 | | The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —James Brown
|
| | | (...) Absolutely! We use ours for everything! My wife has a tendency to take 40 gazillion pics of things (slight exageration, but not much), and she uses the Mavica to take 4 or 5 quick shots, picking angle/lighting/etc before taking any shots with (...) (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) uh, make that second one: (URL) grin> (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | | James Brown wrote in message ... (...) has a (...) though. (...) minute of (...) 1024x768 at 24 bits is over 2.3MB, so none will fit on a floppy. If they use 8 bits or 16 bits, you could fit either one or (you guessed it) none respectively. 800x600 (...) (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | (...) All the website says about it is: Bitmap (Non-Compressed) Mode: For the best images choose the non-compressed mode to display your images in a bitmap format (VGA only). I haven't had a chance to play with ours yet to see what the .bmp mode is. (...) (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | (...) What that means is it can only store a 640x480 (VGA) image in bitmap format. So I guess it's 1024 in jpg or nothing. (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | | | | | I don't know if this is common knowledge or not ... I know I found it the hard way: jpeg does not necessarily mean "lossy" compression. You can (with a conversion program, I use Firehand Ember), convert from .xxx to .jpg without loosing information. (...) (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) jpg is fine if you're satisfied with the image. But if you plan on editing the image you'll need to remember that if you keep saving it at 95% then it is shoved through that lossy process every single time. (26 years ago, 3-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) It depends on the imaging application and how much of the image you tweak. For example, if you go in and remove a spot with Adobe Photoshop, it's smart enough only to alter that part of the image. (So I've heard.) --Todd (26 years ago, 3-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) amount (...) Yup. It also has a good range of filters to improve an image. Of course, Photoshop, like most applications has to be set to always save at 100% to avoid image degradation in a jpg. Photoshop does a pretty good job of compensating (...) (26 years ago, 3-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | | | | | | | Todd Lehman wrote in message ... (...) the (...) amount (...) advantage (...) smart (...) That's been my experience, I've not noticed any "increasing" degradation after editing a picture several times. ----- Mike Faunce - mfaunce@earthlink.net (26 years ago, 3-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Starting with a 256-color image probably won't give you the best comparision. If you've got a 24-bit image 'lying around', try your tests on that one. There's also a variation of JPEG, called (in Paint Shop Pro) "progressive encoding". Does (...) (26 years ago, 3-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Isn't that the kind of JPG that you can put on the web and have it load a bit at a time (bad description) ? (26 years ago, 3-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I've been facing some jpgs throughout the web which like the old "interlaced" gifs, (showing up on the page as a whole but very coarse image at the time of opening the page, and improves itself as d/l continue). I've also heard or read (...) (26 years ago, 4-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | | (...) Aside from the pain of scanning each one individually, how is the speed on each scan? I would hope this would be a SCSI device, but something tells me with the trend towards parallel stuff it might not be. I have an HP Photosmart scanner for (...) (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: The Mavica (was Re: ThrowBots elements are cool) —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) I'd be interested in hearing more about the FD-81 and your opinion of it. I've never quite liked the Mavicas, mainly because they've pretty much always been a year or so behind the curve in resolution, although the convenience of the floppy (...) (26 years ago, 2-Feb-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
