Testing New Image Size

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Fri May 30, 2014 10:14 am

mountainbreeze wrote:I understand that but to me, it seems like a silly restriction since they both require about the same amount of storage space.

I don't know the technical reasons.

Maybe it is like trying to print a wide spread sheet on a piece of 8x10 in the portrait position. The spread sheet fits in "landscape" but does not in "portrait".

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri May 30, 2014 10:56 am

dusty wrote:I have become aware, due to this forum, that I have a more sophisticated camera than I realized. I also became aware that this new set of options is not going to significantly change anything.

The following were each shot using a different camera option (to include "portrait mode").

[ATTACH]25212[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]25213[/ATTACH]<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

[ATTACH]25214[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]25215[/ATTACH]

Use mode in second pix!

Blade moving in the last pix?

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri May 30, 2014 11:01 am

mountainbreeze wrote:I understand that but to me, it seems like a silly restriction since they both require about the same amount of storage space.

Ahh but you are ignoring the filter function that restricts upload sizes.

It would require more than twice as many test instructions to allow that flexibility.

We be using purchased software here. I doubt admin has the ability to change the logic.

So today 768h x 600w WILL upload!!!! Gettin closer!:D

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri May 30, 2014 11:11 am

Dusty kudos on using a tripod for those pix.

There are differences in the resultant pix even after size reduction eliminated fine details.

The most noticeable difference is the depth of field. The aperture is varying to create that.

I think #2 is better because the close focus is better.

However the part of the pix used for focusing could be the reason for the better focus at near range.

Since you did use a tripod, any deviation re focusing 'location' would be a part of the mode changes.

beeg · Post by **beeg** » Fri May 30, 2014 11:16 am

Dusty. Is that gap in the saw-teeth?

YouTube · Post by **admin** » Fri May 30, 2014 1:23 pm

Yes, because of maintenance difficulties during possible upgrades, I try to avoid changing purchased software. Easier answer to this one, though.

Since filesize still limits it, I bumped the resolution to 1024x1024. Now images should work either direction.

JPG40504 wrote:Ahh but you are ignoring the filter function that restricts upload sizes.

It would require more than twice as many test instructions to allow that flexibility.

We be using purchased software here. I doubt admin has the ability to change the logic.

So today 768h x 600w WILL upload!!!! Gettin closer!:D

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri May 30, 2014 1:27 pm

admin wrote:Yes, because of maintenance difficulties during possible upgrades, I try to avoid changing purchased software. Easier answer to this one, though.

Since filesize still limits it, I bumped the resolution to 1024x1024. Now images should work either direction.

Thank You!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:)

Nice to be wrong(me) for a change!:D

mountainbreeze · Post by **mountainbreeze** » Sat May 31, 2014 10:06 am

Ask, and you shall receive. Thanks!

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat May 31, 2014 12:25 pm

admin wrote:Yes, because of maintenance difficulties during possible upgrades, I try to avoid changing purchased software. Easier answer to this one, though.

Since filesize still limits it, I bumped the resolution to 1024x1024. Now images should work either direction.

Just to clarify, 1024 x 768 OR 768 x 1024, but NOT 1024 x 1024?

i.e. max file size 786432 x bytes/pixel?

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Sat May 31, 2014 1:16 pm

Another Test

[ATTACH]25238[/ATTACH]