My 1 2 3 Test info

®i©ardo wrote in
:

Clem wrote:
"Glen in Orlando" wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
:

Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?

Glen in Orlando.


begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg

Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
`
end



I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a few
files it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more files
from an airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize each
picture.

There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take pictures
and share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not going to
reduce each one seperately unless it's only a few shots.

I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality. If
you take a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can enlarge it
again with little loss to the quality of it. The question is, which
method of reduction leads to the least amount of quality loss.

Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques
seemed like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to know
how everyone is receiving the files off their servers.

I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures
posted. I see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the
original posts and I'm tired of doing a parent search half the time.

Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
appreciate hearing about it.

Try this:

http://www.gpsoft.com.au/

OK, it comes at a cost, but the "Tools" "Convert Images" facility is
superb - once you work out what to do.

I understand that Irfanview, free of charge, has a similar facility.


This makes two I never heard of before. 30 day evaluation is a nice selling
point. I think the price is $65.

Clem wrote:
®i©ardo wrote in
:

Clem wrote:
"Glen in Orlando" wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
:

Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?

Glen in Orlando.


begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg

Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
`
end


I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a few
files it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more files
from an airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize each
picture.

There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take pictures
and share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not going to
reduce each one seperately unless it's only a few shots.

I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality. If
you take a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can enlarge it
again with little loss to the quality of it. The question is, which
method of reduction leads to the least amount of quality loss.

Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques
seemed like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to know
how everyone is receiving the files off their servers.

I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures
posted. I see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the
original posts and I'm tired of doing a parent search half the time.

Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
appreciate hearing about it.
Try this:

http://www.gpsoft.com.au/

OK, it comes at a cost, but the "Tools" "Convert Images" facility is
superb - once you work out what to do.

I understand that Irfanview, free of charge, has a similar facility.


This makes two I never heard of before. 30 day evaluation is a nice selling
point. I think the price is $65.


You could pick up an earlier version at much lower cost from:

http://almomiz.com/software/pc/other...opus_v8.0.html

Its main purpose is as a Windows Explorer replacement and I've found it
to be an incredibly versatile program - I'd be lost without it.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Clem wrote:
"Glen in Orlando" wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
:


Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?

Glen in Orlando.


begin 666 E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg

Attachment decoded: E-14209LARGE (Large).jpg
`
end




I agree you can take a file and resize it. If all you have are a few files
it's worthy way to do it. Some people post 20-30 or more files from an
airshow. They can spend a full evening just to resize each picture.

There are some nice shows around here. I would love to take pictures and
share them, but I need to reduce the overhead. I'm not going to reduce each
one seperately unless it's only a few shots.

I collect nose and tail art that's usually taken in high quality. If you take
a high quality picture that's been reduced, you can enlarge it again with
little loss to the quality of it. The question is, which method of reduction
leads to the least amount of quality loss.

Posting a side by side comparison of different transfer techniques seemed
like a logical way to compare them. I would also like to know how everyone is
receiving the files off their servers.

I'm still having problems just seeing all the standards pictures posted. I
see replies regarding them, but I fail to see some of the original posts and
I'm tired of doing a parent search half the time.

Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
appreciate hearing about it.

You must have missed where I mentioned this. Resize and batch rename
all in one and free.
http://www.faststone.org/

Other free stuff to download also.
Good luck

I really like the photo resizer.

JRW

Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
appreciate hearing about it.

Graphic Workshop Pro will resize, convert format, etc on large groups of
files and is free http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html

R W Hughes wrote in news:TMKdne-
nk:

Don't worry, I'm not uploading anymore files that size. If anyone could
recommend software that reduces a batch of files at one time, I would
appreciate hearing about it.

Graphic Workshop Pro will resize, convert format, etc on large groups of
files and is free http://www.mindworkshop.com/alchemy/gwspro.html


If I remember correctly, Alchemy has been around with different software for
years. Thanks for the info.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:

Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?

The point is you've removed half the data in the file.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Eagles may soar, but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines.

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:


Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?


The point is you've removed half the data in the file.

Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:


Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?


The point is you've removed half the data in the file.

Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!

If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

How much deeper would the ocean be if sponges didn't grow in it?

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:



Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?


The point is you've removed half the data in the file.


Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!


If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.

lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
such high quality?

"Clem" ha scritto nel messaggio
. 97.136...
Using Xnews, I............................. I'm not trying to start an
argument, I'm trying to discover the most
effective method to upload as compared to a standard generic upload.

The fact is that actually I got only 7 parts out of 11 . No matter if yenc
or any different program is used, when multipart.. pictures are posted very
often I cant open them.There are always parts missing . As a result I get
only very puzzling jigsaw useless images. I must then find different usenet
links to recover -with some difficulty - what I lost on my news server. So
please, please, please send simple .jpg images!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank all
ciao
Fabio