Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Picture Size

Expand Messages
  • brymanz1
    I had found that my web page pictures especially the text scans were not legible. Most of the texts are scans of Irish vital events. So last update I changed
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 9, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I had found that my web page pictures especially the text scans were not legible. Most of the texts are scans of Irish vital events.
      So last update I changed on the Create Web Pages/Other tab the following: Display size: Large; and Enlarged Web Picture Size: Original Size. Worked perfectly. But it's tipped me over my 50Mb free allowance from my ISP.
      So 2 questions: 1) What's the best settings for the above to give legibility particularly to text?
      2) Some of the scans have come out as quite large files, likewise some of my camera pictures. What's the best way to reduce them? It's been suggested that text is better saved as a GIF.
      Thanks for any help.
      Bryan
    • brymanz1
      Just as an addendum to my previous post. This page is a good example http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html I ve updated this time
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 9, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Just as an addendum to my previous post.
        This page is a good example
        http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html
        I've updated this time using the Display Size LARGE and the Enlarged Web Picture Size 300 pixels. As you see the photos are OK but the text is illegible. I know you guys have an easy answer hidden somewhere!
        Thanks,
        Bryan
      • donelias@juno.com
        Does holding the CTRL key down while rolling the mouse while do what you want???? Don Elias in Fridley, Minnesota, USA (A visitor to Kati-Kati many years ago)
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 10, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Does holding the CTRL key down while rolling
          the mouse while do what you want????

          Don Elias in Fridley, Minnesota, USA

          (A visitor to Kati-Kati many years ago)

          ---------- Original Message ----------
          From: "brymanz1" <bryannp@...>
          To: WUL@...
          Subject: [WUL] Picture Size
          Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:19:34 -0000

          Just as an addendum to my previous post.
          This page is a good example
          http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html
          I've updated this time using the Display Size LARGE and the Enlarged Web Picture Size 300 pixels. As you see the photos are OK but the text is illegible. I know you guys have an easy answer hidden somewhere!
          Thanks,
          Bryan



          ------------------------------------

          To visit your group on the web, go to: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/WUL/

          If you have any questions about the group they may be answered in the FAQ in the Database

          If your question is still not answered please contact Ron at:
          webuserlegacy@...

          To unsubscribe please send a blank email to:
          wulunsubscribe@...

          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • donelias@juno.com
          I meant to say: Does holding the CTRL key down while rolling the mouse WHEEL do what you want???? Don Elias in Fridley, Minnesota, USA (A visitor to Kati-Kati
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 10, 2012
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I meant to say:



            Does holding the CTRL key down while rolling
            the mouse WHEEL do what you want????

            Don Elias in Fridley, Minnesota, USA

            (A visitor to Kati-Kati many years ago)

            ---------- Original Message ----------
            From: "donelias@..." <donelias@...>
            To: WUL@...
            Subject: Re: [WUL] Picture Size
            Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:38:01 GMT

            Does holding the CTRL key down while rolling
            the mouse while do what you want????

            Don Elias in Fridley, Minnesota, USA

            (A visitor to Kati-Kati many years ago)

            ---------- Original Message ----------
            From: "brymanz1" <bryannp@...>
            To: WUL@...
            Subject: [WUL] Picture Size
            Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:19:34 -0000

            Just as an addendum to my previous post.
            This page is a good example
            http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html
            I've updated this time using the Display Size LARGE and the Enlarged Web Picture Size 300 pixels. As you see the photos are OK but the text is illegible. I know you guys have an easy answer hidden somewhere!
            Thanks,
            Bryan



            ------------------------------------

            To visit your group on the web, go to: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/WUL/

            If you have any questions about the group they may be answered in the FAQ in the Database

            If your question is still not answered please contact Ron at:
            webuserlegacy@...

            To unsubscribe please send a blank email to:
            wulunsubscribe@...

            Yahoo! Groups Links






            ------------------------------------

            To visit your group on the web, go to: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/WUL/

            If you have any questions about the group they may be answered in the FAQ in the Database

            If your question is still not answered please contact Ron at:
            webuserlegacy@...

            To unsubscribe please send a blank email to:
            wulunsubscribe@...

            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Ronald Ferguson
            Bryan, I am afraid that you have hit a common problem with images in that there is always a trade off between image size, speed of loading and quality. It is
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 10, 2012
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Bryan,

              I am afraid that you have hit a common problem with images in that there is always a trade off between image size, speed of loading and quality. It is for this reason that many people will not include census, or any text, images on their sites.

              Although jpg is the commonly recommended format for images, it is not essential,  gif and png are also common formats. You may like to note that although images downloaded from commercial sites may appear to be in greyscale this is not always the case and converting to greyscale can seriously cut down on the file size. One other factor is that the picture resolution may well be over 300px, whereas only 90px is needed; if this is true in your case then reducing the resolution will help.

              Finally, this will not overcome the the problem of using a web host  with a very limited amount of available memory memory, and I would look to upgrading as soon as you are able.

              BTW. Have you ensured that publishing these images is not a breach of copyright?

               
              Ron Ferguson
              http://www.fergys.co.uk/



              ________________________________
              From: brymanz1 <bryannp@...>
              To: WUL@...
              Sent: Saturday, 10 March 2012, 4:19
              Subject: [WUL] Picture Size


               
              Just as an addendum to my previous post.
              This page is a good example
              http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html
              I've updated this time using the Display Size LARGE and the Enlarged Web Picture Size 300 pixels. As you see the photos are OK but the text is illegible. I know you guys have an easy answer hidden somewhere!
              Thanks,
              Bryan




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • David C Abernathy
              When you scan them, you need to make them large enough to read to start with. I always scan things at 600 BPI at least and then resize a copy smaller if
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 10, 2012
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                When you scan them, you need to make them large enough to read to start
                with.

                I always scan things at 600 BPI at least and then resize a copy smaller if
                needed.



                Thanks,
                David C Abernathy
                Email disclaimers
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                This message represents the official view of the voices in my head.
                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                <http://www.schmeckabernathy.com/> http://www.SchmeckAbernathy.com
                == All outgoing and incoming mail is scanned by F-Prot Antivirus ==



                From: WUL@... [mailto:WUL@...] On Behalf Of
                brymanz1
                Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 8:20 PM
                To: WUL@...
                Subject: [WUL] Picture Size





                Just as an addendum to my previous post.
                This page is a good example
                http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html
                I've updated this time using the Display Size LARGE and the Enlarged Web
                Picture Size 300 pixels. As you see the photos are OK but the text is
                illegible. I know you guys have an easy answer hidden somewhere!
                Thanks,
                Bryan





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Bryan
                Hello Ron Thanks for your feedback. And thank you for the reminder about copyright. I went and read Family Search s terms and it seems you can t put anything
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 10, 2012
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Ron
                  Thanks for your feedback. And thank you for the reminder about copyright. I
                  went and read Family Search's terms and it seems you can't put anything on
                  another website without their expressed permission.
                  And Roots Ireland from where most of my vital certificates are from is a
                  little less clear. All a bit of a minefield really.
                  I might have sorted out the text 'pics' problem by just not publishing them.
                  Because in this modern day and age when there's so much data easily
                  accessible it's easy to forget about copyright.

                  Cheers
                  Bryan
                  --------------------------------------------------
                  From: "Ronald Ferguson" <ronfergy2000@...>
                  Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 4:06 AM
                  To: <WUL@...>
                  Subject: Re: [WUL] Picture Size

                  > Bryan,
                  >
                  > I am afraid that you have hit a common problem with images in that there
                  > is always a trade off between image size, speed of loading and quality. It
                  > is for this reason that many people will not include census, or any text,
                  > images on their sites.
                  >
                  > Although jpg is the commonly recommended format for images, it is not
                  > essential, gif and png are also common formats. You may like to note that
                  > although images downloaded from commercial sites may appear to be in
                  > greyscale this is not always the case and converting to greyscale can
                  > seriously cut down on the file size. One other factor is that the picture
                  > resolution may well be over 300px, whereas only 90px is needed; if this is
                  > true in your case then reducing the resolution will help.
                  >
                  > Finally, this will not overcome the the problem of using a web host with
                  > a very limited amount of available memory memory, and I would look to
                  > upgrading as soon as you are able.
                  >
                  > BTW. Have you ensured that publishing these images is not a breach of
                  > copyright?
                  >
                  >
                  > Ron Ferguson
                  > http://www.fergys.co.uk/
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: brymanz1 <bryannp@...>
                  > To: WUL@...
                  > Sent: Saturday, 10 March 2012, 4:19
                  > Subject: [WUL] Picture Size
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Just as an addendum to my previous post.
                  > This page is a good example
                  > http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html
                  > I've updated this time using the Display Size LARGE and the Enlarged Web
                  > Picture Size 300 pixels. As you see the photos are OK but the text is
                  > illegible. I know you guys have an easy answer hidden somewhere!
                  > Thanks,
                  > Bryan
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                  > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/WUL/
                  >
                  > If you have any questions about the group they may be answered in the FAQ
                  > in the Database
                  >
                  > If your question is still not answered please contact Ron at:
                  > webuserlegacy@...
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to:
                  > wulunsubscribe@...
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • Bryan
                  Thank you Don for your hint. It does work but I see what you mean by the scan resolution. Ron has highlighted the issue of copyright for me. I think the Family
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 10, 2012
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thank you Don for your hint. It does work but I see what you mean by the
                    scan resolution. Ron has highlighted the issue of copyright for me. I think
                    the Family Search documents are probably in breach of copyright. So I might
                    just solve the image problem by removing them.
                    Katikati! What a little place to visit. But a nice area of the country. I'm
                    going up that way next week actually. I live in Christchurch in the South
                    Island.

                    Regards
                    Bryan

                    --------------------------------------------------
                    From: <donelias@...>
                    Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:57 AM
                    To: <WUL@...>
                    Subject: Re: [WUL] Picture Size

                    > I meant to say:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Does holding the CTRL key down while rolling
                    > the mouse WHEEL do what you want????
                    >
                    > Don Elias in Fridley, Minnesota, USA
                    >
                    > (A visitor to Kati-Kati many years ago)
                    >
                    > ---------- Original Message ----------
                    > From: "donelias@..." <donelias@...>
                    > To: WUL@...
                    > Subject: Re: [WUL] Picture Size
                    > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:38:01 GMT
                    >
                    > Does holding the CTRL key down while rolling
                    > the mouse while do what you want????
                    >
                    > Don Elias in Fridley, Minnesota, USA
                    >
                    > (A visitor to Kati-Kati many years ago)
                    >
                    > ---------- Original Message ----------
                    > From: "brymanz1" <bryannp@...>
                    > To: WUL@...
                    > Subject: [WUL] Picture Size
                    > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 04:19:34 -0000
                    >
                    > Just as an addendum to my previous post.
                    > This page is a good example
                    > http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html
                    > I've updated this time using the Display Size LARGE and the Enlarged Web
                    > Picture Size 300 pixels. As you see the photos are OK but the text is
                    > illegible. I know you guys have an easy answer hidden somewhere!
                    > Thanks,
                    > Bryan
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/WUL/
                    >
                    > If you have any questions about the group they may be answered in the FAQ
                    > in the Database
                    >
                    > If your question is still not answered please contact Ron at:
                    > webuserlegacy@...
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to:
                    > wulunsubscribe@...
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/WUL/
                    >
                    > If you have any questions about the group they may be answered in the FAQ
                    > in the Database
                    >
                    > If your question is still not answered please contact Ron at:
                    > webuserlegacy@...
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to:
                    > wulunsubscribe@...
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    > http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/WUL/
                    >
                    > If you have any questions about the group they may be answered in the FAQ
                    > in the Database
                    >
                    > If your question is still not answered please contact Ron at:
                    > webuserlegacy@...
                    >
                    > To unsubscribe please send a blank email to:
                    > wulunsubscribe@...
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • David E. Damouth
                    My thoughts: 300px is far too small for a page of text to be legible, but may be ok for a photo of a gravestone. I d suggest that you always select original
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 10, 2012
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      My thoughts: 300px is far too small for a page of text to be legible,
                      but may be ok for a photo of a gravestone.

                      I'd suggest that you always select "original size" in Legacy. Then,
                      individually set the original size of each of your web images to be just
                      large enough for the content to be legible. My own practice is to scan
                      at a resolution at least twice as high as the inherent resolution of the
                      original document, so as to preserve all of the fine detail in my local
                      archive. But I then create a web version at much lower resolution,
                      using an image editor. This lower resolution depends on the content of
                      the image. Initially, set the resolution by trial and error. With
                      experience, you'll learn what is appropriate for each kind of image.
                      For doing this resolution-shifting, IrfanView is a free, efficient,
                      and powerful tool. Since my images are mostly stored and organized
                      in Adobe Photoshop Elements, I also sometimes use this tool for
                      convenient resolution shifting. (I love the image-organizing and
                      searching capability of this program, and it also has powerful tools for
                      optimizing the viewability of any kind of image. It's about $80 US.)
                      For pages of text, you'll probably find that you need something like
                      1000 px. But if you encode as .jpg at a low "quality level", the images
                      will still be quite small. Set the .jpg quality level as low as you can
                      without getting objectionable artifacts - perhaps "3". For the small
                      gravestone photos, 300 px or less may be adequate, but you'll need to
                      use a higher jpg quality level - experiment until you satisfy your own
                      compromise between beauty, legibility, and storage space.

                      On 3/9/2012 9:19 PM, brymanz1 wrote:
                      >
                      > Just as an addendum to my previous post.
                      > This page is a good example
                      > http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html
                      > <http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/%7Ebryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html>
                      > I've updated this time using the Display Size LARGE and the Enlarged
                      > Web Picture Size 300 pixels. As you see the photos are OK but the text
                      > is illegible. I know you guys have an easy answer hidden somewhere!
                      > Thanks,
                      > Bryan
                      >
                      >

                      --

                      //Dave/

                      www.damouth.org



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Ronald Ferguson
                      I agree that one should scan at the highest resolution permitted by the scanner and saved in the tiff format, but that is not suitable for web pages. There is
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 11, 2012
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I agree that one should scan at the highest resolution permitted by the scanner and saved in the tiff format, but that is not suitable for web pages. There is no point in putting an image on the web an image which has a greater resolution than that of the screen because the image will only be visible at the same resolution of the screen.

                         
                        Ron Ferguson
                        http://www.fergys.co.uk


                        ________________________________
                        From: David E. Damouth <dave@...>
                        To: WUL@...
                        Sent: Sunday, 11 March 2012, 2:41
                        Subject: Re: [WUL] Picture Size


                         
                        My thoughts: 300px is far too small for a page of text to be legible,
                        but may be ok for a photo of a gravestone.

                        I'd suggest that you always select "original size" in Legacy. Then,
                        individually set the original size of each of your web images to be just
                        large enough for the content to be legible. My own practice is to scan
                        at a resolution at least twice as high as the inherent resolution of the
                        original document, so as to preserve all of the fine detail in my local
                        archive. But I then create a web version at much lower resolution,
                        using an image editor. This lower resolution depends on the content of
                        the image. Initially, set the resolution by trial and error. With
                        experience, you'll learn what is appropriate for each kind of image.
                        For doing this resolution-shifting, IrfanView is a free, efficient,
                        and powerful tool. Since my images are mostly stored and organized
                        in Adobe Photoshop Elements, I also sometimes use this tool for
                        convenient resolution shifting. (I love the image-organizing and
                        searching capability of this program, and it also has powerful tools for
                        optimizing the viewability of any kind of image. It's about $80 US.)
                        For pages of text, you'll probably find that you need something like
                        1000 px. But if you encode as .jpg at a low "quality level", the images
                        will still be quite small. Set the .jpg quality level as low as you can
                        without getting objectionable artifacts - perhaps "3". For the small
                        gravestone photos, 300 px or less may be adequate, but you'll need to
                        use a higher jpg quality level - experiment until you satisfy your own
                        compromise between beauty, legibility, and storage space.

                        On 3/9/2012 9:19 PM, brymanz1 wrote:
                        >
                        > Just as an addendum to my previous post.
                        > This page is a good example
                        > http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~bryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html
                        > <http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/%7Ebryannp/parrott/parrott2/209.html>
                        > I've updated this time using the Display Size LARGE and the Enlarged
                        > Web Picture Size 300 pixels. As you see the photos are OK but the text
                        > is illegible. I know you guys have an easy answer hidden somewhere!
                        > Thanks,
                        > Bryan
                        >
                        >

                        --

                        //Dave/

                        www.damouth.org

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Sherry Slaughter
                        Try resizing to 750 pixels wide for a portrait page or 750 pixels tall for a landscape scanned image. Set the DPI to aboutt 96 DPI, which will accommodate most
                        Message 11 of 12 , Mar 11, 2012
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Try resizing to 750 pixels wide for a portrait page or 750 pixels tall for
                          a landscape scanned image. Set the DPI to aboutt 96 DPI, which will
                          accommodate most monitors. See if they are still legible. You may have to
                          bump up the size a little if legibility is an issue.

                          Sheryl

                          On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:10 PM, brymanz1 <bryannp@...> wrote:

                          > **
                          >
                          >
                          > I had found that my web page pictures especially the text scans were not
                          > legible. Most of the texts are scans of Irish vital events.
                          > So last update I changed on the Create Web Pages/Other tab the following:
                          > Display size: Large; and Enlarged Web Picture Size: Original Size. Worked
                          > perfectly. But it's tipped me over my 50Mb free allowance from my ISP.
                          > So 2 questions: 1) What's the best settings for the above to give
                          > legibility particularly to text?
                          > 2) Some of the scans have come out as quite large files, likewise some of
                          > my camera pictures. What's the best way to reduce them? It's been suggested
                          > that text is better saved as a GIF.
                          > Thanks for any help.
                          > Bryan
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Bryan
                          Good day all Thanks to all who threw some input into this quandary. Apart from looking at the copyright issues, I ll try and tackle dpi s and the like to get
                          Message 12 of 12 , Mar 11, 2012
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Good day all
                            Thanks to all who threw some input into this quandary.
                            Apart from looking at the copyright issues, I'll try and tackle dpi's and
                            the like to get some reasonable images up.

                            Thanks again
                            Bryan
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.