My new digital camera - cheapie - takes pix sizes VGA to 10M.
Several sizes.

The manual doesn't explain what the sizes mean.

What size would I need for everyday school snaps?
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

My train of thought will be arriving 15 minutes late.

Sheel wrote:
> My new digital camera - cheapie - takes pix sizes VGA to 10M.
> Several sizes.
> 
> The manual doesn't explain what the sizes mean.
> 
> What size would I need for everyday school snaps?

To display on the screen?  Or to print?

-- 
RatBag

    ()_().----.
     \"/` ___  )~~~~~~~
      ` ^^   ^^

RatBag burbled:

>Sheel wrote:
>> My new digital camera - cheapie - takes pix sizes VGA to 10M.
>> Several sizes.
>> 
>> The manual doesn't explain what the sizes mean.
>> 
>> What size would I need for everyday school snaps?
>
>To display on the screen?  Or to print?

Both if poss.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

Turkey ham - what's that all about then?

"Sheel"  wrote in message 
news:25fue5lmphhh4cp16483ss3qamarjrdogq@4ax.com...
> RatBag burbled:
>
>>Sheel wrote:
>>> My new digital camera - cheapie - takes pix sizes VGA to 10M.
>>> Several sizes.
>>>
>>> The manual doesn't explain what the sizes mean.
>>>
>>> What size would I need for everyday school snaps?
>>
>>To display on the screen?  Or to print?
>
> Both if poss.

The higher the quality the better the print, the fewer you can store on the 
memory card.
I tend to set the classroom cameras on a mid-setting as no-one knows how to 
change them.
Mine is pretty high cos I print lots, then I'll use Irfanview to change them 
if necessary. (uploading to our website etc).

-- 
Ellie
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/Charter
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/FAQs+for+ues

Ellie burbled:

>
>"Sheel"  wrote in message 
>news:25fue5lmphhh4cp16483ss3qamarjrdogq@4ax.com...
>> RatBag burbled:
>>
>>>Sheel wrote:
>>>> My new digital camera - cheapie - takes pix sizes VGA to 10M.
>>>> Several sizes.
>>>>
>>>> The manual doesn't explain what the sizes mean.
>>>>
>>>> What size would I need for everyday school snaps?
>>>
>>>To display on the screen?  Or to print?
>>
>> Both if poss.
>
>The higher the quality the better the print, the fewer you can store on the 
>memory card.

I've got the quality set to Fine, but there is also a setting for pic
sizes.

>I tend to set the classroom cameras on a mid-setting as no-one knows how to 
>change them.

About 5M?

>Mine is pretty high cos I print lots, 

About 8M?

>then I'll use Irfanview to change them 
>if necessary. (uploading to our website etc).

snap
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

There are four basic food groups: 
milk chocolate, dark chocolate, white chocolate and chocolate truffles.

Sheel wrote:
> My new digital camera - cheapie - takes pix sizes VGA to 10M.
> Several sizes.
> 
> The manual doesn't explain what the sizes mean.
> 
> What size would I need for everyday school snaps?

Meerkats suspect Sheel has forgotten how to use Google again.

VGA stands for Video Graphics Array, the name applied to old monitors 
with 640 x 480 pixels resolution. If you took photos at 640 x 480 
resolution you would find them pretty useless for most purposes.

Very high capacity memory cards for new digital cameras are ridiculously 
cheap (and small) these days so you can afford to take photos at pretty 
high resolution and you should still have plenty of room left on your 
card after a day's snapping.

If your camera can take images up to 10m pixels then get yourself a high 
capacity card and choose 10m pixels as the norm (or no less than 5m).

Meerkats' latest Sony camera is a comparative cheapie - around £120 - 
but takes up to 10m pixels and has a wide angle lens and 5x optical 
zoom. Meerkats leave it on 10m.

Meerkats have a tiny 4GB card (smaller than a postage stamp). It can 
hold 10,000 images at VGA, 2450 at 3m, 1500 at 5m or 965 at 10m. 
Meerkats have never taken more than 965 photos in a day!

If you take a high resolution photo, you can crop it and the smaller 
image will still be pretty good. That doesn't work so well at lower 
resolutions.
-- 
   C°°>
   | [
   | ||
   |  \\
   | |
  /|-|
/ |_|_

Sheel wrote:
> Ellie burbled:

>> I tend to set the classroom cameras on a mid-setting as no-one knows how to 
>> change them.
> 
> About 5M?
> 
>> Mine is pretty high cos I print lots, 
> 
> About 8M?
> 
>> then I'll use Irfanview to change them 
>> if necessary. (uploading to our website etc).
> 
> snap


Yes.  I think 10M is over the top unless you want really big prints, so 
go for 5M (or closest option).  You can always reduce the pixel 
dimensions with suitable software (sorry I don't know irfanview, but I'm 
guessing that's what it does) to use on the PC.  It is more difficult to 
increase the pixel dimensions, although again there is software 
available that claims to interpolate - I wouldn't trust it so don't go 
any smaller than 5M or thereabouts.

And get an external hard drive to back up your photos.  My other half 
was keeping all his photos on the C: drive and stuffed it so full that 
Windows fell over.  Learn from his mistakes - he has!  (Expensive lesson!)

-- 
RatBag

    ()_().----.
     \"/` ___  )~~~~~~~
      ` ^^   ^^

RatBag wrote:
You can always reduce the pixel
> dimensions with suitable software (sorry I don't know irfanview, but I'm 
> guessing that's what it does)

Meerkats humbly suggest that the Rat Lady acquaints herself with the 
wonderful and free Irfanview http://www.irfanview.com/

It can be used as the default image viewer and is very good at that. If 
you open an image in Irfanview, you can view it full screen by hitting 
Enter. You can then move forward or backward through the images in that 
folder using arrow keys, left/right mouse or laptop buttons, or the 
mouse scroll wheel. Hit Enter again to return to normal screen mode.

You can use it to compile slide shows. Irfanview also has a range of 
image editing functions as well, like cropping, re-sizing, greyscale, 
sepia, colour enhancement, etc. which is not bad for a quick-to-load 
basic editor.

When you load your photos onto your computer and run through them, if 
you have taken a photo in portrait mode, rather than landscape, you can 
rotate it simply by hitting L or R. You can then press Ctrl & S to save 
it in the new orientation. Very useful program.
-- 
   C°°>
   | [
   | ||
   |  \\
   | |
  /|-|
/ |_|_

meerkat.chaplin wrote:

> Meerkats humbly suggest that the Rat Lady acquaints herself with the 
> wonderful and free Irfanview http://www.irfanview.com/
> 
> It can be used as the default image viewer and is very good at that. If 
> you open an image in Irfanview, you can view it full screen by hitting 
> Enter. You can then move forward or backward through the images in that 
> folder using arrow keys, left/right mouse or laptop buttons, or the 
> mouse scroll wheel. Hit Enter again to return to normal screen mode.
> 
> You can use it to compile slide shows. Irfanview also has a range of 
> image editing functions as well, like cropping, re-sizing, greyscale, 
> sepia, colour enhancement, etc. which is not bad for a quick-to-load 
> basic editor.
> 
> When you load your photos onto your computer and run through them, if 
> you have taken a photo in portrait mode, rather than landscape, you can 
> rotate it simply by hitting L or R. You can then press Ctrl & S to save 
> it in the new orientation. Very useful program.

Thank you for that review of Irfanview.  It does seem to be good value. 
  However, I already have software which does most of that, so I'll pass 
for now.   (However, I shall mention it to the students in my Digital 
Graphics unit.  It seems to be something they should know about.)

-- 
RatBag

    ()_().----.
     \"/` ___  )~~~~~~~
      ` ^^   ^^

meerkat.chaplin burbled:


>Meerkats suspect Sheel has forgotten how to use Google again.

<proud>

>VGA stands for Video Graphics Array, the name applied to old monitors 
>with 640 x 480 pixels resolution. If you took photos at 640 x 480 
>resolution you would find them pretty useless for most purposes.
>
>Very high capacity memory cards for new digital cameras are ridiculously 
>cheap (and small) these days so you can afford to take photos at pretty 
>high resolution and you should still have plenty of room left on your 
>card after a day's snapping.
>
>If your camera can take images up to 10m pixels then get yourself a high 
>capacity card and choose 10m pixels as the norm (or no less than 5m).
>
>Meerkats' latest Sony camera is a comparative cheapie - around £120 - 

Mine £39.99.

>but takes up to 10m pixels and has a wide angle lens and 5x optical 
>zoom. 

Mine - 6x

>Meerkats leave it on 10m.

I will too then.

>Meerkats have a tiny 4GB card (smaller than a postage stamp). It can 
>hold 10,000 images at VGA, 2450 at 3m, 1500 at 5m or 965 at 10m. 
>Meerkats have never taken more than 965 photos in a day!

I think mine is 2Great Britain.

>If you take a high resolution photo, you can crop it and the smaller 
>image will still be pretty good. That doesn't work so well at lower 
>resolutions.

I'm worried. I understood that lot.

Ta, oh gorgeous hunk of manliness.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

Error: Sector not found - search behind couch? (Y/N)

RatBag burbled:

>Yes.  I think 10M is over the top unless you want really big prints, so 
>go for 5M (or closest option).  You can always reduce the pixel 
>dimensions with suitable software (sorry I don't know irfanview, but I'm 
>guessing that's what it does) to use on the PC.  It is more difficult to 
>increase the pixel dimensions, although again there is software 
>available that claims to interpolate - I wouldn't trust it so don't go 
>any smaller than 5M or thereabouts.

aaarghh - I'm confused again now.

The manual says 8M and 10M have FW interpolation, but I thought that
was summat to do with the European police.

>And get an external hard drive to back up your photos.  My other half 
>was keeping all his photos on the C: drive and stuffed it so full that 
>Windows fell over.  Learn from his mistakes - he has!  (Expensive lesson!)
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

Oh PEBCAC! Problem exists between chair and computer!

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

RatBag burbled:

>Thank you for that review of Irfanview.  It does seem to be good value. 
>  However, I already have software which does most of that, so I'll pass 
>for now.   (However, I shall mention it to the students in my Digital 
>Graphics unit.  It seems to be something they should know about.)

Tell them that even I can manage to use most of it.

The colour adjusting feature has got me flummoxed but I'll live.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

Anything not nailed down is mine. Anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.

"Sheel"  wrote in message 
news:qlmue5t9lme7877ttsut1go6t620ktbfij@4ax.com...
> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>
>
>>Meerkats suspect Sheel has forgotten how to use Google again.
>
> <proud>
>
>>VGA stands for Video Graphics Array, the name applied to old monitors
>>with 640 x 480 pixels resolution. If you took photos at 640 x 480
>>resolution you would find them pretty useless for most purposes.
>>
>>Very high capacity memory cards for new digital cameras are ridiculously
>>cheap (and small) these days so you can afford to take photos at pretty
>>high resolution and you should still have plenty of room left on your
>>card after a day's snapping.
>>
>>If your camera can take images up to 10m pixels then get yourself a high
>>capacity card and choose 10m pixels as the norm (or no less than 5m).
>>
>>Meerkats' latest Sony camera is a comparative cheapie - around £120 -
>
> Mine £39.99.
>
>>but takes up to 10m pixels and has a wide angle lens and 5x optical
>>zoom.
>
> Mine - 6x
>
>>Meerkats leave it on 10m.
>
> I will too then.

I wouldn't be able to upload that to my website - how big a file is that?

-- 
Ellie
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/Charter
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/FAQs+for+ues

Sheel wrote:

> The manual says 8M and 10M have FW interpolation, but I thought that
> was summat to do with the European police.
> 

Aha!  Firmware interpolation.  It is a program built into the camera 
which means that the 8M and 10M settings are cheats.  The "firmware" is 
interpolating between the genuine recorded pixels to make the bigger 
pictures.  It will introduce a certain fuzziness, because it is trying 
to do something that it doesn't have the information to do.

As I said before, stick to something in the 5M to 6M range and apply 
your own interpolation if you really need it (but you probably won't - 
you are more likely to be reducing the pics.)

-- 
RatBag

    ()_().----.
     \"/` ___  )~~~~~~~
      ` ^^   ^^

RatBag burbled:


>As I said before, stick to something in the 5M to 6M range and apply 
>your own interpolation if you really need it (but you probably won't - 
>you are more likely to be reducing the pics.)

I don't know what it it so I prolly won't need it.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

I drive way too fast to worry about cholesterol.

Ellie burbled:

>
>"Sheel"  wrote in message 
>news:qlmue5t9lme7877ttsut1go6t620ktbfij@4ax.com...
>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:

>>>Meerkats leave it on 10m.
>>
>> I will too then.
>
>I wouldn't be able to upload that to my website - how big a file is that?

I thought the m stood for metres.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will whiz on your computer.

"Sheel"  wrote in message 
news:0fpue51fod9bt28mbpl8pr23n3736j0l3g@4ax.com...
> Ellie burbled:
>
>>
>>"Sheel"  wrote in message
>>news:qlmue5t9lme7877ttsut1go6t620ktbfij@4ax.com...
>>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>
>>>>Meerkats leave it on 10m.
>>>
>>> I will too then.
>>
>>I wouldn't be able to upload that to my website - how big a file is that?
>
> I thought the m stood for metres.

So how big a file is it, is the question I'm asking.

-- 
Ellie
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/Charter
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/FAQs+for+ues

Ellie burbled:

>
>"Sheel"  wrote in message 
>news:0fpue51fod9bt28mbpl8pr23n3736j0l3g@4ax.com...
>> Ellie burbled:
>>
>>>
>>>"Sheel"  wrote in message
>>>news:qlmue5t9lme7877ttsut1go6t620ktbfij@4ax.com...
>>>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>>
>>>>>Meerkats leave it on 10m.
>>>>
>>>> I will too then.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't be able to upload that to my website - how big a file is that?
>>
>> I thought the m stood for metres.
>
>So how big a file is it, is the question I'm asking.

I hope you're not asking me.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer.

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

"Sheel"  wrote in message 
news:13que5taopeja5rbjdua32vqeo7gqim1m3@4ax.com...
> Ellie burbled:
>
>>
>>"Sheel"  wrote in message
>>news:0fpue51fod9bt28mbpl8pr23n3736j0l3g@4ax.com...
>>> Ellie burbled:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Sheel"  wrote in message
>>>>news:qlmue5t9lme7877ttsut1go6t620ktbfij@4ax.com...
>>>>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>>>
>>>>>>Meerkats leave it on 10m.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will too then.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't be able to upload that to my website - how big a file is 
>>>>that?
>>>
>>> I thought the m stood for metres.
>>
>>So how big a file is it, is the question I'm asking.
>
> I hope you're not asking me.

Funnily enough, no.

-- 
Ellie
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/Charter
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/FAQs+for+ues

Ellie wrote:
> "Sheel"  wrote in message 
>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>>
>>> Meerkats leave it on 10m.
>>
>> I will too then.
> 
> I wouldn't be able to upload that to my website - how big a file is that?
> 
A pretty big file, but then you wouldn't upload a photo to a web site 
just as it comes from the camera. (Would you?)

That's why you need a photo editing program (and Irfanview is perfectly 
capable of doing this) to reduce the image size from 3000+ pixels wide 
to something like 400 or 600 pixels wide, according to the style of your 
web site. You not only reduce the actual image size but also the image 
quality, in order to reduce file size. You can reduce quality a fair bit 
(by 15% to 25%) without any apparent difference when viewed on a web page.

Whatever you do, don't upload an image of one size and then make it 
appear another size. I have seen web pages where a phot that is really 
3000 pixels wide appears to be about 300 pixels wide on the web page 
and, of course, takes a long time to load.

File size is not quite as important now as it was before most people had 
broad beans but generally should not exceed around 50 to 100 kb, 
depending on its screen size.
-- 
   C°°>
   | [
   | ||
   |  \\
   | |
  /|-|
/ |_|_

Sheel wrote:
> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>>
>> Meerkats' latest Sony camera is a comparative cheapie - around £120 - 
> 
> Mine £39.99.
> 
Cheapskate.

> I'm worried. I understood that lot.
> 
> Ta, oh gorgeous hunk of manliness.

Cheapskate with otherwise impeccable judgement and taste.
-- 
   C°°>
   | [
   | ||
   |  \\
   | |
  /|-|
/ |_|_

"meerkat.chaplin"  wrote in message 
news:7l9afuF3cus2lU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ellie wrote:
>> "Sheel"  wrote in message
>>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>>>
>>>> Meerkats leave it on 10m.
>>>
>>> I will too then.
>>
>> I wouldn't be able to upload that to my website - how big a file is that?
>>
> A pretty big file, but then you wouldn't upload a photo to a web site just 
> as it comes from the camera. (Would you?)

Never!


> That's why you need a photo editing program (and Irfanview is perfectly 
> capable of doing this) to reduce the image size from 3000+ pixels wide to 
> something like 400 or 600 pixels wide, according to the style of your web 
> site. You not only reduce the actual image size but also the image 
> quality, in order to reduce file size. You can reduce quality a fair bit 
> (by 15% to 25%) without any apparent difference when viewed on a web page.
>
> Whatever you do, don't upload an image of one size and then make it appear 
> another size. I have seen web pages where a phot that is really 3000 
> pixels wide appears to be about 300 pixels wide on the web page and, of 
> course, takes a long time to load.
>
> File size is not quite as important now as it was before most people had 
> broad beans but generally should not exceed around 50 to 100 kb, depending 
> on its screen size.

Good, I appear to be doing it right.
Ta.

-- 
Ellie
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/Charter
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/FAQs+for+ues

meerkat.chaplin burbled:


>That's why you need a photo editing program (and Irfanview is perfectly 
>capable of doing this) to reduce the image size from 3000+ pixels wide 
>to something like 400 or 600 pixels wide, according to the style of your 
>web site. You not only reduce the actual image size but also the image 
>quality, in order to reduce file size. You can reduce quality a fair bit 
>(by 15% to 25%) without any apparent difference when viewed on a web page.

I've noticed photos look clearer on the screen than when printed out.

Is that cos I don't use photo paper?

>Whatever you do, don't upload an image of one size and then make it 
>appear another size. I have seen web pages where a phot that is really 
>3000 pixels wide appears to be about 300 pixels wide on the web page 
>and, of course, takes a long time to load.

As if!
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

I put the "fun" in dysfunctional.

meerkat.chaplin burbled:

>Sheel wrote:
>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>>>
>>> Meerkats' latest Sony camera is a comparative cheapie - around £120 - 
>> 
>> Mine £39.99.
>> 
>Cheapskate.

It had good reviews in Ah Goose.

>> I'm worried. I understood that lot.
>> 
>> Ta, oh gorgeous hunk of manliness.
>
>Cheapskate with otherwise impeccable judgement and taste.

Except in wimmin.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

A clean desk is a sign of a cluttered desk drawer.

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

RatBag warbled...
> Yes.  I think 10M is over the top unless you want really big prints, so 
> go for 5M (or closest option).  You can always reduce the pixel 
> dimensions with suitable software (sorry I don't know irfanview, but I'm 
> guessing that's what it does) to use on the PC.  It is more difficult to 
> increase the pixel dimensions, although again there is software 
> available that claims to interpolate - I wouldn't trust it so don't go 
> any smaller than 5M or thereabouts.
> 

This is wise unless dealing with staff who can't/won't listen. In which 
case go for about 2MB - or even 1MB for cameras those will be using. 
Because they won't reduce them before overloading the computer, but this 
will be cancelled out by the fact that they won't ever be likely to crop 
or edit the photos anyway!

A 1MB photo at a standard resolution and size will print out as A4 size 
without noticeable quality loss.

I learned this with some of our staff the hard way  :(

-- 
Heglog.
_\/\|/_
c'/|\/
  l  l
  "  " 
Please take time to read the Charter & FAQs for uk.education.staffroom:
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/Charter
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/FAQs+for+ues

Heglog wrote:

> This is wise unless dealing with staff who can't/won't listen. In which 
> case go for about 2MB - or even 1MB for cameras those will be using. 
> Because they won't reduce them before overloading the computer, but this 
> will be cancelled out by the fact that they won't ever be likely to crop 
> or edit the photos anyway!
> 
> A 1MB photo at a standard resolution and size will print out as A4 size 
> without noticeable quality loss.
> 
> I learned this with some of our staff the hard way  :(

Ah, yes.  Heglog has more recent experience of the silliness of primary 
staff.  Actually, thinking about it, some of the FE staff should be 
restricted to 1M also :-(   However, I have left the cameras used by 
students set to 6M.

-- 
RatBag

    ()_().----.
     \"/` ___  )~~~~~~~
      ` ^^   ^^

Sheel wrote:
> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>> Sheel wrote:
>>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>>>> Meerkats' latest Sony camera is a comparative cheapie - around £120 - 
>>> Mine £39.99.
>>>
>> Cheapskate.
> 
> It had good reviews in Ah Goose.

Remind me, please, which company wanted to sell it to you.
Do they ever give any of the products they sell bad reviews?

>>> I'm worried. I understood that lot.
>>>
>>> Ta, oh gorgeous hunk of manliness.
>> Cheapskate with otherwise impeccable judgement and taste.
> 
> Except in wimmin.

If you will be ambidextrous.
-- 
   C°°>
   | [
   | ||
   |  \\
   | |
  /|-|
/ |_|_

Sheel wrote:
> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
> 
> 
>> That's why you need a photo editing program (and Irfanview is perfectly 
>> capable of doing this) to reduce the image size from 3000+ pixels wide 
>> to something like 400 or 600 pixels wide, according to the style of your 
>> web site. You not only reduce the actual image size but also the image 
>> quality, in order to reduce file size. You can reduce quality a fair bit 
>> (by 15% to 25%) without any apparent difference when viewed on a web page.
> 
> I've noticed photos look clearer on the screen than when printed out.
> 
> Is that cos I don't use photo paper?

No, it's because the image doesn't have enough pixels. The picture 
linked to last week showing the view from blankie's house was 800 x 600 
pixels, and woukd have looked fairly large on most screens, and fairly 
sharp. However, if you had tried to print it out it would have been 
"blocky" and indistinct. This would have been even more apparent had the 
photo been a close-up image of people or objects. However, the original 
photo, stored on the computer, is 3648 x 2736 pixels and will print out 
beautifully.

Incidentally, when you use an image editing program, such as Irfanview, 
to reduce the size and quality of the image before putting it on a web 
page, remember to save the reduced version with a different name, so as 
not to over-write the original! That way, you will have the web-friendly 
version and still have the original high resolution version for 
printing, etc. Meerkats learnt that lesson the hard way some years ago 
and no longer have good quality versions of photos that would now be of 
historic interest.

Meerkats disagree with Hedgehogs opinion that 1m pixels is good enough 
for printing A4 - Meerkats think you would be disappointed with the 
results of that and stick to the previous recommendation not to go below 
  5 million pixels. Never mind the argument about filling up the 
computer. External memory is very cheap these days, and you could always 
transfer collections of older photos to an external drive. It is part of 
the job of an ice cream taster to educate primary school teachers in 
these matters.

Has anyone seen my lawn mower?
-- 
   C°°>
   | [
   | ||
   |  \\
   | |
  /|-|
/ |_|_

In a mad moment - Ellie mumbled :


> "Sheel"  wrote in message
> news:0fpue51fod9bt28mbpl8pr23n3736j0l3g@4ax.com...
>> Ellie burbled:
>>
>>>
>>>"Sheel"  wrote in message
>>>news:qlmue5t9lme7877ttsut1go6t620ktbfij@4ax.com...
>>>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>>
>>>>>Meerkats leave it on 10m.
>>>>
>>>> I will too then.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't be able to upload that to my website - how big a file is that?
>>
>> I thought the m stood for metres.

> So how big a file is it, is the question I'm asking.
If you want pictures for a website (only) then, if you can set the 
number of pixels directly, go for 800x600.
As Jpegs their files will be around the 100k mark and the on screen 
details when viewed from the web will be more than adequate!


-- 
Bryn - I blame the Teachers -

Bryn Evans wrote:
> In a mad moment - Ellie mumbled :

>> So how big a file is it, is the question I'm asking.
> If you want pictures for a website (only) then, if you can set the 
> number of pixels directly, go for 800x600.
> As Jpegs their files will be around the 100k mark and the on screen 
> details when viewed from the web will be more than adequate!

That would deny you the option of cropping the image should that be 
desirable. It would also mean that you couldn't get decent prints from 
the images should you later decide that you want them. Ice cream tasters 
should stop moaning about how useless other teachers are - it is their 
job to heducate them in these matters.
-- 
   C°°>
   | [
   | ||
   |  \\
   | |
  /|-|
/ |_|_

meerkat.chaplin warbled...
> Ice cream tasters 
> should stop moaning about how useless other teachers are - it is their 
> job to heducate them in these matters.
> 

Thass twice... you sound as if you're desiring a bit of a hedukashun 
yourself.
I still think 1MB can be printed without pixellation - I reckons you 
just have a knackered old printer!

-- 
Heglog.
_\/\|/_
c'/|\/
  l  l
  "  " 
Please take time to read the Charter & FAQs for uk.education.staffroom:
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/Charter
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/FAQs+for+ues

meerkat.chaplin burbled:

>Sheel wrote:

>> It had good reviews in Ah Goose.
>
>Remind me, please, which company wanted to sell it to you.
>Do they ever give any of the products they sell bad reviews?

Yep.

>>>> I'm worried. I understood that lot.
>>>>
>>>> Ta, oh gorgeous hunk of manliness.
>>> Cheapskate with otherwise impeccable judgement and taste.
>> 
>> Except in wimmin.
>
>If you will be ambidextrous.

I can only type with 2 fingers.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

A day without sunshine is like... night. 

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

meerkat.chaplin burbled:

>It is part of 
>the job of an ice cream taster to educate primary school teachers in 
>these matters.

Yeah but, you need to educate me first.

>Has anyone seen my lawn mower?

It's with my chainsaw.
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

If you lead but no one follows... are you just out for a walk?

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

"meerkat.chaplin"  wrote in message 
news:7lb7a5F3a9h1pU1@mid.individual.net...
> Bryn Evans wrote:
>> In a mad moment - Ellie mumbled :
>
>>> So how big a file is it, is the question I'm asking.
>> If you want pictures for a website (only) then, if you can set the number 
>> of pixels directly, go for 800x600.
>> As Jpegs their files will be around the 100k mark and the on screen 
>> details when viewed from the web will be more than adequate!
>
> That would deny you the option of cropping the image should that be 
> desirable. It would also mean that you couldn't get decent prints from the 
> images should you later decide that you want them. Ice cream tasters 
> should stop moaning about how useless other teachers are - it is their job 
> to heducate them in these matters.

Ha!
And whose job is it to make sure they pay attention/remember?

-- 
Ellie
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/Charter
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/FAQs+for+ues

"Sheel"  wrote in message 
news:l001f5tjhc75jba01rrtmccbnn8jcpbois@4ax.com...
> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>
>>It is part of
>>the job of an ice cream taster to educate primary school teachers in
>>these matters.
>
> Yeah but, you need to educate me first.

Oh Gawd.

-- 
Ellie
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/Charter
http://staffroom.wikispaces.com/FAQs+for+ues

Ellie burbled:

>
>"Sheel"  wrote in message 
>news:l001f5tjhc75jba01rrtmccbnn8jcpbois@4ax.com...
>> meerkat.chaplin burbled:
>>
>>>It is part of
>>>the job of an ice cream taster to educate primary school teachers in
>>>these matters.
>>
>> Yeah but, you need to educate me first.
>
>Oh Gawd.

Yes?
-- 
Sheel          (Change me to me2 to email.)

It is much easier to apologise than to ask permission.

This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/