Yo folks.. I found a little spare time and decided to add a little worthwhile content to the weak 944fest.com site. Basically, I'm going to try to put my 944 media collection online. I've got about 50 pages of articles, mostly dealing with 944 TS's, and I'm going to scan them in and share.
I've only done one article so far. I'd like some feedback as to the resolution, clarity, image size, etc. before I do 50 scans and resizes to find out it's unreadable on a mac running AOL at 600x400 or whatever. Obviously I'm looking for a balance of image size and clarity. I imagine a few folks will download them and print them out, I'd hate for it to look crappy.. but I don't want Joe dial-up to have to pay the price.
Yea, I don't do java or frames, glitz or glitter. You can tell my web design is nonexistant. It's basic plain Jane but soon to be full of worthwhile data.

http://www.944fest.com

Click the "Media" link.

Lame or Worthy?

"Readable" or "It gave me a headache squinting?"

TIA

 

I would probably save it to my computer and then zoom in a bit before I read it.

So, I'd probably get a headache if I tried to read it as is. (1280x1024 on a 20" CRT, non flat screen)

 

I think if you save it and zoom in, it will get fuzzy and worse. Those are around 600x800, and weigh in at about 100kb. If I go larger (Like the Seinfeld article from another thread) and put the res around 1000x1200, the image size hops up to 230kb. It is quality material worth the storage to do correctly, but I really hate when dial up folks complain about long downloads. Anyone have any suggestions for a balance?

 

I gave it a shot -- saved and zoomed in and it was fine IMO.

You could offer both the large and the small if you can afford the space.

 

HAHAH that music in the fun movie still cracks me up...

 

How about making them PDFs?

 

I'm a dial up user at home. Would still prefer better quality and a little longer download time than a smaller size with lots of artifacts and less quality in the pics. It is a bit small to read on a 1024X768 screen and I use 1280X960 at home.

 

OK, I did another one, this time the Motor Trend review of the Turbo S. I put the res a little larger, thus the file is a little bigger too. It looks a little better to me. Anyone else?

I don't have much experience with Adobe and PDF's, just the invasive way it self-installs all the time to display manuals, etc. What benefit would it offer over the jpgs? I'd hate for someone to have to download that Adobe viewer just to see them.

 

Glad you like it, that was the intent. Sadly a lot of guys hated it and would prefer some headbanging. It was supposed to be fun and "rolicky".

Thanks...

 

Much better on the second article. Easy to read and looks to be a pretty good size.

 

Being an average "Joe dial-up" it all looked good to me and didn't take very long to load.
Good job so far Dan, I'll see you at the 04 Fest. I can hardly wait, I just hope my car is ready.

 

Thanks x2.. That is the format I'll use when I get the rest scanned in.

I guess I better get going on the Fest plans!

 

Most people have Acrobat these days.

It's not what I'd call invasive, most programs launch automatically when you open a document.

As for self-installing it, you have to do that once, and only if you want.

 

great video's!

 

Yea, I agree most people have it by now, "Only if you want" to read the documentation for your $50 game that didn't come with a paper manual. Maybe mac folks can read it vs. a word doc or something, I don't know the benefit. I do know that I'm not fully checked out on it and jpgs seem to work just fine and are more universal than PDFs.. is it a compression issue?