At the risk of being told I should take on the job (I don't have the expertise), I have a suggestion for the website when the inevitable change overtakes us. That is to increase the picture size in the photo gallery. The current 432 pixel width looks pretty small in the middle of a much larger screen. If the required storage space wouldn't be prohibitive, it would be nice to have pictures that fill more of that black screen space.
Not for folks like me on dial up!! present situation is ideal for me!
Seems like just when I get used to a website they change it!
Then I have to start all over learning it.
I'm a bloody slow learner on these contraptions.
I say leave it alone as long as possible and maybe I'll kick my bucket before it's changed and I won't care.
I'm hoping change doesn't become inevitable. I had to give up on the MTFCI forum because, like some other folks, I just couldn't get the hang of it and couldn't get it to work for me. If it's because I'm just an old dog who doesn't want to learn new tricks, then I'm certainly not the only pooch in the pound.
As I look around me at the up-and-coming generation, I see young people (and by that, I mean everyone from toddlers to grad students) texting as they sit around the dinner table, texting while driving their cars (at the risk of their own lives and those of others), collecting "apps" like a magnet collects iron filings, as though they actually WANT their government to be able to track their whereabouts and every move they make (Don't get me started), and standing on overnight, around-the-block lines, clamoring for the latest thumb-operated, brain-numbing appliance from Apple, Sony, Samsung, or whomever. This is a generation absolutely enslaved to digital technology. And yes, we Baby-Boomers had gadgets too, but the technology of our pocket transistor-radios, ballpoint pens, microwave ovens, color televisions and wireless remotes didn't become our reason for living!
I like the present configuration of our MTFCA format because it doesn't require me to swim too far out into an unfamiliar ocean wherein swim undecipherable digital denizens, the advertising of which would have me assimilated alive like so many others who might as well be injecting FAQs, GIFs, TIFFS, IPs and MP3s into their veins (and RAM is what they can do with all that stuff, as far as I'm concerned).
Bigger pictures? Sure, that'd be nice and I'm on board with the Dauntless Geezer where that's concerned. But every once in a while, when one of my digital friends talks to me about the latest app on his nine-hundred dollar smart phone, I remind him, "You do realize you're talking to a man who starts his car with a crank—right?"
The good thing about a larger picture count is, for most people, it's easier. They don't have to resize their pictures down and they can zoom in and see more detail. The downside is for rural users on dialup with the picture load time. You can always load a smaller picture file. I'd love to see a higher resolution.
Exactly what is out there as far as the change is concerned? There's the Barn and the MTFCI sites and I'm familiar with a few Yahoo driven sites. The Yahoo sites are horrendous in my opinion. My personal preference would be for a Barn-like site. Any other opinions? And if possible maybe Chris could give a heads up as to the future.
Eventually the software for this site will no longer be supportable from a technical point and at that time will have to be changed over to more modern stuff. Until then........
Let us not forget that the internet has probably been the greatest boon to the old car hobby both in information and finding parts. I would hate to go back to the days of waiting for a club magazine and searching the few parts for sale ads to try and finish a antique auto project. I just turned 60 and hate a lot of the internet but live with it as it does in many ways make life easier? Personal privacy......well that's gone.
Sorry for the off topic rant......
Unfortunately, this forum may be familiar to those of us who are already here, but it is "uncharted waters" to everyone else in the world who has never seen this software before, and will never see it again if they don't take the time to learn it here on the only website in the whole internet that uses it.
This quirky software kept me off this site for a very long time before I finally gave it a chance and started poking around.
The question is how do we attract new users without losing the current users?
So how much screen can i fill with 35kb?
Hopefully dial up users can receive that in under 30 seconds.
The photo of the Reeves Octoauto is too big for my screen. It is various shaded of gray squares.
I can see about 1/4 of it, then have to scroll up and down to see the other parts of it.
: ^ (
There is no photo size limit on this site. The photo can be as large as you like as long as the file is not larger then 195KB.
Maybe your software that you use to resize photos limits you to 432 pixels but that is just an issue with your software and not this site.
Online posting of photos is not a passing fad and it would be in your best interest to get a real photo editing program to best show off your excellent photos. Probably the most popular and quite reasonably priced is Photoshop Elements (PSE). It works great in a PC or MAC machine.
I resize my pictures with Corel Paint Shop Pro. I select the option to maintain the picture aspect ratio and resize to 100 dots per inch, 7.9 inch width. So far, the resized pictures have always come in well below 194K.
Here is a sample I just did, it came out 788 pixels wide and 591 pixels high, 120 kilobytes:
I pretty much gave up posting photos unless I use my photobucket account. This is the only site that I have to resize my photos and after 2 or 3 tries resizing and getting error messages when I try to post them I give up.
Jim, I'm not limited to 432 pixels when I post pictures on the forum. That's the number I got when I checked a few of the photos already posted in the MTFCA photo gallery. The file sizes were from 25KB to 33KB. Blow that up to see detail, and you know what you'll get. It would be nice if you could post files of any size on the forum and the site would automatically resize them, like Facebook and some other sites, but that isn't what my suggestion was about. My Mac software works fine for resizing (unlike the clunky Windows machine I made the mistake of buying). It's easy. My suggestion was that the photos in the gallery be bigger than four inches on a seventeen inch screen. The current procedure for gallery pictures is to email them to Chris, and he posts them. I assume that he receives them in all sorts of oversizes, and resizes them to fit the current requirements. My suggestion is that the requirements for the gallery be changed to allow bigger pictures to appear on the screen.
For those who are wondering what the difference is, here's a gallery sized shot.
And here is it forum sized.
I'd be interested to hear from the folks on dial-up if the second picture is a lot worse for them than the first.
Didn't seem too much worse for me, although the computer was downloading something else, so it took a bit of time!
Mark, Photobucket is a pain on dial up!
If Chris resizes photos to 25KB to 33KB, then he is making them much smaller then necessary and you could likely do a much better job.
I understand that it would be easier for folks that do not know how to resize photos to just upload what comes out of the camera. Then if there is some forum software that resizes for viewing it would work just fine. However if someone has to pay for the storage of large files, it becomes a problem. If folks are posting photos that are 5 to 10MB, when a very good web posted images can take just 200KB, it eats up space very fast with no benefit. One 10MB photo will take up the space of 50 correctly sized photos.
How does this photo show up on your screen? The file size is nearly the same size as your car photo above.
It looks fine. With a width of 1400 pixels it should. I am not, I repeat NOT suggesting storage of any 10MB files. This picture is under 200KB, and it's plenty big enough. In fact, if its proportions were 3:4 it would be too tall to fit the screen.
Yes, I could resize photos to a better size. So could you. So could a lot of us. But that's irrelevant because it's not how the gallery works. Look at the gallery. The instructions say, "Send a scanned image of your photo by e-mail to: Chris Brancaccio". The way it's set up, the webmaster does the resizing. My ONLY suggestion above was that it would be nice if the pictures in the gallery appeared bigger on the screen. I did NOT suggest storing files over 200KB. I did NOT suggest a change of format. I did NOT suggest pictures so big you have to scroll to see them. I did NOT suggest any change to the forum. My ONLY suggestion was for the gallery, the whole gallery, and nothing but the gallery. To wit: It would be nice, if technically feasible, for gallery pictures to be larger than the current small size.
Whew! I wore myself out with that one. I'm going to bed.
Steve, Steve, Steve. Sir.
What we really want know is if you are suggesting that the gallery be expanded so much so that the gigabits outweigh the megabits on the atomic scale and force dial up users to resort to solar powered calculators made by Radio Shack, subsidiary of Tandy.
Or maybe you just want bigger pics in the gallery?
Don't keep us in suspense!
I agree. With the small number if photos in the photo gallery, making them larger would have very little impact on the storage requirement for the web site. Probably a carry over from years ago when everyone was on a dial up and smaller monitors were standard.
That pic took about 4 minutes to load.
Not bad, unless there are a bunch in the email or in the thread.
"How does this photo show up on your screen?"
WAY to big, have to move it around a lot to see it all.
Steve, a person can Right Click on a photo and Click on Properties in the window that opens to determine the photo size.
The big difference in size is Dots Per Inch (DPI) which can be changed with several different programs.
I normally use 100 DPI, as it is easy to note that 100 dots will display a 1 inch photo dimension.
Your small photo is 46,758 Bytes or 46.8 KiloBytes (KB). A byte is 8 bits of digital data for those that might be wondering.
Your larger photo is 170,736 Bytes and still under the 200 KB limit.
Photos sent through the Internet are always sent at 72 DPI for some reason that I have not discovered yet.
Newer high resolution cameras can take photos at 1200 DPI or more. A 4 X 6 inch photo at 1200 DPI may go slower through the Internet OK, but will display on the receiving computer as a 66.6 X 99.9 inch photo and be very difficult to display on most computer screens.
Actually Dots Per Inch (DPI) only come into play when printing photos. For images displayed on a computer it is the size in pixels that determines the displayed size. When you check the size of a photo online it will give you the size in pixels and not the DPI.
For example a photo that is 800 pixels wide could be described at 8 inches at 100 DPI or 11.1 inches at 72 DPI. Both will display exactly the same but both will not print the same.
Once a photo is displayed the size can easily be changed using the Control key - Mouse Wheel resizing trick (at least on a PC).
I have not run across any other web site in the last five years that still uses this software and limits pictures quite so severely. Every month appears to bring new technology to the computer world. I recently read an article that stated the Chinese have surpassed the Titan Cray computer run by the U.S. Department of Energy at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory with their Tianhe-2 which has the computing power of 33.86 Petaflops and can perform quadrillions of calculations per second.
I still have trouble staying between the line with my jumbo Crayola let alone trying to change pixels and dots!
Getting way off topic, but TIANHE-2 also uses 17.8 MEGAWATTS of power! If you're interested in the biggest computers in the world, the list is here: http://s.top500.org/static/lists/2013/11/TOP500_201311.xls Updated every six months. (Architecting these things is what I do for a living.)
You know I feel for you guys who, for whatever reason, are on dial up but I wonder where you'll be when & if the change comes. Dave mentions 4 minutes to load a picture. Will it improve for you or get worse?
Well it general takes 2 to 7 minutes for a page like this to load on dial up for me. The thread I posted last night took me about 20 minutes to send as I uploaded each picture and checked.
Steve,your second picture shows up fine and was quicker than the other 1 with bearing parts.
I hope I am a old grey haired man when the software changes.
Uh,well uh,I am all ready grey headed! :>0
I know it keeps getting mentioned about changeing this website.I think the mess with the other 1 should be a good indicator of what happens when you change something that works.
As for me on dailup.I only have 2 choices for high speed. Windstream,or time warner.We dont have cable tv and would have to bury the line coming in here and it is expensive.and Da--ed if I am paying for television considering how lousy the programing is and the fact they gouge you for the channels you want and give you crap you don't.
Windstream high speed requires a modem thing to plug in the computer and I have 3 older computers.1 here in the house and 1 in my shop and the little building i do radio work and did some ebaying.metal buildings that the wireless stuff will not work in.So dial up is sadly the only internet I can use unless I tote that modem from 1 machine to the other.
Which at some point I may have to do.
But I was hoping for the "new" wireless internet to become common place.You know the internet the government claimed was what they wanted to do with the old tv frequency band? That has never materialized?
First time I have seen the Octomobile in a long time.
I have been reading this thread. I agree with Steve we could make the photo gallery pictures bigger. Most of the pictures have been there for years. I have uploaded them larger than the past posts.
I also think we should be proofing them as a lot of them could be outdated. Any ideas on that?
We are currently moving the website to another host.
No change in the forum software at this time. I would like to find some way of automatically resizing pictures though.
Check the last 2 pictures on the touring page. I am on my iPad so can't tell you the size but they fill my screen.
The pictures on the row above are much smaller.
What's the touring page??
Chris was talking about this photo:
Found under the touring link at:
It is a nice size.
Thanks Jim, That photo is 292kb, which is 98kb larger then what can be posted now, That's great!
So Chris, how large a photo in kilobits can posting be tweaked up to?
I'm in worse shape than Mack, I live where there is no cable, no wireless. Our TV is from an antenna in a tall Ponderosa Pine tree that has grown around the antenna, so now I can't turn it for reception, and bits of antenna keep showing up on the ground, so either the tree or the squirrels are dismantling it. I'm now down to two channels--fortunately one of them is an old movie channel!
So, back to phone line or satellite, and to get the southern exposure for it would require cutting down some trees--nope! The phone line barely works, often has cross-talk on it, so my dial-up is at about 36K--sometimes 42K.
I called the gummit, and asked about their 'rural outreach' for high speed internet, "You live in California, so you aren't rural!" Hmm, there's parts of this state they've never seen!
"You live in California, so you aren't rural!" Incredible! Anyone who would make an idiotic statement like that needs to visit Kelso, or Jonesville, or Indian Falls. It's appalling that people in a position to make decisions can make them based on such abject ignorance.
Those last two touring pictures are quite an improvement. They take up about a quarter of my screen. The others occupy about an eighth. Blowing up the last two to fill the screen top to bottom starts to show pixels, but not nearly as much as doing the same to the smaller ones.
There are parts of the Trinity Alps up North here in Califunny that still haven't been stepped on by the white man, which in my book makes them less then rural! Sorry David no Obama phone for you!
Chris -- Those two pics each will nearly fill my screen. The others are maybe a quarter of it.
CHRIS, Since you were able to post a photo 100 kb over current photo posting size does that mean you can raise the limit for the rest of us???
I would like to share some literature here and 194kb does not cut the mustard for viewing print on full pages.
Just to be clear we are talking about 2 different areas.
1 What Steve started the thread about, the pictures in the photo gallery. I control (do) that.
2 The limit of 200kb of posting pictures in the forum.
I will give you some stats on that when I get a chance. I want to clean up the website when we transfer to the new host.
We will entertain raising the limit based on how it will affect the total storage requirements
Here are the stats I mentioned.
Thanks Chris for the explanation.
I am confused! The last 3 years pictures takes up 7 GB. In today's storage devices that is nothing. I have 3 terabyte external storages. Storage is getting cheaper all the time. If there is a Forum 50 years from now how would you propose storing all the data?
@Ivan - I get what you're saying. On the surface your computer's hard drive and a server hard drive seem to do the same thing. And yes, data is definitely getting cheaper every year. But there are quite a few differences between your computer's hard drive and a server. Server hard drives are much more robust, easily have 2-3 times faster write/read ability, and are more reliable. Consequently they cost a lot more. :/
In addition websites/forums the size of MTFCA.com can't rely on many of cheaper shared hosting platforms. Sites of this size require a dedicate or virtual private hosting solution which base their rates on a site's storage/data usage. So I can understand why Chris has concerns about the site's data storage.
I agree with Steve Jelf. I don't post any photos on this forum as it is too hard for me to do. I know and appreciate you guys who helped me last time I was on as a member but still not easy. Also on the HAMB we can have a few albums of our photos and it is easy to download them. I am on here more than there though but at least THERE I have more people talk to me. I have more restoration of T photos on there too. Also many of the other cars I have done. Less then a forth of them though.
On another note I hate learning a new process too! I get migraines from it. In teaching my last 12 years I had to learn the Auto Cad systems and they were always changing them. Also we used other systems of computer aided drafting too that I had to become familiar with!!! HATED IT!!!!! but that is the way it is. The new Cloud system is gonna be the next thing. We will have to learn it someday. Providing you are here and I hope you are!
Chris – thank you for all you do for us!!!!
I would like to keep the photos with the postings. I.e. photobucket etc. is nice but when they are removed from photo bucket they are no longer available for the thread etc. I would like to have higher resolution photos available. If there was a way to post "thumbnails" the small photo that has the embedded link to the larger photo, that might allow the dial up folks to down load faster and only click on the photos they want to view. I.e. if you read the thread yesterday, they would not need to expand the photos unless they wanted to revisit them.
You can also set your windows browser up so it will NOT automatically display any photos. Insteady you will have the option to right click on the place holder box and then display the photo if you want to display it. Download times are much faster for any file that has photos. If you have internet explorer from the web site at: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/help/genuine/ie-display-images I copied the following instructions and changed them so the images would not show up unless you ask to see them.
Caution -- this is for a PC and NOT a Mac -- I don't know if it would or would not work on a Mac.
To adjust Internet Explorer so it will NOT display images, do the following:
1. Open Internet Explorer.
2. Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options.
3. Click the Advanced tab.
4. Scroll down the Settings list until you see Multimedia.
5. Put a check mark in the box next to “Show image download place holders”
6. Remove the check mark from the box “Show Pictures”
7. Click OK, and then click OK again.
8. Then close out of internet explorer and relaunch it.
It worked for me. It now loads all the web sites without any photos showing and I only open the ones I want to see. That would mean it would be helpful if we typed a short description of the photo such as “engine or 1915 Touring” etc. That is an option when we upload them.
I will put my computer back to display photos as some of the other items such as the icons at the top of thread do not display either. But when I only had dial up, I found that very helpful. To display a photo just right click on the box it would have been in, then select “Show Photo” from the drop down list.
If you do not like the results – just reverse the steps above.
Hap l9l5 cut off
I use a free program "fastStone photo resizer" to reduce the data size of my pictures down to below 200 kb takes about 45 seconds easy to use and as the pictures above show, amazing detail try it and other free programs I love seeing pictures on the forum
There is a trick I use for my resizing of photos. It may not work for all. When I take photos and Im loading them on the computer, (or already in my pics folder) I just e-mail them to myself. The "my pics" folder has a e-mail option button. The outlook e-mail asks me if I want to "resize my pics" or leave "full size" I can then post directly to the forum or move them from the e-mail to "my pics" I can usealy do about 10 pics like that in about 1 minute. They are a good size for the forum. Might not work for others but works good for me as a fast shortcut.