WARNING: This is a photograph

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

The statement was about downloading images using ImageMagick instead
of a browser. I'm not surprised at all that you didn't bother to
read that, and have no clue what you are talking about.

And we can trust that I probably know far more about using
ImageMagick tools for resizing images that you can even begin to
imagine. Here is, or example, a line from the script that I use to
downsize an image. You wouldn't know how to change it for upsizing,
and wouldn't have a clue why half of the options are even used!

convert input_file.jpg -depth 32 -gamma 0.454545 -filter
Lanczos -sampling-factor 1x1 -resize 900x600 -quality 89
-gamma 2.2 -depth 8 -density 360 -units PixelsPerInch
output_file.jpg

Go ahead, tell me what you think that does! We need some humor
here!

This is classic Floyd - post a very basic rudimentary imagemagick command
and claim he knows more about imagemagick than other people based on it.
You are a computer illiterate, Floyd, and have very shallow knowledge about
anything regarding computers.

And for those that think this is somehow an "advanced" command, here's what
it does.

My goodness, you can read the man page!

1. It opens "input_file.jpg"
2. set the bit depth to 32

Why do that?

3. Set's the gamma

What change that?

4. Sets the resizing filter (needlessly, it defaults to Lanczos)

Why set it?

5. Sets the chroma-subsampler to 1x1

Why set it?

6. Resize the image so that it fits within a 900x600 area, while keepipng
ratio
7. Sets JPG compression to 89%
8. Changes the gamma, again

Why do it again?

9. Changes the bit depth, again

Why do it again?

10. Sets the DPI to 360
11. Sets the resolution unit
12. Saves to output_file.jpg

Only Floyd could think this is advanced usage of imagemagick.

Well, you aren't the only clueless one here...
Just one of the most clueless.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
No matter which specific hardware you aim it at, there are many
others that are different, and some of the ones that are what
you target will need a slightly different display size simply
because the user has changed the screen to something other than
the default.

Sandman:
Irrelevant. On a desktop, the image will always be 561 pixels
wide, regardless of what resolution the monitor is set to.

The monitor resolution has nothing to do with it.

How big is the window the browser is displaying it in has everything
to do with it.

Incorrect.

It is very unlikely that any given image is not
resampled for display.

Incorrect.

Floyd L. Davidson:
If the display mechanism has to resize it anyway, what you did
to start with, for size differences like the those shown, is
redundant.

Sandman:
I.e. it isn't.

Floyd L. Davidson:
It it were for a size difference large enough to significantly
affect download time things would be different, but that isn't
the case for 300x vs 561x vs 600x pixel dimensions.

Sandman:
The image is resized to fit the recieving device to be displayed
as properly as possible. This is done server-side so that resizing
is not needed client-side.

You can determine what the client's monitor is, maybe... but you
can't determine how big the screen window it will be displayed in
happens to be.

Irrelevant, the topic was images displayed on a web page, at which point
the browser window is irrelevant. Maybe you think resizing the browser
window resizes all images in the web page in it, but that doesn't make it
true.

(As a sidenote, this is what responsive web does, but I do not use it in
the examples provided).

You're way out of your league, again. Bail out before it's too late


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Sandman:
This is classic Floyd - post a very basic rudimentary imagemagick
command and claim he knows more about imagemagick than other
people based on it. You are a computer illiterate, Floyd, and have
very shallow knowledge about anything regarding computers.

And for those that think this is somehow an "advanced" command,
here's what it does.

My goodness, you can read the man page!

No man page needed. As I said, use imagemagick heavily in my CMS.

Sandman:
10. Sets the DPI to 360 11. Sets the resolution unit 12. Saves to
output_file.jpg

Only Floyd could think this is advanced usage of imagemagick.

Well, you aren't the only clueless one here... Just one of the most
clueless.

I love being called clueless by a moron like you. You were just run over by
a truck, please insult me some more, roadkill.


--
Sandman[.net]

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
No matter which specific hardware you aim it at, there are many
others that are different, and some of the ones that are what
you target will need a slightly different display size simply
because the user has changed the screen to something other than
the default.

Sandman:
Irrelevant. On a desktop, the image will always be 561 pixels
wide, regardless of what resolution the monitor is set to.

The monitor resolution has nothing to do with it.

How big is the window the browser is displaying it in has everything
to do with it.

Incorrect.

It is very unlikely that any given image is not
resampled for display.

Incorrect.

Floyd L. Davidson:
If the display mechanism has to resize it anyway, what you did
to start with, for size differences like the those shown, is
redundant.

Sandman:
I.e. it isn't.

Floyd L. Davidson:
It it were for a size difference large enough to significantly
affect download time things would be different, but that isn't
the case for 300x vs 561x vs 600x pixel dimensions.

Sandman:
The image is resized to fit the recieving device to be displayed
as properly as possible. This is done server-side so that resizing
is not needed client-side.

You can determine what the client's monitor is, maybe... but you
can't determine how big the screen window it will be displayed in
happens to be.

Irrelevant, the topic was images displayed on a web page, at which point
the browser window is irrelevant. Maybe you think resizing the browser
window resizes all images in the web page in it, but that doesn't make it
true.

"Irrelevant" is ridiculous.

The window size is one of several things that determines
the number of pixels any given image uses for the actual
screen display.

(As a sidenote, this is what responsive web does, but I do not use it in
the examples provided).

You're way out of your league, again. Bail out before it's too late

Wouldn't you like that!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Sandman wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Sandman:
This is classic Floyd - post a very basic rudimentary imagemagick
command and claim he knows more about imagemagick than other
people based on it. You are a computer illiterate, Floyd, and have
very shallow knowledge about anything regarding computers.

And for those that think this is somehow an "advanced" command,
here's what it does.

My goodness, you can read the man page!

No man page needed. As I said, use imagemagick heavily in my CMS.

But as we can see, you don't have a clue what any of
that was for, or why it was used, or when it would
be changed to something else.

Sandman:
10. Sets the DPI to 360 11. Sets the resolution unit 12. Saves to
output_file.jpg

Only Floyd could think this is advanced usage of imagemagick.

Well, you aren't the only clueless one here... Just one of the most
clueless.

I love being called clueless by a moron like you. You were just run over by
a truck, please insult me some more, roadkill.

I note that you can't answer even one question about what the
commands were doing...

And you call other people a moron!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 03:28:28 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 22:56:48 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:05:59 GMT, Savageduck
wrote:

Whiskers wrote:
On 2015-01-25, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

of course it's possible but you need more than a direct link to a jpg.
the web server needs to serve up the appropriate image.

That might work for some people, but web servers don't recognise all the
factors influencing the sort of image most suitable for each visitor.

I tend to use "imagemagick" or "graphicsmagick" to download image files
without the usual browser overheads.

Perhaps posters could consider providing URLs for images of different
sizes, so that people could choose for themselves? QVGA, VGA, 720p,
1080p, perhaps? Or just indicate the file size?


In these NGs most of the regulars are sharing images of recent, or reedited
work, and each of us has a different motive for doing that. None of us are
sharing image files here for general publication. That said, I don't
particularly like image files which have been downsized to the point of
being useless. Also, I have a particular workflow, and if I am going to
resize an image file for online sharing I have a preset export
configuration in Lightroom which restricts the vertical dimension to
940-960px and the jpeg file size to a max of 800MB.
What I do not have the time for, and I am not going to do, is is post a
selection of sizes. If any of my images don't work for you on whatever
device/display you choose to use for viewing images, so be it.

As Eric, Peter, Tony, and others here know, if an original RAW or jpeg file
is requested we are prepared to share those within reason.

So the regulars here have probably seen this before, but for demo purposes,
and the benefit of newcomers, or lurkers, here is one of my images resized
with Lightroom to what I believe is a reasonable size.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ef7v7exxua1g805/DNC_5166-Edit-1.jpg?dl=0

I'm looking at it on a 24" screen 1920 x 1200 at about 95 dpi. Your
image has a brilliant blue sky as a background, a sharply delineated
subject, and yet it still doesn't look as sharp as I have come to
expect from you. Have you overdone the down-sizing or is it an
artifact of Drop Box?

With my desktop out of operation until Tuesday I am not sure quite how to
respond to your remarks regarding sharpness, as for now I can only open the
DB link on my iPad in various apps, and it seems to be as it last appeared
on my desktop when I exported it to DB via Lightroom.

The sky was blue, not a cloud anywhere that day. I have posted other images
from that shoot and this is the first time that sort of observation has
been made.
That said, here is the same P-38L this time passing left to right, and a
few frames away from the "not so sharp" shot. There might be an issue using
the Dropbox iOS app to get the link, but I just don't know how that could
cause problems with a jpeg on their server.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4pnva6zxuz6u43m/DNC_5153-Edit-2-1.jpg?dl=0

The question is, what does Drop Box do with it? I tried to download it
but Drop Box required that I sign in and presented me with a giant
immovable form which vastly overflowed my screen. I couldn't see more
than a quarter of it, let alone complete it. :-(


That is odd. I sent that as a public link which all viewers should be able
to viewer in a browser, or download without having an open DB account.

As for what DB does with it, that is an area where I can say I don't have a
clue.

That's no good for a detective.

I am retired. However, I will get to the bottom of this oddity.



--
Savageduck

On 1/25/2015 11:18 PM, Savageduck wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2015 10:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:55:00 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2015 5:13 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:06:20 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 11:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:38:39 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 6:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:04:37 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 4:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:21:18 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 2:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg
13 years ago, 5 Mpx. A paddle wheel on the Murray River


Neat shot.
A small request. I have high speed cable and the image loads slowly. Can
you post smaller images in the future.

Sorry about that. I overlooked that that was a print sized for an A4
output. This one should be better.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg


I like the way 'high-speed fibre' is slow. It's like the way the
smallest tube of toothpaste is 'large' and the next size is 'giant
family size'.



Actually high speed fiber cable is pretty quick. However, if I am not at
home, and am using my cell--- slow + $$$

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

But then, you were joking, weren't you?


It ya don show me mo respet a'll git ma fren joey atter u. ;-)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20131117_five%20pointz_0096.jpg


... an I'll get my mum to deal with joey
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kV5xPg5kbU8/hqdefault.jpg


But Joey is an original image I created.

I didn't realise that. It's rather good. Did you apply any of the
graffiti?


Nope. I saw that guy shadow boxing in an area that used to be full of
grafitti. He had just finished his workout, but was happy to go at it
again. Here is what part of the area looked like.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/five%20pointz%20partial.jpg

That's all been cleaned off now, hasn't it?


Defacedd is a more accurte work. that was an art school. The lease was
up. The owner whitewashed the building to keep it from being called
"significant art." The building demolished. That whole are has become yuppified.


I believe the term used today is "gentrification".
"Yuppie" & "hippie" are passé these days.

Yes!
But I'm old fashioned. Yesterday even bought a lot of blizzard food.


--
PeterN

On 1/26/2015 2:55 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote:

Mosr people I know have a screen monitor @ 72 or 96 ppi. I could be
wrong, wouldn't downloading a higher res image be a waste of
bandwidth.

Just so you know, the old 96/72 ppi thing hasn't been applicable in thirty
years now.

The ppi (pixels per inch) is different from monitor to monitor, not a fixed
value set by the operating system. Going to Best Buy's homepage and listing
monitors on "best selling":

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/computer-monitors/all-monitors/pcmcat143700050048.c?id=pcmcat143700050048

You'll see these PPI's:

HP 20" @ 1600x900: 92 PPI
AOC 19.5" @ 1600x900: 94 PPI
HP 21.5" @ 1920x1080: 102 PPI
HP 25" @ 1920x1080: 88 PPI

Etc, etc.

The old 72 PPI vs 96 PPI came from the fact that the original Mac had a
72PPI screen.

Microsoft, not having a built in screen, still needed to report an internal
PPI (points per inch, not pixels) and wrote their software and treated the
physical screen as displaying 4/3 of what it could actually display, in
spite of most screens at the time (i.e. 30 years ago) were about 72PPI. So
Microsoft's software "assumed" every screen was 96 PPI (i.e 72 + (72/3)).
This allowed for bitmap fonts to be created with greater detail, but it
also meant that on every 72" screen (i.e. most), all text would be rendered
1/3 larger, but the 1:1 relation between screen and printer that Mac
users "enjoyed" was lost.

And, like I said, this was only relevant 30 years ago. Today, with vector
fonts and high resolution displays, this is no longer a problem, so people
don't have their displays set to 72 or 96 ppi.


Whoosh!


--
PeterN

On 1/26/2015 2:56 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 23:05:32 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2015 10:12 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 20:55:00 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/25/2015 5:13 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 13:06:20 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 11:17 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:38:39 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 6:46 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 18:04:37 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 4:36 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 12:21:18 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/24/2015 2:17 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg
13 years ago, 5 Mpx. A paddle wheel on the Murray River


Neat shot.
A small request. I have high speed cable and the image loads slowly. Can
you post smaller images in the future.

Sorry about that. I overlooked that that was a print sized for an A4
output. This one should be better.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../LR--00126.jpg


I like the way 'high-speed fibre' is slow. It's like the way the
smallest tube of toothpaste is 'large' and the next size is 'giant
family size'.



Actually high speed fiber cable is pretty quick. However, if I am not at
home, and am using my cell--- slow + $$$

I'm sorry but I don't think it is possible to present images
caterering for both cellphones and 27" iMac 5k Retina displays. Even
leaving out the question of the number of pixels, the size of the
image is a major consideration in it's selection.

But then, you were joking, weren't you?


It ya don show me mo respet a'll git ma fren joey atter u. ;-)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20131117_five%20pointz_0096.jpg


... an I'll get my mum to deal with joey
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kV5xPg5kbU8/hqdefault.jpg


But Joey is an original image I created.

I didn't realise that. It's rather good. Did you apply any of the
graffiti?


Nope. I saw that guy shadow boxing in an area that used to be full of
grafitti. He had just finished his workout, but was happy to go at it
again. Here is what part of the area looked like.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/five%20pointz%20partial.jpg

That's all been cleaned off now, hasn't it?


Defacedd is a more accurte work. that was an art school. The lease was
up. The owner whitewashed the building to keep it from being called
"significant art." The building demolished. That whole are has become
yuppified.

I thought something like that had happened.


It happened two days after my last trip there. I have to think that the
insignificant series of shots I took that day, may be of some small
significance. (And don't tell me that's an oxymoron.)
--
PeterN

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Floyd L. Davidson:
You can determine what the client's monitor is, maybe... but you
can't determine how big the screen window it will be displayed
in happens to be.

Sandman:
Irrelevant, the topic was images displayed on a web page, at which
point the browser window is irrelevant. Maybe you think resizing
the browser window resizes all images in the web page in it, but
that doesn't make it true.

"Irrelevant" is ridiculous.

Incorrect.

The window size is one of several things that determines the number
of pixels any given image uses for the actual screen display.

The width set by CSS or HTML is what determines the size of the image.

img src='floydisignorant.jpg' width='100' height='100'

The above will not change regardless of your web browser window size.

You're welcome.

Sandman:
(As a sidenote, this is what responsive web does, but I do not use
it in the examples provided).

You're way out of your league, again. Bail out before it's too
late

Wouldn't you like that!

Not at all, I would prefer that any person commenting on these matters were
knowledgable and had something to contribute. Then along came you. Pity.


--
Sandman[.net]