My 1 2 3 Test info

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

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!

"®i©ardo" schreef in bericht
...
Clem wrote:
"Glen in Orlando" wrote in news:48afebf6$0$28433
:


SNIP

Hey Clem...
SNIP


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.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

Irfanview is the greatest!
It can convert many formats and can downsize to any factor you like.
Once you set up a "scale" factor and the desired filetype and tell it where
you want the resized pictures to be saved it remembers this until you tell
it otherwise.
After that each picture takes about 3 seconds, depending on how fast you can
load and save them.

If you're really enthousiastic, send the brilliant writer, Irfan Skiljan,
some money. This is not mandatory since he is very proud of his program (and
rightly so) but it will encourage him to develop even more clever tricks.
I have no association with him but I do admire his cleverness.

Regards,
Herman

"Glen in Orlando" wrote in news:48b04483$0$19406
:

Clem..
a full evening resizing???
I can take 500 NEF (RAW) files with my Nikon...
convert them to JPEG
Resize them for posting...
All in less then 15 minutes... all automated too...

Glen in Orlando




What are you using to convert/resize them?

My camera gives me an option as to how I want to save a file, but I'm looking
for software that will convert an already saved group of files into something
more palatable for a server.

If I have 20 files the size of the F4 pic I uploaded and I want to reduce
them so the server doesn't cut them up into smaller files, is there any 3rd
party software that could do it as a batch?

I have looked for software providing that function and I can't seem to find
any. At least the function is not noted on the display box or sales people I
talk with are not sure.

JRW wrote in :

Glen in Orlando wrote:
Clem..
a full evening resizing???
I can take 500 NEF (RAW) files with my Nikon...
convert them to JPEG
Resize them for posting...
All in less then 15 minutes... all automated too...

Glen in Orlando



Yup, I do it also with my Pentax digital.
I then place the original files to disc and save the resized files to my
backup drive.

You are right Glen, it's easy as hell. I just posted the link for a
batch resizer and batch renamer. You can do it all at once....in less
than 15 minutes..ha ha

http://www.faststone.org/

JRW


Thanks, I'll check it out.

®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.

"Herman" wrote in news:b8a5e$48b081a3$52480d09
:

Irfanview

This one looks like a winner. I just downloaded it. Time to play!

Peter Hucker wrote in
:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:35:20 -0500, Clem
wrote:

JRW wrote in news:48afee53$0$19192$dbd4b001
:

WTG Glen.........the quality is great. Thanks for posting.

I use Fast Stone photo resizer for all my digital needs. It's fast,easy
to use and I reduce the photos to screensaver size. Fast Stone is free
which is even better.

I agree, what is the point to such large files?

Proving "points" is not what this group is about. But then you'll always
have a few that have to post differently, because they can.
I think far more folks will look if they are posted just like you have
done. I think they'd have then many positive reactions.

JRW

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?

Glen in Orlando.





Let me ask this question, it's yEnc free.

What is the maximum file size, not lines in a file, but the actual file
size before it's broken into sections by a server? I would say 8K max. Did
anyone elses server reduce my one large file into anything larger than an
8K file?

No, this is not about proving points or anything else except to provide
better through-put on the servers. Until you experiment a little or ask
questions how can you impove on anything?

The units are all mixed up in this thread. 8000 lines perhaps, but 8K
means 8KB, which is minute.

The max for some servers is 1MB per post. For mine it's 10MB. Try it
and see.

I noticed on Xnews software the file size is listed as total lines in a
picture rather than by traditional sizing. I wasn't sure if they were one in
the same.

Your the first to point out an interesting oddity of different servers.

My server is breaking a file at 8K and yours is much higher. This also might
be a reason why I don't see as many posts as others do. I know servers have a
switch to refuse messages considered to large. Presumably, it's a way to
eliminate or reduce spam. I have a lot of questions for my provider in the
morning!

Peter Hucker wrote in
:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:29:35 +0200, "Fabio" wrote:


"Clem" ha scritto nel messaggio
6.97.136...
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed - no point in splitting unless it's very very big. And I can
post 10MB in one article without splitting.

FYI, it was my server that split the F4 picture into 10-11 diffirent files.
I downloaded it from this group as 1 normal file a few years ago. You would
think the same file could be uploaded again without any problems. What
appeared to be a deliberate multipart posting by me was actually not.

The only way I can prevent that from happening again is to first learn what
my provider considers "simple" in size and reduce files to that size.

Considering the fact that newer cameras have higher resolutions which
translate to larger file sizes, it's not until you upload a file, that you
will know if it becomes a multipart or not if your unfamiliar with your
servers limitations. Come Monday morning my provider is getting a call.
I'll share the info after I get it.

"Terry M" wrote in news:
:

There is a test binary group. May I suggest using that so that you
don't
flood this group until you are prepared to post. Not trying to be a
smart
a.. - just a friendly suggestion as I know you were trying to accomplish
something good.


"Clem" wrote in message
. 97.136...
Using Xnews, I just did 3 uploads of an F-4 picture file which shows
almost
4KB.

The first test was a straight upload. It was broke into 10 files of 8K
and
one at 5714.

The second was with MIME. It also was broke into 11 files with very near
the
same results.

The third test was an upload in yEnc. This time the file was broke into
only
10 sections nine of which were in the 3200 range and one in the 2000
range.

Someone said yEnc creates a larger file. I'm at a loss how that is
figured
seeing as this test indicates the opposit.

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.




It appears the problem is split between the actual file size and the
different servers that feed this group. Using a test server would be
pointless because I could not get the feed back I needed when I call my
provider Monday. If you read some of my other replies you will get a better
idea of why I'm doing this.

BTW, I considered your idea and looked for a reliable test server. Do you
have any idea how many are out there!