| |
In lugnet.trains, Lewis Valentine wrote:
Dear Lewis,
the picture you have presented here is very promising and I would like to have a
closer view into the design features. But when I try to have a look at your
brickshelf pictures, I see these are all photographed in utterly high
resolutions. And I am surfing via lame 56k phone modem and have to wait for ages
till any pictures are visible.
So I would like to beg you (and any reader!) to break your pictures down to a
reasonable size (I prefer old 640x480 VGA-style, but do not mind SVGA 1024x768).
Anything bigger than SVGA is needless and causes only huge data transfer.
If you (or anyone else) want to present details, please take a close up shot of
the important spot and load this up as additional picture.
In many cases pictures are even huge and fuzzy. It is a matter of fact, that
resized pictures appear to be sharpened. Fuzzy pictures will be the worse the
higher the resolution is. So please resize your pictures when done via cell
phone camera etc.
In your case, Lewis, the pictures are telling us, that your camera is brilliant
(may I ask for the brand and type?)! On the other hand this brilliant camera
tells me about your cat’s colour, but the huge resolution “hides” the building
tricks that you want to share... (see footline scrrenshots).
Sorry for this criticism. But I dislike to see more and more
monster-mega-pixel-pictures uploaded at brickshelf. And the latest cameras go
into the 10 Mega-Pixel area and internet newbies with broad band connections are
very unthoughful with data amounts. The new resize feature of brickshelf is even
more confusing for none-experts, who may believe that their pictures become
resized (in data size). But that is not the case: The picture is not really
broken down by brickshelf but only for your browser’s display. You still have to
download megabytes of data in order to see the “resized” picture.
I would appreciate, when people would try to take care for data size. Use
reasonable resolutions and avoid BMP and word documents as picture format.
Even the better would be a solution, in a manner, that brickshelf broke
automatically down all pictures to a maximum width of 1024 pixel
The 1000steine member gallery does this in a perfect way: uploaded pictures are
stored as uploaded, in resized resolution (if oversized) and in thumbnail
resolution. First you see the thumb, then the resized picture and the third
“click” leads to the original size.
Thanks for reading this far....
Leg Godt!
See more pictures of my models at www.brickshelf.com
P.s.: Screenshots I took from your brickshelf gallery (and this has been the
only picture I have fully downloaded, which took a few minutes):
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Lewis Valentine wrote:
|
Sorry Ben (and to everyone else)
To tell you te truth i did not think much of the resolution. I used to take all
my pictures on a simple point and shoot camera, and thus did not have to do any
resizing. We just got a new camera (Nikon D50for your info Ben) and we have it
at higher res than the old one.
Either way the issue has been fixed, I resized the images and re-uploaded them.
They are much smaller now. (of course you will need to wait until the folder is
re-modded.
Sorry again.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Lewis Valentine wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Lewis Valentine wrote:
|
Sorry Ben (and to everyone else)
To tell you te truth i did not think much of the resolution. I used to take
all my pictures on a simple point and shoot camera, and thus did not have to
do any resizing. We just got a new camera (Nikon D50for your info Ben) and we
have it at higher res than the old one.
Either way the issue has been fixed, I resized the images and re-uploaded
them. They are much smaller now. (of course you will need to wait until the
folder is re-modded.
|
Since you did not do this by intention, there is no need for an excuse, Lewis.
Thank you for your appreciation and the time you had to spend on over-working
the pictures and uploading them again.
I simply have the hope that others may follow this short discussion and may
learn, that small can be more enjoyable.
Anyway: now that I had the chance to have a clooser look into your creation, I
like the creative use of SNOT techniques as to be found for e.g. with the domes
on top of the boiler. For the boiler itself I partly do not like the gaps which
are visible. On the other hand it looks by far not so much polygon like as most
other designs. So all in all I am not 100% sure if I prefer this style, but at
least it is a very creative and innovative way to do it like this.
Another thing I do wonder about is dealing with the real engines of this type:
how is the coal getting from the tender and into the fire box? And where is the
firebox located? On the cab side or at the tender side?
Or is this engine driven with oil and no coal has to be shovelled into the fire
box at all?
Leg Godt!
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Lewis Valentine wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
In lugnet.trains, Lewis Valentine wrote:
|
Sorry Ben (and to everyone else)
To tell you te truth i did not think much of the resolution. I used to take
all my pictures on a simple point and shoot camera, and thus did not have to
do any resizing. We just got a new camera (Nikon D50for your info Ben) and
we have it at higher res than the old one.
Either way the issue has been fixed, I resized the images and re-uploaded
them. They are much smaller now. (of course you will need to wait until the
folder is re-modded.
|
Since you did not do this by intention, there is no need for an excuse,
Lewis.
Thank you for your appreciation and the time you had to spend on over-working
the pictures and uploading them again.
I simply have the hope that others may follow this short discussion and may
learn, that small can be more enjoyable.
Anyway: now that I had the chance to have a clooser look into your creation,
I like the creative use of SNOT techniques as to be found for e.g. with the
domes on top of the boiler. For the boiler itself I partly do not like the
gaps which are visible. On the other hand it looks by far not so much polygon
like as most other designs. So all in all I am not 100% sure if I prefer this
style, but at least it is a very creative and innovative way to do it like
this.
Another thing I do wonder about is dealing with the real engines of this
type: how is the coal getting from the tender and into the fire box? And
where is the firebox located? On the cab side or at the tender side?
Or is this engine driven with oil and no coal has to be shovelled into the
fire box at all?
Leg Godt!
Ben
|
Thanks for the comments.
Yes, I don’t really like the gaps too much either, but i do like it more than
some of the other techniques i have used and seen in the past. I like how the
tender appears more round than using slopes and the like.
For the answer to your question, oil was used. The oil was kept in the tender
slightly pressurized and piped to the font.
For more info here is a great site that I frequent.
http://www.steamlocomotive.com/cabforward
|
|
|
