Subject: Re: Windows freeware to lock in a 3: or 4:3 aspect ratio for cropping
In message <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mayayana<email@example.com> writes:
>recently mounted my monitor on a drawer slide because
>I was leaning forward so much it was hurting my neck.
>now I just sit down and pull the monitor toward me...
>So I can't lean forward. Though I'm not sure what
>the radiation from that close display might be doing to
CRT or LCD?
>| When you say they want "vacation photos to fit on disk", do you mean "to
>| fit on _a_ disc", i. e. to make a CD (or, I guess these days, a DVD), to
>| give to friends/relatives?
> No I just meant that a lot of people are constantly
>taking 10MB phone shots and then want to save them
>on their computer. The people who complain that they
Yes; I've yet to buy (or use at work!) a digital camera where one of my
first actions is to change the default resolution to other than the
maximum. (I use higher resolution when I _need_ it.) But I'm very much
in the minority in this: virtually everyone I know takes all pictures at
>need to buy a 4 TB hard disk because the 2 TB is full.
It's not just the storage space needed: needlessly big images take a lot
longer to load, and then to zoom, pan, and so on. But we dinosaurs
haven't grasped the point: technology will just improve the speed of
processors, and the size and access speed of storage, such that such
considerations become irrelevant. Which I have to accept, though I hate.
>They don't edit. They don't cull their collection. They
>also don't resize the images for better storage. They
>don't really get the system. They just think of it as
>"photos" that came from their phone and went onto their
>hard disk. It's like the people who invite you for dinner
>and have a 7' high bookcase full of photo albums.
>("These 3 albums are little Ricky's christening. Wait'll
>you see! And it was so cheap at the drugstore to
>get all the shots printed!")
> For someone like that, who's not familar with file
>formats and doesn't edit photos, a BMP would just
>be a JPG that's very big. They wouldn't see the
And for the use they're putting them to, there wouldn't _be_ a point (in
keeping bitmaps). Their pictures are probably looked at no more than
[insert your number of choice here; I'd say between 5 and 10] times.
>| (I remember using a Sony camera at work, that had a floppy drive built
>| in - and you could get several pictures on, of acceptable quality! [That
>| camera also had something I've never seen before or since: the ability
>| to use ambient light to backlight the display.])
> Wow. 1.44 MB? They must have been small images.
>But I suppose they were also 256 colors?
I can't remember. It _was_ some time ago! The novelty at the time was
the fact that it _had_ the built-in drive; the novelty looking back, was
the ability to turn the backlight off. I don't _think_ they were 256
colours, though I'm pretty sure they _were_ JPEG, so not _that_ small.
(I think it might have been 1 or 2 megapixel [though for the uses we
had, I suspect I selected VGA a lot of the time].)
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament
utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish trial by
jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)