# Not an arbo death but a climber of a different sort.



## jimmyq (Jul 1, 2004)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/06/30/ironside.death.ap/index.html

few details so far.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jul 1, 2004)

Yep. Most definitely a boni fide fall. I wonder where his ppe was?


----------



## Yin (Jul 1, 2004)

Sad


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (Jul 1, 2004)

It is a long way to the deck.

Anyone know this guy?


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (Jul 1, 2004)

Looking down from half way up


----------



## glens (Jul 1, 2004)

You guys are probably going to run me off for harping on this so much, but I'll take that risk.

There are still very many people who cannot get high-speed Internet connectivity.&nbsp; The only option in that regard that I have is to install a Microsoft system and get a satellite feed.&nbsp; The first part is totally unfathomable, but even if it weren't, the extreme latency involved with that method of communication is worse than any benefits unless simply downloading pirated movies or massive amounts of pron.&nbsp; Not appealing in any respect.&nbsp; Not to mention I'd have to mutilate or drop trees to get a clear view of a geosynchronous satellite.

Nathan, you typically have very interesting and quality images, but for some reason they are highly unoptimized.&nbsp; I saved the two images above to disk and used the command line program "convert" (from the packages freely available at http://www.imagemagick.org/) to convert them from JPEG to JPEG.&nbsp; I know what you're thinking; why do that?&nbsp; Because it optimizes them.&nbsp; Here is a listing of the four files with each name preceded by its size in kilobytes: (I used the valid [original] .jpeg extension on the new files for differentiation purposes)

```
192 13826.jpg
272 13829.jpg
 28 13826.jpeg
 88 13829.jpeg
```
There is no discernible difference between the images before/after even when scaled to 4&times; magnification.

Please be considerate of those of us who have to use modems and try to keep the files to somewhere around 100 KB if possible.&nbsp; If not, at least leave their fetch optional by not sourcing them into the page layout.

It's not necessary to always shrink them dimensionally; most times simply running them through "convert(.exe)" will accomplish the file-size-reduction task and takes mere moments to do.&nbsp; If you have to resize it as well, simply add the "-resize XX%" parameter after the command name and before the first file name.

An open invitation to everyone:&nbsp; Drop me an email or post openly, either way, if you have any questions about the process.&nbsp; I posted a batch file in Murph's "boring" thread the other day which can be dropped into a directory containing any number of .jpg files and when the file is invoked (double-clicking on it or by the command prompt) it will automatically create reduced images in a new sub-directory.&nbsp; Has anybody tried it?&nbsp; If it doesn't work I need to know so I can fix it (no Windows boxes around to test it on here).&nbsp; There may be issues with files ill-advisedly containing blank space in their names, but it can be worked around -- I just need to know.

Thanks.

Glen


----------



## Nathan Wreyford (Jul 1, 2004)

> Please be considerate of those of us who have to use modems and try to keep the files to somewhere around 100 KB if possible. If not, at least leave their fetch optional by not sourcing them into the page layout.



Will do, but honestly, they are reduced. They work well for me. Yes, I have DSL now, finally. I did have dial up and it was no problem then for pics these size, but I know others really slowed pages down.


----------



## glens (Jul 1, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Nathan Wreyford _
> *Will do, but honestly, they are reduced. They work well for me. Yes, I have DSL now, finally. I did have dial up and it was no problem then for pics these size, but I know others really slowed pages down. *


Thanks.

The software you're using to "reduce" them, does it have a setting for JPEG image "quality"?&nbsp; The "convert" program defaults to 75%.&nbsp; A higher quality (unnecessary here) will increase the image size data-wise.

I suspect that what happened in this instance is the images were originally at a level of about 75% (introducing a certain amount of error/lossiness) but saved at a higher level when shrunk.&nbsp; Restoring them to a level of 75% did not introduce any more error than already present.&nbsp; Mr. Murphy's images typically reduce dramatically in (data) size during the simple "conversion" but exhibit a loss of extremely-fine detail in the process.

If a blessed Internetworker felt the need to acquire, for some reason, a higher-quality image than is suitable for places like this, it could be gotten via email or from a private link.

Glen


----------

