You guys are missing the point completely here, or at least half of it. The thumbnail and limited size picture is useless for scanning readable materials that are so often requested. Check the posts on the D6-9U blade and the D2 radiator. If you can read those scans you have better eyes than me and I for one have no intention of running hundreds of archived files through Imageshack just to make up for a cheap approach to bandwidth. Course if all you want to show is tractor pics then go for it.

I think I can give an opinion from both sides. At work, big pics are no problem, because we are on high speed. But at home, I hate them because it takes forever to load on the dial up. I skip a lot of them, because I don't want to wait all night for a large number of pics to load. For me, the thumbnails are nice, because I can pick out which ones I want to see full size.
I'm sure the problem of full size pic size will be addressed, once the fine tuning is done.
As far as switching back and forth to see the thumbnails, my cure for that was to go to Mozzilla Firefox for a browser. That way, I can load several pages at once, in tabs. I love it!

"Old wrote:

You guys are missing the point completely here, or at least half of it. The thumbnail and limited size picture is useless for scanning readable materials that are so often requested. Check the posts on the D6-9U blade and the D2 radiator. If you can read those scans you have better eyes than me and I for one have no intention of running hundreds of archived files through Imageshack just to make up for a cheap approach to bandwidth. Course if all you want to show is tractor pics then go for it.

I'm in agreement with you OM on your point, but you can get effectively readable scans at 640X480. I will be upping the limit to 800X600 very soon, but if the scans aren't legible at 640X480 the next step up isn't going to help much. Unfortunately there are so many different ways to get a scan from the page to an upload that it's difficult to produce a one-all-be-all tutorial, but you just have to play with your technique until you find what works.

No worries with bandwidth though, we've got plenty and currently aren't even scraping 3% of what's available. At ACME the site hasn't ever exceeded 14% of available bandwidth, and ACMOC has the same type of hosting plan.

Of course I'll help Joe any way I can to serve our readers and posters. We will just have to see what changes you folks desire, and compare with what is doable. GWH

Thanks Joe, I believe the 800 by 600 will work ok. Will experiment and try some out later.

Joe B,
Why can't the picture size be the same as it was on the old ACMOC BB where the width was best at about 750 to 800 but there was no restriction on the length. Very common to have a document run up to 1000 in length like when posting instructions or specifications for example. These documents will become quite distorted when compressed in height. Best to consider this now if there is going to be any chance of building archives.

Hmmm... I'm used to each page being a separate image, so haven't considered the idea of making one long image with several pages on it. I can think of some negatives (from an administrative aspect) so will need to look into that, and of course present a pro/con argument to the powers that be if we're to consider that here.

Thanks for the insight!

Joe,
Not talking about trying to get multiple pages on one long page, I'm referring to some pages requiring more than 480 or 600 in length to get one full page. Nothing new, that's what the old BB had......when it worked. I don't see what the big deal is or why the previous configuration can't be left as is. What happened to the auto-resize option ??. That could be used to keep the huge oversize pics in check if need be.

<span style="font-family:Arial Black">I agree with OM that it would be advantageous to allow greater picture lengths in posts. It would be especially helpful for scanned pages from manuals and books that are typically "taller" than they are wide. </span>

Am in agreement with OM on the sizing of the pictures, especially on the subject of instructions and specifications.