Ron, KC4YOY wrote:
Since we were sent home from work because of the
blizzard and have been snowed in all afternoon, I decided
to use the time to work on a web page I'd been thinking
about.
It's going to be all about Clough-Brengle equipment,
both test gear and transmitters.
It's far from being finished, but there's enough there
to be looked at. Check it out here,
http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CloughBrengle.html
There's more coming soon.

Nice start. One Suggestion - crank up the jpeg compression on the pictu

http://radioheaven.homestead.com/files/CBtext1.jpg

491K on an opening graphic really slows down the page loading...

best regards...
--
randy guttery

A Tender Tale - a page dedicated to those Ships and Crews
so vital to the United States Silent Service:
http://tendertale.com

Randy and/or Sherry wrote:


Ron, KC4YOY wrote:

Since we were sent home from work because of the
blizzard and have been snowed in all afternoon, I decided
to use the time to work on a web page I'd been thinking
about.
It's going to be all about Clough-Brengle equipment,
both test gear and transmitters.
It's far from being finished, but there's enough there
to be looked at. Check it out here,
http://radioheaven.homestead.com/CloughBrengle.html
There's more coming soon.


Nice start. One Suggestion - crank up the jpeg compression on the pictu

http://radioheaven.homestead.com/files/CBtext1.jpg

491K on an opening graphic really slows down the page loading...

Even better, store it as a .gif (4 bits = 16 colours greyscale) or .png.
Jpg is best for photo-realistic images, whereas .gif does best on line
drawings, text, other such high-contrast stuff. Png is somewhere in the
middle, trying to accomodate both within the same file format.

Cheers,
Fred
--
+--------------------------------------------+
| Music: http://www3.telus.net/dogstarmusic/ |
| Projects: http://dogstar.dantimax.dk |
+--------------------------------------------+

In article _5v%b.2078$A12.1959@edtnps84, Fred Nachbaur
writes:

Even better, store it as a .gif (4 bits = 16 colours greyscale) or .png.
Jpg is best for photo-realistic images, whereas .gif does best on line
drawings, text, other such high-contrast stuff. Png is somewhere in the
middle, trying to accomodate both within the same file format.

Good suggestion. I've found that GIF is by far the best on B/W line drawings,
and even Microsoft Paint mitmap output with 4 or 16 colors, but I still mean
line drawings.

However, on a grayscale photo, even when cut to 16 shades of gray, I find GIF
files are bigger than JPG. Best is to try both schemes. pick the smaller file.

Don't know how much software can handle PNG format, though that may be the new
format that someone helped me test on my photo viewer last month.

Oh yes, I have two really old pieces of Clough-Brengle test gear -- a signal
generator with a rotary turret bandswitch (very compact, though), and a
motor-driven wobbulator sweep generator. They are both AC/DC, so I've been in
no hurry to try them out :-)
73, Mike K.

Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

In article _5v%b.2078$A12.1959@edtnps84, Fred Nachbaur
writes:

Even better, store it as a .gif (4 bits = 16 colours greyscale)

Now having seen the opening page graphic, I can tell it's a 2-color (B&W)
typewritten page, and it would certainly do much better as a GIF. Yes, it takes
a long time to load.

The transmitter photos also load slowly, but they are of superb quality and I
wouldn't mess with them! Looking forward to some test gear shots (I can
contribute some, as previously noted). 73 es tnx, Mike K.

Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.

and it would certainly do much better as a GIF. Yes, it takes a long time
to load.


It is a .gif, it only takes about 5 seconds to load here.

I'm working on some test equipment stuff.
The only problem is that to get scans that look
like anything, they're really BIG file.
And the scanned photos from the C-B catalogs
are really grainy.
I may just take some digital photos of my pieces
of C-B stuff.
I'll keep trying.

Ron

Ron, KC4YOY wrote:

I'm working on some test equipment stuff.
The only problem is that to get scans that look
like anything, they're really BIG file.
And the scanned photos from the C-B catalogs
are really grainy.

Does your scanning software have an option to do antialiasing on
scans of BenDay pictures (pictures printed as zillions of teeny
dots)? If yes, that can drastically improve the quality of the
scanned image.

--
The PC movement is about trying not to offend people who are busily
manipulating you by being creatively thinskined.
-- Joe Zeff, in the Scary Devil Monastery

In article , (Mike Andrews)
writes:

Does your scanning software have an option to do antialiasing on
scans of BenDay pictures (pictures printed as zillions of teeny
dots)? If yes, that can drastically improve the quality of the
scanned image.

That's a very handy feature of scanning software, and my HP includes it.
An alternative is to scan at very high resolution (600 DPI), then use a photo
editor with a Sharpen/Blur command to blur the way-oversize scan image just
enough to merge the half-tone dots. Then resize it down to something
reasonable.

If when you downsize it, you see aliasing bands, it means you didn't blur it
enough -- go back to the big image and blur it some more, resize again, etc.

But I agree that, given a real live example of a piece of gear, better to grab
the digi-cam and shoot the gear -- color, interiors, etc. 73, Mike K.

Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.