper.
> Rather think in size, expressed in pixel X pixel.
> 600X800 is a common size for web pages. It is old, and I don't think
> there are still many people using monitors that small, but it has become
> kind of a smallest common denominator.
>
> For standard use when I don't expect people to zoom in or to print
> photos 1024x768 is a nice compromise between load time and level of
> detail.
>
> I use larger sizes only for special purposes, like giving someone access
> for printing or zooming in on details.
>
>> that bandwidth is of much of a concern, but correct me if I am wrong
>> (how many people are actually still using dialup service?).
>
> That depends. Finland for example made a large effort a few years ago to
> get every citizen high-speed internet access while I just read yesterday
> that Kenia is getting its first high-speed access this week.
>
> Anyway, even with DSL I don't like to wait for a web page to load.
> Either it is there within 10-15 seconds or I'm gone someplace else.
> Research has shown that on avergage 5-8 seconds is the maximum load time
> people are willing to tolerate. Longer than that and they become
> frustrated.
Thanks for the advice, people. I *think* I have figgered this out. In
any case, the general agreement about using pixels as the unit of
measurement seems like solid advice.
And in my experience I agree with you, Jürgen, about load time.
Cheers!
--
YOP...
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 6:20 pm
From: "Frank ess"
ray wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:19:15 -0500, Nicko wrote:
>
>> At what resolution do you save photos that you show people on the
>> web? Not photos to be used for specific purposes in web pages, but
>> photos to be posted just to show to people, say, in a personal
>> gallery.
>>
>> Or, I guess more specifically, what is the most common resolution
>> that people (not necessarily photographers, just average people)
>> have their monitors set at?
>>
>> I'm having a hard time deciding what I should use as a default. I
>> have been using 96ppi, because that's a compromise between 72ppi
>> (way too coarse) and 120ppi(files too big?), which is the native
>> resolution of my 19" monitor, but will the larger dimensions of
>> photos annoy people who are still running monitors at 72ppi on
>> smaller screens? I don't think that bandwidth is of much of a
>> concern, but correct me if I am wrong (how many people are
>> actually still using dialup service?).
>>
>> Cheers!
>
> Web galleries, posting to forums, etc. I usually do 800x600 - most
> folks can accomodate that and virtually everyone without a bunch of
> scrolling.
That's a pretty useful answer, concise and to the OP's point.
My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about screen
resolution used by all visitors to sites measured by that service over
425 days ending 31 March 2009:
Fri Feb 1 00:01:02 2008 - Tue Mar 31 23:58:00 2009 425.0 Days
1024x768 27 290 629 (44%)
1280x1024 19 687 161 (31%)
Unknown 7 979 641 (12%)
800x600 4 375 444 (7%)
1152x864 2 026 010 (3%)
1600x1200 398 074 (0%)
640x480 108 717 (0%)
Subject to all statistic-gathering shortcomings, it looks as if you'll
only take the chance of offending 20% of visitors - 7% known - by
going larger than 800x600.
I make my Web pages 792 wide, to accommodate borders in browsers, and
if I want to fill the page edge-to-edge with an image, I make it 760
wide. That's large enough to view the quality of images I put on the
site, and small enough to allow a little fudging without requiring
horizontal scroll.
My eyes and monitors don't show me any improvement in Web-destined
JPEG images as a result of saving at anything higher than about 60 (of
a hundred) quality in Photo Shop; I don't see any significant
decrement saving as low as 30 on the same scale. That means quick
loads for "just showing", and not that much longer for "as good as is
worthwhile".
Of course all that was developed pre-wideband. Nowadays I set almost
any image worth showing on the Web at 1024 long dimension, and use the
60-quality save. If that isn't good enough, it's not likely the onus
is on me to make adjustments.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 7:16 pm
From: Nicko
Frank ess wrote:
>
>
> ray wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:19:15 -0500, Nicko wrote:
>>
>>> At what resolution do you save photos that you show people on the
>>> web? Not photos to be used for specific purposes in web pages, but
>>> photos to be posted just to show to people, say, in a personal
>>> gallery.
>>>
>>> Or, I guess more specifically, what is the most common resolution
>>> that people (not necessarily photographers, just average people)
>>> have their monitors set at?
>>>
>>> I'm having a hard time deciding what I should use as a default. I
>>> have been using 96ppi, because that's a compromise between 72ppi
>>> (way too coarse) and 120ppi(files too big?), which is the native
>>> resolution of my 19" monitor, but will the larger dimensions of
>>> photos annoy people who are still running monitors at 72ppi on
>>> smaller screens? I don't think that bandwidth is of much of a
>>> concern, but correct me if I am wrong (how many people are
>>> actually still using dialup service?).
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>
>> Web galleries, posting to forums, etc. I usually do 800x600 - most
>> folks can accomodate that and virtually everyone without a bunch of
>> scrolling.
>
> That's a pretty useful answer, concise and to the OP's point.
>
> My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about screen
> resolution used by all visitors to sites measured by that service over
> 425 days ending 31 March 2009:
>
> Fri Feb 1 00:01:02 2008 - Tue Mar 31 23:58:00 2009 425.0 Days
>
> 1024x768 27 290 629 (44%)
> 1280x1024 19 687 161 (31%)
> Unknown 7 979 641 (12%)
> 800x600 4 375 444 (7%)
> 1152x864 2 026 010 (3%)
> 1600x1200 398 074 (0%)
> 640x480 108 717 (0%)
>
> Subject to all statistic-gathering shortcomings, it looks as if you'll
> only take the chance of offending 20% of visitors - 7% known - by going
> larger than 800x600.
>
> I make my Web pages 792 wide, to accommodate borders in browsers, and if
> I want to fill the page edge-to-edge with an image, I make it 760 wide.
> That's large enough to view the quality of images I put on the site, and
> small enough to allow a little fudging without requiring horizontal scroll.
>
> My eyes and monitors don't show me any improvement in Web-destined JPEG
> images as a result of saving at anything higher than about 60 (of a
> hundred) quality in Photo Shop; I don't see any significant decrement
> saving as low as 30 on the same scale. That means quick loads for "just
> showing", and not that much longer for "as good as is worthwhile".
>
> Of course all that was developed pre-wideband. Nowadays I set almost any
> image worth showing on the Web at 1024 long dimension, and use the
> 60-quality save. If that isn't good enough, it's not likely the onus is
> on me to make adjustments.
>
That was almost exactly the information I was seeking. Thank you, so
much, Frank, and everyone else.
--
YOP...
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 7:42 pm
From: John Navas
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:16:32 -0500, Nicko <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote
in <h1s29m$emq$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>Frank ess wrote:
>> My Web page hit counter shows what they could determine about screen
>> resolution used by all visitors to sites measured by that service over
>> 425 days ending 31 March 2009:
>>
>> Fri Feb 1 00:01:02 2008 - Tue Mar 31 23:58:00 2009 425.0 Days
>>
>> 1024x768 27 290 629 (44%)
>> 1280x1024 19 687 161 (31%)
>> Unknown 7 979 641 (12%)
>> 800x600 4 375 444 (7%)
>> 1152x864 2 026 010 (3%)
>> 1600x1200 398 074 (0%)
>> 640x480 108 717 (0%)
>>
>> Subject to all statistic-gathering shortcomings,
Especially in this case -- I have no idea where you're getting that
data, but it's wildly inconsistent with the data I've seen, which shows
that smaller images dominate. Try a Google Image search.
>That was almost exactly the information I was seeking. Thank you, so
>much, Frank, and everyone else.
As President Reagan famously said, "Trust, but verify!"
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Now Children....Re: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 7:03 pm
From: "lobo"
<Great big ol snip>
"Lurk mode off"
While it's good to have healty banter back and forth about your various
views, it seems to have gone a little to far maybe. All I indicated from my
original post was that the website offered up, set off my Avast! virus
program alarm as having a trojan. Maybe it did or maybe it did not. Needles
to say, I was quick to leave the offending website and warned others of my
experiance.
Wow! It's amazing how far this bantering has gone. Windows, Mac, UNIX,
Foodborne Illness, etc.....(no photography stuff ;)
I read this newsgroup daily to learn about my new hobby of DSLR photography
and appreciate all that contribute to my learning process.
Ray
"Lurk mode on"
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 7:46 pm
From: John Navas
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:03:59 -0500, "lobo" <el_lobo@nowhere.net> wrote
in <h1s1iq$d8d$1@aioe.org>:
><Great big ol snip>
>"Lurk mode off"
>
>While it's good to have healty banter back and forth about your various
>views, it seems to have gone a little to far maybe. All I indicated from my
>original post was that the website offered up, set off my Avast! virus
>program alarm as having a trojan. Maybe it did or maybe it did not. Needles
>to say, I was quick to leave the offending website and warned others of my
>experiance.
>
>Wow! It's amazing how far this bantering has gone. Windows, Mac, UNIX,
>Foodborne Illness, etc.....(no photography stuff ;)
Just like your comment. Think about that. Seriously.
"What goes around, comes around."
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 7:47 pm
From: John Navas
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:46:28 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<dq4345hlp1m3idjgph6igor95nh5ansjk5@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:03:59 -0500, "lobo" <el_lobo@nowhere.net> wrote
>in <h1s1iq$d8d$1@aioe.org>:
>
>><Great big ol snip>
>>"Lurk mode off"
>>
>>While it's good to have healty banter back and forth about your various
>>views, it seems to have gone a little to far maybe. All I indicated from my
>>original post was that the website offered up, set off my Avast! virus
>>program alarm as having a trojan. Maybe it did or maybe it did not. Needles
>>to say, I was quick to leave the offending website and warned others of my
>>experiance.
>>
>>Wow! It's amazing how far this bantering has gone. Windows, Mac, UNIX,
>>Foodborne Illness, etc.....(no photography stuff ;)
>
>Just like your comment. Think about that. Seriously.
>"What goes around, comes around."
p.s. And with your name calling, you show yourself to be one of those
you've complaining about. ;)
--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: APS Advantix Scanner Advice Needed
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/003124f6f660709a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 23 2009 8:11 pm
From: Fred McKenzie
In article
<bc119ca1-d041-4aa6-a485-d3e4eed35419@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
cacheandleave <cacheandleave@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have plenty of APS cartridges I need scanned, as well as lots of
> other older film, 110, etc...
>
> What would you purchase to work on my IMAC?
>
> I have a Kodak FD 300, but no power cord or software. Since I can't
> get one, I need to do something else.
Cacheand-
I have an older Minolta "Dimage Scan Dual" that uses a SCSI connection.
As I recall, the APS Advantix film holder did not come with it, but was
available separately. With any luck, you may find everything you need
on E-Bay.
I had to get a SCSI-to-FireWire adapter to work with the recent Macs. I
don't think there is Minolta software available to use it with OS X, but
VueScan works quite well with it.
If you are interested, VueScan works with every scanner I've tried. You
can download a trial version at <http://www.hamrick.com>. It may even
work with the FD 300 if you can find a power cord.
Fred
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
