| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 61736 | 2005-09-15 00:37:00 | photos on Floppies | Thomas01 (317) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 388459 | 2005-09-15 00:37:00 | I enquired about printing photographs from Hanafins (my printer is getting duff), and they advised me that using floppies gives a poor result compared to CDs. Now thats nonsense (I think!). If the files are the same size then the things are digital so how can there be any difference. They seem quite convinced that customers had told them this. I wonder if perhaps some people had used INDEXING on Compupic to produce the files (INDEXING reduces the file size amazingly in its default state). Anybody else run up against this very strange belief? |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 388460 | 2005-09-15 00:41:00 | no and if the file size is the same then theyr'e talkign crap........it's still a file no matter what media it's saved on and it's exactly the same be it floppy/cd/flash disk whatever.........rubbish...... | drcspy (146) | ||
| 388461 | 2005-09-15 00:45:00 | If the file is the same size, and compressed with the same jpeg options, then it makes no difference what media the file is stored on. Of course, you could really only fit one decent quality image on a floppy. Generally people over compress JPEGS to enable them to fit several images on one floppy, and this is where the lower quality comes in. It's the quality/size of the file, not the media. |
b1naryb0y (3) | ||
| 388462 | 2005-09-15 02:44:00 | Glad to see folks agree with me. Yes the file is what matters not what it is carried on. Interestingly I had a quick check of many of my photographs and rarely do I exceed 200kb so I can put at least 5 on a floppy. Mind you I am a family recorder type of user rather than a REAL photographer so the absolute best quality isn't really needed for me. I took many early photographs on one of those big clumsy Kodak models which only used floppys and put 14 on one floppy. Looking at those old pictures I am quite pleased by the way they appear. Nothing to be ashamed about. Tom |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 388463 | 2005-09-15 02:57:00 | Are these the sort of people who weigh the floppy to see if there is any data on it? Full floppies are heavier than empty ones. Just spend $20 on a flash drive and forget floppies, they are such old tech, their an anacronism. |
netchicken (4843) | ||
| 388464 | 2005-09-15 03:18:00 | Loved the comment about weighing floppies. Good chuckle. I must admit though I would be lost without my old floppies. I and many of my associates still use them lots and lots and lots. Cheap reliable, no problems with finding the recipient hasn't got the software to run them. And lets face it for text they carry a massive amount of information. Even my drafting program can store around 10 drawings on one. (2d I hasten to add). I dont expect them to handle 3d drawings or big photo files of course. Some years ago I was asked if I could supply some of the old 5.25 floppys to a new computer user. "Yes" I replied. He came round and I sent the poor sod off with a box holding about 200 of the darn things. Last I saw of him he was staggering down the path muttering somnething like "I only wanted a few!" Tom |
Thomas01 (317) | ||
| 388465 | 2005-09-15 04:32:00 | LOL I backed up all my work on 5 1/2 floppies, and a couple of years later went to retrieve the data. Unfortuntly the disks had grown a green mold and never went again. Nature overomes technology every time. | netchicken (4843) | ||
| 1 | |||||