Talk:Toll Clock Shopping Centre

Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia

Robbie, I don't see any probs with the size of the pics from shetlandphoto.com . A different prob on this site is, that the tables will move, when we add pics with our standard width. Islandhopper 15:55, 20 May 2007 (MDT)

Tables were always going to have to move, that table was just big to fill space before we got pics :-).

When you downloaded the pic it has appeared as 113kb although when viewed on the photo site it says 20kb. So perhaps 20kb was just the thumbnail size?? Even at 113kb it still looks very low resolution. All very confusing. If it's all we can get, it will have to do, until we get better ones. ;-)
Robbie 21:28, 20 May 2007 (MDT)

That bit thing is a bit confusing...;-), but the quality is a bit bad...When I downloaded them they still was with the same Kb size...Robbie says that they are as bad as the ones I take with one of my cameras ...;-)..and that means awful !!! , ;-) , Oddrun 23:13, 20 May 2007 (MDT)

Robbie, I have downloaded 20K from ShetlandPhoto and uploaded 20K which appaer on the image file as 93K - but when you make a right click on the pic in the article and look for information about the pic you will see the 20K again. The pic is bigger than many others we have of Shetlopedia and the quality is far better ... viewing at the article or at the downloaded pic ... :-) Might be a prob of different progs used ... ;-)Islandhopper 03:15, 21 May 2007 (MDT)

I uploaded a 102K image, it shows on ShetlandPhoto as 102K. The 20K - 30K ones on the site so far are just so much below what I would call decent resolution that I'd throw away my camera if I got that results, hence they must be 30K as they say they are. If people can upload images in the 50 to 60K range as a minimum, then all will be well.

Some images it doesn't matter, but if there is detail in a picture which folk may wish to zoom in on, such as a sign, or a boats name, then 30K is just too small.

My trouble is that the coming of digital, in TV, as well as photography has meant that people are prepared to accept crap images as being OK, take the case of modern plasma TV's as an example,, I could Rant about it for hours, it is my pet hate...  ;-) I used to enjoy pointing out the failings of a £7000 Plasma TV to some poor sod who had just bought one. More than a few people returned the TV after they saw what I meant. As a tip, for the quality of any digital image, either TV, or photograph, don't look at the main body of the subject, look at the edges, such as the roofline on the Toll Clock image,,, I rest my case... ;-) RANT OVER !!!!  ;-)
Robbie 08:19, 21 May 2007 (MDT)

Agreed - with one little correction: You have not uploaded a pic of 102K, you have uploaded a file compressed to 102K of a pic of 1.131K. :-D Download your pic of the Altair, open it in a suitable proggi and then look how much space the pic actually takes on your disc or ROM ... ;-) The same is with the second Toll Clock pic: it is compressed for ShetlandPhoto to 20K, but when you download and save the pic without compressing it again you will have it at the said 93K or 113K or whatever it was ... :-D Right mouseclick on the pic in the article gives you the file size, what's written below the pic when you open the picture file is the actual size of the pic of 93K. That always confuses me, too, cause it makes my last two brain-cells always fighting each other ... :-D :-D :-D Islandhopper 09:08, 21 May 2007 (MDT)

This, I think, depend on the eyes that sees...even I can see that those pics are of bad quality!! When you look at the roofline, it is not a clear line, it is ragged, and to the left of the clocktower there is a white thing, I can't figure out if it is a gull or some kind of ventilator...And it is the same with the other pic too...the roofline is ragged, and it is difficult to read the letters above the entrance..and even the numbers of the cars....I have often copied pics from pedia to my pooter for zooming them and look closer at some details,,...and with most pics that is possible, but not with those two on this page !! So I can't understand how you can say that these are of a better quality than many we had before...There are some pics that is scanned from paper pics that are a bit unclear, but not as bad as those !! But, well, a bad pic can be better than no pic...they can be used if we must, but I won't do that. Do whatever you will do, I will rather wait until we get some better ones ! I will see it as waisting of time to first upload these and then change them later....There are a lot of other boring things to do on Shetlopedia !!
Oddrun 10:52, 21 May 2007 (MDT)

Right, all braincells working now. The pic I uploaded to ShetlandPhoto was 102Kb which had been re-sized from a 1.13Mb(not Kb), NOT compressed.!!... Re-sizing is NOT compressing !! I downloaded it from Shetlandphoto just now, it still says 1.2Kb. I couldn't get my pooter to show disc space usage so Oddrun tried it, and disc space usage is 104Kb. As I said before, if the Toll Clock image is any more than 30Kb, the camera should be dumped. ;-) Now I'm going to cook a few freshly caught fish, and compress them in my stomach ;-)
Robbie 12:14, 21 May 2007 (MDT)

... "bullsh*t" ... I always get mixed up with this "." and that"," ;-) of course it is 1,137 K or 1.13 Mb :-D but guess from where I got it? It is the discspace demanded by the downloaded 102 K from ShetlandPhoto when you open the file to work with ;-)
The real point goes to Oddrun: it is simply a waste of time and manpower to upload to ShetlandPhoto and than permanently checking what might be usefull for Shetlopedia ... Islandhopper 12:43, 21 May 2007 (MDT)