OT I'm glad I didn't lower it...

formatting link
went back and fixed the rut after taking the picture...)
formatting link
crawling!
formatting link
sounds the underside of this car makes when it's being draggedover large rocks is a little disturbing. OK, a *lot* disturbing.WOOT! RWD, 4WD, FWD. Been there, done them all. WOOT! :-D

Reply to
Shag
Loading thread data ...

Hehehehe

You had to do it huh... that's an itch you can't scratch.

Until you go scratch the bottom of a damn ricer out in the woods :)

:)

Good job.

Jan

Reply to
Jan Andersson

Geeze Jan what size screen resolution are you running - 2400 x 1800? Took me about 10 minites to download most of that 1st image... (but the mountains were purty) LOL. Not going to take the time for the rest: it's a honda after all. Why didn't you use your baja bug? Or do you not have one (I can't recall). ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

Easy on the Giggle Cream!

Reply to
ThaDriver

I had one. Sold it. *sniffle* So many details that it's obscene:

formatting link

Reply to
Shag

Take it you meant Shag since he was the one posting the pic's :o)

J.

Reply to
P.J.Berg

Shag; Yeah I *thought* you had a baja. Sorry to hear you sold it. I could never sell my 2, even though I'm not driving either at this time (long story). Mostly 'cause I have waaaay too much time & money in them, but especially 'cause I've had Annie so long & we've had so much fun together. Jan; Yeah sorry I meant Shag. It seems he *does* have a HUGE screen res. - have you seen his website? The text is so big at 800 x 600 I had to move back three feet just to read it! LOL! ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

Easy on the Giggle Cream!

Reply to
ThaDriver

LOL

DSL connection... resolution plays no role..

Jan

ThaDriver wrote:

Reply to
Jan

DSL connection... resolution plays no role..

******** Yeah I know that; but can you see more than 1/3 (actually 1/6 if you consider scrolling both ways) of the pic on your monitor at a time? (I can't) I'll be able to see 1/2 (or 1/4) on my modded machine when I start using it, though... LOL BTW DSL not available here even if I could afford it. You might consider that in the future, & perhaps reduce the size (both file size & resolution) for us poor folks.(?) Hey we would appreciate it. ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

Easy on the Giggle Cream!

Reply to
ThaDriver

Switch to a better browser! Some, like the Mozilla-based browser that I currently use (CAMINO for Mac OS X) will auto-scale pictures to fit the browser window -- and offer the option to view at actual size with a click of the mouse. I suspect the Firefox browser offers a similar feature. Get rid of (I guess you actually CAN'T delete it on Windows) Internet Explorer and join the wave switching to a better browser.

Reply to
Red Bug

Hate to break it to you but IE has had that feature for several years now at least.

Reply to
Michael Cecil

So, what browser does he use? An old version of Netscape? Apparently something that doesn't auto-scale the images... OR, he's turned off a preference somewhere that allows such a feature.

Reply to
Red Bug

I always hated that feature. Cause I always ended up un-scaling so it looked better anyway. But I'm on a mac now so..

Brian

Reply to
Briantelope

Ok bear with me on this: I'm currently using I.E. V.5.5. Not because I like it, but because I've been building websites & when I visit a site, I like to use the same browser as most foks will be using so that if something is wrong with the site, I catch it immediately & can tell them about it & perhaps get some work. Now, I know that a lot of folks have updated to newer versions, but a lot have not (going by stats on my most visited website Screwed By insurance). It, however, has not helped me get much work sooo... I'll be using Mozilla in the near future. I should also mention that I have several 'puters to test the sites in, including Windoze '95, '98, ME, 2000, a Mac, Linix, & Lindows; in browsers I.E. V.s 4.0 up to 6, Mozilla on Windoze & Linix, Netscape V.s 3.0 up to 6, & Opera; In screen resolutions from 640 x 480 to 1024 x 768. The 2000 machine is a modded case Pentium 4 2.8 gig that I just built & have not yet started using it for the web, just for graphics & HTML editing. I'm thinking I'd rather use the Linix machine for web use anyway, once I determine how to set it up (& connect it to my phone line). Lots to do & so little time... But: it would still be a lot better if graphics uploaded to the web were smaller in both file size & pixels so that they would upload/download quicker & display correctly for everyone. I would keep them to around 600 x 450 max, & say....200 kb. max. Just a suggestion. ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

Easy on the Giggle Cream!

Reply to
ThaDriver

For 200 KB, you can certainly have an image way bigger than 600 x 450! A nice size would be 1024 x 768... Digital cameras tend to shoot in a horizontal to vertical size ratio that easily scales to this final dimension... A picture that is only 600 x 450 is rather small and so you can't see much detail. The amount of JPEG compression can be adjusted to keep the file reasonably small, without making it full of obvious distortion. I use a quality level of "31" in Photoshop if I can see no bad distortion, and otherwise find "51" does okay otherwise.

If I take one of my images and resize it to 1024 x 768 at 31% JPEG quality, I get a file size of 120 KB which is pretty reasonable. There's a little bit of visible artifacts... at 51% level, they go away and the file size is just a teeny bit above 200 KB.

Reply to
Red Bug

Wouldn't it be better to make your sites W3C compliant? Then you don't have to cater to any one browser.

I suggest making them as large as needed to clearly show the subject of the photo. :)

Reply to
Michael Cecil

nice size would be 1024 x 768... Digital cameras tend to shoot in a horizontal to vertical size ratio that easily scales to this final dimension... A picture that is only 600 x 450 is rather small and so you can't see much detail. The amount of JPEG compression can be adjusted to keep the file reasonably small, without making it full of obvious distortion. I use a quality level of "31" in Photoshop if I can see no bad distortion, and otherwise find "51" does okay otherwise.

quality, I get a file size of 120 KB which is pretty reasonable. There's a little bit of visible artifacts... at 51% level, they go away and the file size is just a teeny bit above 200 KB.

******* No argument on any of these accounts. But a file size of 60kb. or lower would be more optimum for use poor folks that can't afford (or can't get) DSL. I use Paint Shop Pro; Photoshop is WAAAAAY above any budget I've ever had! LOL. Although I *do* have it on CD that I bought from ebay - twice - both times illegal copies. Of course I contacted ebay, the FBI, the USPS, Adobe, & anyone else I could find & nobody did anything to the guy who ripped me off (the other person refunded my money after I threatened to contact the authorities). So I guess I should just use them & not worry about it. But hey PSP does a great job of everything I've used it for, & I've done *quite* a bit of graphic work. As for size, according to my stats most folks are still using 800 x 600; thus my estimate of around 600 x 450 in order to display fully on our screens. It's not small at all at that screen res. ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"
Reply to
ThaDriver

have to cater to any one browser.

********** You've got it all wrong; MY sites are either W3C compliant, or changed from those specs in order to display properly in *all* browsers, in *all* operating systems, at *all* screen resolutions. Thus the reason I have all these 'puters - to check my websites. No, I was talking about checking other's sites when visiting them, in order to suggest changes to get them to display properly (& maybe pick up some work).
******** Therein lies the problem: clearly show the subject at what screen res.? 800 x 600 is still the "norm" (most used), last time I checked. And, if it takes folks ten minites to download, most folks won't bother to see it at all. Of course in this case it's not a webpage we're talking about so it's entirely up to each individual whether he wants others to see it, & whether they want to wait for the download. In this case I gave up on the first pic once I saw it was a honda, & did not pursue the remaining pics 'cuase I didn't want to waste my time downloading (sorry Shag - LOL!). The pic needed no detail at all really. ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

Easy on the Giggle Cream!

Reply to
ThaDriver

Reply to
ilambert

Well, it does say OT. ;PPP

Reply to
Michael Cecil

Time to check again... Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 is 90% of the Photoshop tools for a very low price. Even does 16 bit file editing so you can take max. advantage of the capabilities of your scanner for example.

From CDW:

JASC Paint Shop Pro 9.0: $109.47

Photoshop Elements 3.0: $89.00

Reply to
Red Bug

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.