Sam assured me:
>> As I generally go images off I really ought to give Lynx a try.
>> How much HDD space does it require?
>The download for Doug Kaufman's recent Lynx386 for DOS version is
>a zip file of 1,455,601 bytes. This is version 2.8.4, dev.14. It
>does SSL and it does https very nicely. Unarchived, this version will
>take up 2,399,066 bytes of HDD space.
Thanks! As "payment" here's some info on the CD-ROM of photos
recently processed for me by Klick (a UK firm, http://www.klickphoto.com).
They have small high street stores all over the country, offering copying
of old prints, trimming, framing etc as well as the processing. The CD
option was on special offer, and with processing and printing 39 6x4"
shots off a 36exp 35mm film the total was under U$8.00 equivalent.
The prints were fine; the scans onto CD less successful, but still worth
having for the ones that were usable and the time saving obtained. The
film was Konica, whereas the CD was a Fujifilm product.
The shop staff were able to give only limited info on what the CD would
contain, so I was pleased to find high res, medium res and thumbnails,
all in separate directories, but unfortunately each version of the image
bearing the same name. However, I was most displeased to find that,
although the directories were visible, none of the files were to Win3.1x
and DOS file managers and graphics apps! Can anyone explain why
this might be? Needless to say, the viewer software is Win9x/NT.
I emailed the company but have yet to receive a reply.
On a borrowed laptop, I found the photoviewer software wouldn't transfer
the high res images to HDD en masse. Going to My Computer allowed
them to be copied across.
All images were in JPEG format. High res were 1536x1024 pixels, ranging
in size from 290kB to 745kB; 18.4MB for 39 shots. The larger filesizes
were for grainy shots where the flash had failed: the largest good shot was
560kB. I transferred 31 shots to floppies; average filesize 459kB, 13.9MB total.
Medium resolution were 768x512 pixels, ranging from 115 - 224kB; 178kB
average; 6.8MB for 39 shots.
The thumbnails were 120x80 pixels, 7 - 8kB each.
I found no advantage in using the hi-res images for sampling down to say
360x240 for Web use. This is a convenient size, about 30kB as a JPEG.
They are missing a trick not offering it as an option. The level of JPEG
compression didn't lead to any noticeable degradation when re-saving as
JPEG at a sensible compression level.
There was some lint contamination on one of the first shots, but not on the
print. Some automated color balance "optimization" had been applied, which
rendered some of the scans unusable. Maybe they would be better with
Fuji film. As stated, the prints were fine. One advantage of the scans is the
greater area covered of the film: cropping for the prints might lose 3% or more.
Try cropping a 300 pixel wide sample from an image and then see if you
would be happy to lose a 10 pixel strip. This occurred on one of the prints,
effectively spoiling it.
I'd like to see a comparison with the output from a digital camera, taking a
shot at the same time. I should be able to arrange this some time. Apart
from the speed of results, I'll stick with film and spend the money on taking
more shots, and remembering to leave the cropping to software. I use a Minox
compact camera, and was interested to see a highly-rated Samsung of similar
size, with 4x zoom.
Regards,
Jake
On my current mission to evaluate the space exploration program of the Kindom
of Padua, I have obtained two representative snaps. Should you wish to evaluate
them, you will be faced with a 48kB download and 250kB in cache after conversion.
http://www.wymondhamleics.freeserve.co.uk/test/1.jpg
http://www.wymondhamleics.freeserve.co.uk/test/2.jpg
1.jpg is resampled to much smaller size from the complete image.
2.jpg is a section of the hi res scan. It has been saved with higher compression than
the original, so is slightly degraded.
