Trewithen, BR/WR BLT.

[Andrew P]

29 minutes ago, P.C.M said:

Hi Andy. I am going to the Brockenhurst show on Saturday so will see you there.

 

Cheers Peter.

YOUR THE ONLY REASON I'M GOING. 😂  🤣  😂

 

Seriously, I was hoping to also get to Ian's on Friday, but really looking forward to meeting you on Saturday.👍

[MarshLane]

15 hours ago, Andrew P said:

QUESTION, My pics appear grainy, and yet I shrink them to 1047 x 805 Pixels, the same as I've always done on here. The same pics on another Forum appear much sharper. What size do you guys use for posting on here?

Compare the pic above with the link below, the same pic at the same re sized 1047 x 805.

https://www.westernthunder.co.uk/threads/trewithen.10496/page-10#post-251285

Hi Andy,

I have compared your pic here with that on WT and I agree there does seems to be a slightly smoother, sharper image on WT.  Assuming your using the same files on each site (the method of upload cannot change the file at all) then I would suggest that there is some work being done by the forum software - either here or at WT.  

 

Once a file is uploaded to a web server, that server can be set to do a number of things. I have set up photo websites before where I have programmed it to resize the image, apply a smoothing filter, sharpen the edges slightly  and do a range of other things.  The users are unaware but set up correctly it can present better images.  So it is quiet feasible that one (or even both) of the forums are doing different things to the images that we are not normally aware of.  Alternatively one might be and one might not!

 

When you do your next image uploads, try putting exactly the same file on here and WT and let us have the link. Might give us some clues.

 

Rich

 

PS love that 2-8-0 Western tank model .. I am assuming its a Bachmann? Not up on 4mm steam models, but they really have captured the essence of the loco!

[Andrew P]

9 hours ago, MarshLane said:

Hi Andy,

I have compared your pic here with that on WT and I agree there does seems to be a slightly smoother, sharper image on WT.  Assuming your using the same files on each site (the method of upload cannot change the file at all) then I would suggest that there is some work being done by the forum software - either here or at WT.  

 

Once a file is uploaded to a web server, that server can be set to do a number of things. I have set up photo websites before where I have programmed it to resize the image, apply a smoothing filter, sharpen the edges slightly  and do a range of other things.  The users are unaware but set up correctly it can present better images.  So it is quiet feasible that one (or even both) of the forums are doing different things to the images that we are not normally aware of.  Alternatively one might be and one might not!

 

When you do your next image uploads, try putting exactly the same file on here and WT and let us have the link. Might give us some clues.

 

Rich

 

PS love that 2-8-0 Western tank model .. I am assuming its a Bachmann? Not up on 4mm steam models, but they really have captured the essence of the loco!

Thanks for the info Rich. Both the photos, on here and WT were from the same image on my Flip Flop, both at 1047 x 805 so it must, as you have said, be something in the software either on here or WT.

All images I duplicate here and WT are the same file, (see other duplicated pics for comparison), size and source.

 

The 42XX, 2-8-0 is actually a Hornby Model, and they also do the 52XX that mainly worked the Welsh Coal Fields I believe, and re built from the 42XX.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Andrew P

[Andrew P]

The 07-56 arrival from Exeter St Davids behind Cl 25, No 25245. The same image will be duplicated on WT.

[BroadLeaves]

11 hours ago, MarshLane said:

So it is quiet feasible that one (or even both) of the forums are doing different things to the images that we are not normally aware of.

Certainly RMWeb is. I have the original of one of my uploaded photos and I've just downloaded that photo from the RMWeb post and compared the two. They have the same resolution (i.e. number of pixels), but the uploaded one is smaller (i.e. size of file in bytes). That doesn't necessarily mean it's of a lower visual quality, but it does indicate that images are being manipulated in some way by the forum software.

[Andrew P]

2 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

Certainly RMWeb is. I have the original of one of my uploaded photos and I've just downloaded that photo from the RMWeb post and compared the two. They have the same resolution (i.e. number of pixels), but the uploaded one is smaller (i.e. size of file in bytes). That doesn't necessarily mean it's of a lower visual quality, but it does indicate that images are being manipulated in some way by the forum software.

Thanks, and once again it tells me that its not me or my eyes. Its really only the close ups that seem to be more affected I think.

Cheers for your valuable feedback.👍.

[Andrew P]

So this morning I've made a start on the Road Bridge.

 

 

 

 

[Andrew P]

I've decided not to put the Cottage this side of the Road by the Pub, instead it will go down lower.

Edited May 26, 2022 by Andrew P

[Andrew P]

A quick photo of the SWT Class 170 before it departs to a new home later today.

 

 

[Winslow Boy]

32 minutes ago, Andrew P said:

I've decided not to put the Cottage this side of the Road by the Pub, instead it will go down lower.

 

Bygum Mr P I know things were lax when you were a sprintly youngster and everything but don't you reckon you should have some barriers up whilst your installing that bridge. There's not even a sign of any cones and those cars are on there like jam on a ...,..,....,.....,.. Word censored.

 

Re the photos thingy have you tried painting by numbers?

[Andrew P]

48 minutes ago, Winslow Boy said:

 

Bygum Mr P I know things were lax when you were a sprintly youngster and everything but don't you reckon you should have some barriers up whilst your installing that bridge. There's not even a sign of any cones and those cars are on there like jam on a ...,..,....,.....,.. Word censored.

 

Re the photos thingy have you tried painting by numbers?

All was safe, the Road was closed, well in actual fact, it was totally removed and put on my Workbench, so no worries on that score. 

And BTW, I was never a sprightly youngster. 😮

Edited May 26, 2022 by Andrew P

[P.C.M]

19 hours ago, Andrew P said:

YOUR THE ONLY REASON I'M GOING. 😂  🤣  😂

 

Seriously, I was hoping to also get to Ian's on Friday, but really looking forward to meeting you on Saturday.👍

Be good to see you mate.

[Andrew P]

Time to celebrate,  The Pub now has steps to go in and out. 😁  👍.

 

 

 

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

2 hours ago, Andrew P said:

Time to celebrate,  The Pub now has steps to go in and out. 😁  👍.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Andy

 

Are stairs and pubs compatible, only thinking of the safety of the patrons when descending the stairs, totally bladdered?

[PeterBB]

2 hours ago, Andrew P said:

Time to celebrate,  The Pub now has steps to go in and out. 😁  👍.

 

 

 

 

 

Where's the recent upgrade to enable access to the pub for all!? ... and of course the soft cushion at the bottom for those who have had a bit too much ...

Actually it looks great.

 

Seems that Clive ,who was typing simultaneously , had a similar idea.

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by PeterBB
Added that Clive had added ...

[Andrew P]

1 minute ago, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Andy

 

Are stairs and pubs compatible, only thinking of the safety of the patrons when descending the stairs, totally bladdered?

Totally agree Clive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But a dammed site better than No Steps. 🤣

[Andrew P]

2 minutes ago, PeterBB said:

Where's the recent upgrade to enable access to the pub for all!?  Actually it looks great.

 

If you mean Disable Access, no, back in the day, no one thought of things like that, even in the 70's / 80's, (see tomorrow Video). 

[PeterBB]

On 26/05/2022 at 22:43, Andrew P said:

If you mean Disable Access, no, back in the day, no one thought of things like that, even in the 70's / 80's, (see tomorrow Video). 

Exactly the response expected ... but bet a few of the punters woke up the morning after wondering how they got those black eyes and blooded  sore nose.

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by PeterBB
Spell check but wandering error also fitted

[Andrew P]

9 minutes ago, PeterBB said:

Exactly the response expected ... but bet a few of the punters woke up the morning after wandering how they got those black eyes and blooded  sore nose.

 

That's on a good night. 🤪

[MarshLane]

13 hours ago, BroadLeaves said:

Certainly RMWeb is. I have the original of one of my uploaded photos and I've just downloaded that photo from the RMWeb post and compared the two. They have the same resolution (i.e. number of pixels), but the uploaded one is smaller (i.e. size of file in bytes). That doesn't necessarily mean it's of a lower visual quality, but it does indicate that images are being manipulated in some way by the forum software.

Yes, it would make sense from a space point of view, given the image size that they are being shown at, to auto resave them to something like JPG level 7 or 8, just to compress the file size, but as you say, it should not visually affect the quality.

 

To be honest Andy, I am struggling to see much difference on that 25 picture.  I think the rmWeb version may have some slight smoothing, look at the fence edges, the brush marks in the field below the trees, the coach window edges, but I am being VERY VERY picky there!  This is how they appear to me.

 

 

As you say, close-ups may be more noticeable as it is likely that either your taking them on a higher ISO setting (which would cause more noise) or the light level is lower.  Have you tried using a small portable desk lamp to shine some light on the area you are photographing, when doing a close-up?

[Andrew P]

8 hours ago, MarshLane said:

Yes, it would make sense from a space point of view, given the image size that they are being shown at, to auto resave them to something like JPG level 7 or 8, just to compress the file size, but as you say, it should not visually affect the quality.

 

To be honest Andy, I am struggling to see much difference on that 25 picture.  I think the rmWeb version may have some slight smoothing, look at the fence edges, the brush marks in the field below the trees, the coach window edges, but I am being VERY VERY picky there!  This is how they appear to me.

 

 

As you say, close-ups may be more noticeable as it is likely that either your taking them on a higher ISO setting (which would cause more noise) or the light level is lower.  Have you tried using a small portable desk lamp to shine some light on the area you are photographing, when doing a close-up?

It is the close ups where the main problem seem to be.

In this shot below, the pic on here, to me the Totem and Numbers are un readable, but on WT they are sharp and clear, yet both from the same image.

Re the Desk lamp, yes I use a Desk Lamp for all the Shots except the "look what I have just done scenic wise" which are generally just distant point and squirt type shots.

 

[Andrew P]

So its Friday and time for Video No 10.

 

[David Bell]

Enjoyed video no 10 Andy. The tunnel and cutting on the branch are particularly effective and look well on the video.

Absolutely love the BR blue stuff.

Enjoy your visit to the show at the weekend

Cheers

David

[Bogie]

I'm pretty happy with what you're doing.   Couldn't care less about sound to be honest.

 

However, I think you have a continuity problem with wardrobe.

[Andrew P]

32 minutes ago, David Bell said:

Enjoyed video no 10 Andy. The tunnel and cutting on the branch are particularly effective and look well on the video.

Absolutely love the BR blue stuff.

Enjoy your visit to the show at the weekend

Cheers

David

Thanks David, I'm sure I will enjoy the show. The last time I went there was about 18 or 19 years ago before I moved to Derbyshire, and then back down here.

Whilst walking around the Village I was photographing a Calf, and then suddenly looked up. 😮 🤣