Warbird photos

Hey, all:

I was experimenting with the ability to blog directly from my Treo
smartphone thing, and posted a few warbird pictures I took with it a
couple of weeks ago. I thought I'd post this in case anyone wanted to
see them. Bear in mind that they were taken with the pretty basic
camera in my phone...

http://dcflyboy.blogspot.com

Cheers,
Wiz

"Wiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey, all:

I was experimenting with the ability to blog directly from my Treo
smartphone thing, and posted a few warbird pictures I took with it a
couple of weeks ago. I thought I'd post this in case anyone wanted to
see them. Bear in mind that they were taken with the pretty basic
camera in my phone...

http://dcflyboy.blogspot.com

Not bad! better than I would have thought, for a phone.

Does it not take a lot longer to type up a blog, with the little keyboard?

I see myself having one of those, but I'm waiting for the next generation,
or perhaps the one after that.
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

"Wiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was experimenting with the ability to blog directly from my Treo
smartphone thing, and posted a few warbird pictures I took with it a
couple of weeks ago. I thought I'd post this in case anyone wanted to
see them.

Nice...thanks for sharing. I did find myself wishing for a full-resolution
version (surely that's not the actual resolution of the picture you took, is
it?), but even in thumbnail form they are "pleasing to look at".

Sorry about your uncle. I love that your situation is a perfect example of
how light airplanes can solve a variety of common transportation needs
though.

Pete

Hey, Jim, thanks.

The keyboard is not really that bad, though I wouldn't type a novel on
it. The tech reporter from the Washington Post once filed his column
from one. It's about like typing an email from a Blackberry, or maybe
better, IMHO (I have a Blackberry for work).

I have the Treo 650. The current generation, the Treo 700, has a lot
faster data communication and also has a 1.3 megapixel camera, whereas
my 650 only has a 640 X 480 camera.

Regards,
Wiz

Morgans wrote:
"Wiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey, all:

I was experimenting with the ability to blog directly from my Treo
smartphone thing, and posted a few warbird pictures I took with it a
couple of weeks ago. I thought I'd post this in case anyone wanted to
see them. Bear in mind that they were taken with the pretty basic
camera in my phone...

http://dcflyboy.blogspot.com

Not bad! better than I would have thought, for a phone.

Does it not take a lot longer to type up a blog, with the little keyboard?

I see myself having one of those, but I'm waiting for the next generation,
or perhaps the one after that.
--
Jim in NC
--
Jim in NC

Thanks, Pete. I appreciate the kind words. The camera on my Treo is
640 X 480. I reduced the size to half in the HTML. I'll send you
links to the full-size photos via email.

Wiz


Peter Duniho wrote:
"Wiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
I was experimenting with the ability to blog directly from my Treo
smartphone thing, and posted a few warbird pictures I took with it a
couple of weeks ago. I thought I'd post this in case anyone wanted to
see them.

Nice...thanks for sharing. I did find myself wishing for a full-resolution
version (surely that's not the actual resolution of the picture you took, is
it?), but even in thumbnail form they are "pleasing to look at".

Sorry about your uncle. I love that your situation is a perfect example of
how light airplanes can solve a variety of common transportation needs
though.

Pete

"Wiz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks, Pete. I appreciate the kind words. The camera on my Treo is
640 X 480. I reduced the size to half in the HTML. I'll send you
links to the full-size photos via email.

I'll post my thanks here as well, now that I see your reply.

I'll point out to everyone else: the size reduction in the HTML is browser
client scaling only. The actual image files are in their original
resolution, and if you get the image source URL (typically this involves
right-clicking on the image and looking at the properties), you can use that
URL to look at the full-size image (it'll just grab the same file from your
cache, but display it unscaled).

Anyway, thanks again for sharing.

Pete

You've inspired me to make the thumbnails link to the full-size
version...

Cheers,
Wiz

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Wiz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks, Pete. I appreciate the kind words. The camera on my Treo is
640 X 480. I reduced the size to half in the HTML. I'll send you
links to the full-size photos via email.

I'll post my thanks here as well, now that I see your reply.

I'll point out to everyone else: the size reduction in the HTML is browser
client scaling only. The actual image files are in their original
resolution, and if you get the image source URL (typically this involves
right-clicking on the image and looking at the properties), you can use that
URL to look at the full-size image (it'll just grab the same file from your
cache, but display it unscaled).

Anyway, thanks again for sharing.

Pete

"Wiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
You've inspired me to make the thumbnails link to the full-size
version...

lol...okay, didn't mean to create more work for you.

Hey, if you really get ambitious, what you ought to do is provide thumbnail
files that are actually scaled-down versions of the originals, so that a
person doesn't actually download the bigger file unless they really want to
see it scaled up to full-size.

Ooops...sorry. I'm not making more work for you again, am I?

It's not often someone tells me I've inspired them...sorry, I must be
getting a little carried away...

Seriously though, even as originally posted, everything was great. Anything
beyond that is just gravy (yummy, perfectly seasoned,
coat-your-mouth-with-bursts-of-flavor gravy ).

Pete

Thanks for the advice, Pete. I figure with a 640 x 480 original image,
it won't download tooooo slowly, though!

Wiz


Peter Duniho wrote:
"Wiz" wrote in message
oups.com...
You've inspired me to make the thumbnails link to the full-size
version...

lol...okay, didn't mean to create more work for you.

Hey, if you really get ambitious, what you ought to do is provide thumbnail
files that are actually scaled-down versions of the originals, so that a
person doesn't actually download the bigger file unless they really want to
see it scaled up to full-size.

Ooops...sorry. I'm not making more work for you again, am I?

It's not often someone tells me I've inspired them...sorry, I must be
getting a little carried away...

Seriously though, even as originally posted, everything was great. Anything
beyond that is just gravy (yummy, perfectly seasoned,
coat-your-mouth-with-bursts-of-flavor gravy ).

Pete

"Wiz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks for the advice, Pete. I figure with a 640 x 480 original image,
it won't download tooooo slowly, though!

Depends on who's looking at them, but no...you're right. The 50K or so per
isn't going to be much of a big deal for most people (anyone on broadband
won't even notice).

I proposed that more as a point of elegance, since there's some "waste" in
sending a bunch of data to the browser that winds up just getting thrown out
right away anyway. But the other way to look at it is that there's some
"waste" in adding a 5K thumbnail to the server when the 50K original is
perfectly suitable for immediate download, even if the client never does
look at the full-size version. So I've got no real justification for that
except for personal bias anyway.

But hey, on the bright side, the whole issue gave me an opportunity to waste
another 10K or so of Usenet bandwidth, so there is that to be happy about.


Pete