Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-17 Thread Malcolm Cadman
In message 4e463c23.8010...@dunbar-it.co.uk, Norman Dunbar nor...@dunbar-it.co.uk writes On 12/08/11 22:28, Malcolm Cadman wrote: I guess I must be a little 'lossy' then ... :-) ... for using JPEG's. I see in your example that your photo's are 12 Mpixels per image, as JPEGs ... phew ! So

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-13 Thread Tony Firshman
On Aug 11, at 08:11 | Aug11, Norman Dunbar wrote: Greetings from a very wet and dreich Leeds! (Look it up URL:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dreich On 11/08/11 06:12, Computer Research Centrum, Ltd wrote: No JPEGs please! No lossy compression! For computer screenshots the

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-13 Thread Norman Dunbar
On 12/08/11 22:28, Malcolm Cadman wrote: I guess I must be a little 'lossy' then ... :-) ... for using JPEG's. I see in your example that your photo's are 12 Mpixels per image, as JPEGs ... phew ! So what size are they as PNG's? Ok, as Jpegs they vary from about 500KB to around 3 MB. As PNGs

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-12 Thread Malcolm Cadman
In message 20110811071213.c1dcd...@centrum.cz, Computer Research Centrum, Ltd computer.resea...@centrum.cz writes Umm ... media wars ... :-) It is useful to convert images to 640 x 480 pixels, for web page display - as JPEG files - which reduces the file size to a manageable number of Kb's.

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-12 Thread Malcolm Cadman
In message 4e438085.8050...@dunbar-it.co.uk, Norman Dunbar nor...@dunbar-it.co.uk writes Greetings from a very wet and dreich Leeds! (Look it up URL:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dreich On 11/08/11 06:12, Computer Research Centrum, Ltd wrote: No JPEGs please! No lossy

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-11 Thread Norman Dunbar
Greetings from a very wet and dreich Leeds! (Look it up URL:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dreich On 11/08/11 06:12, Computer Research Centrum, Ltd wrote: No JPEGs please! No lossy compression! For computer screenshots the best option is PNG (lossless compression). I agree 100% -

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-10 Thread Rich Mellor
On 09/08/2011 20:59, Dilwyn Jones wrote: The point is simple - IF YOU WANT THE WIKI TO BE BETTER / DIFFERENT / HOSTED SOMEWHERE, THEN CHANGE IT !! I thought that was the whole point of a Wiki... that site users could (and should) update it themselves? If anyone has difficulty accessing some

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-10 Thread Rich Mellor
On 10/08/2011 03:06, David Tubbs wrote: At 07:33 09/08/2011 +0100, you wrote: The text is black on white, so it does not affect anything or am I missing something? The text is only grey and pink, a decidedly faded look. As for why your Wiki down beyond adventures - not sure what you mean

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-10 Thread Malcolm Cadman
In message 4e423eae.3040...@rwapservices.co.uk, Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.uk writes On 09/08/2011 20:59, Dilwyn Jones wrote: The point is simple - IF YOU WANT THE WIKI TO BE BETTER / DIFFERENT / HOSTED SOMEWHERE, THEN CHANGE IT !! I thought that was the whole point of a Wiki... that

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-10 Thread Computer Research Centrum, Ltd
It is useful to convert images to 640 x 480 pixels, for web page display - as JPEG files - which reduces the file size to a manageable number of Kb's. No JPEGs please! No lossy compression! For computer screenshots the best option is PNG (lossless compression).

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-09 Thread peet vanpeebles
-- On Tue, 9/8/11, Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.uk wrote: From: Rich Mellor r...@rwapservices.co.uk Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute? To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Date: Tuesday, 9 August, 2011, 7:33 On 09/08/2011 00:38, David Tubbs wrote: Mind you, there was some

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-09 Thread Rich Mellor
On 09/08/2011 10:18, peet vanpeebles wrote: -- On Tue, 9/8/11, Rich Mellorr...@rwapservices.co.uk wrote: From: Rich Mellorr...@rwapservices.co.uk Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute? To: ql-us...@q-v-d.com Date: Tuesday, 9 August, 2011, 7:33 On 09/08/2011 00:38, David Tubbs

[Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-08 Thread paul
Holy $$ PC man http://cgi.ebay.com/250725299265 -- Paul Holmgren Mine: 2 57 300-C's in Indy Hers: 05 PT GT R/T HO Stage 1 Hoosier Corps L#6 ___ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-08 Thread Rich Mellor
On 08/08/2011 14:45, paul wrote: Holy $$ PC man http://cgi.ebay.com/250725299265 I guess this is designed for used in a PLC (industrial programmable logic controller) - they were always expensive bits of kit, particularly once Rockwell Automation started selling them, and yes, they were

Re: [Ql-Users] a VERY expensive QL substitute?

2011-08-08 Thread David Tubbs
Mind you, there was some VERY expensive bits of kit for the QL back in the hey day - see http://www.rwapadventures.com/ql_wiki/index.php?title=Quest%20Automation%20Ltd -- I followed your link. Why does the page have to look like it has faded in the sun, I know my eyes are not what they