Place photos directly into your post.

I will see
if I can put my test pics up for comparison.........
first direct from puter to forum..........

Then
From photo bucket...............

Pretty good
Although, if you look at the small letters,(bulk haulage) ,Photo bucket
is clearer than the forum.........
Tis a whole lot better than before,.(hopefully constructive criticism)
Thanks...
....................Billy....................

Terry the new test is the top one in POST 167190, I will let you be the judge
Colin

Grandad looks like your photo is the original, mine is the photo out of a book
Colin

Colin when I saw your pic it reminded me of the one I had, I thought I'd have a try at posting it direct from my computer to see how it looked.
I think your pic may be nearer the original, it covers a bigger area than mine, like the tree on the right
Grandad

Guys
Dunno why U need top quality pix on the screen (or better quality)
most top quality pix uses up much more memory & can make m slo loading to screen
the quality of the pix far exceedz the capability of most garden variety printers
Better quality may mean we use up our allocated kb sooner

Jist me 2 c worth

But hoo cares

cya

Pretty right $wish,
but a nice pic is good to see.........
It boils down to quality verses expense (or what ever ).........
not knowin the ins & outs of the forum operations , it was
somethin that was just noticed,(good or bad I don't know)
As long as it makes some interest.
...................Billy....................

Swishy wrote: Guys
Dunno why U need top quality pix on the screen (or better quality)
most top quality pix uses up much more memory & can make m slo loading to screen
the quality of the pix far exceedz the capability of most garden variety printers
Better quality may mean we use up our allocated kb sooner

Jist me 2 c worth

But hoo cares

cya

Swishy Mate. Cobber, Old Mate . You are into too much Yanky gear, you are starting to talk like them. GUYS Swishy really :lol: :lol: :lol: :evil:

But hoo cares I suppose :huh: :huh:

I suppose the photo clarity is a miner worry but you don't no till it's investigated .
Colin

Hi,

I have made some changes in Mairjimmy's original post with the 5 images so you can compare the Flickr image on the same screen as the most recent test image and updated details for each image so I don't have remember what each test was.

I think the Flickr image is still the sharpest clarity of the five images, as someone mentioned the words are easier to read, so I think their resizing engine/processor is better the one used by the Forum software, as without reducing the quality the Flickr image is 100kb smaller then the equivalent HCVC image(Third HCVC Sample) filesize.

However at 147kb, the Flickr image is more than double the filesize of the current settings where the 'quality' has been reduced to 80%(Fourth HCVC Sample) and for the sake of saving 7kb for the 60% 'quality' I think the 80% setting is a better compromise between filesize and clarity.

Terry