|
| |
[< Gallery Home | Latest Images | Top 100 | Submit Picture >]
101102 Pictures << Previous Picture | Next Picture >> Ness of Brodgar
[600 x 375 jpg]
 Print
Unless otherwise stated, this image is the copyright of the submitter. Contact them for permission to reproduce it. |  | | Description | This is [quote] :"Captain Thomas's plan of the prehistoric sites in the vicinity of Maes Howe, 1852. Maes Howe itself is not on the plan but off top right. Thomas, though, does give an elevation of the great mound."
He also drew the stones of the Ring of Brodgar along the top, and you can't avoid seeing the large tumulus on the Ness of Brodgar. The two standing stones are also shown. These are very close to the excavated 'Orkney Stone Age Temple', featured in recent TV episode of 'History of Ancient Britain'. (The blurred writing above left of Stenness reads: "Site of the Stone of Odin, destroyed in... by tenant."[?]
Copied from page 3 of the official Maes Howe souvenir guide, Historic Scotland, 2000.
(The site's name became Maeshowe not long after this.) |
| Posted Comments: AngieLake
(2012-01-05) | It's a shame this didn't come out more clearly, but I had to keep shrinking the size to achieve the required KBs for posting. | Andy B
(2012-01-05) | Angie, you need to increase the JPG image compression a bit when saving (ie decrease the quality slightly), not decrease the actual size. A good photo editing program will let you do this. (what are you using?) | AngieLake
(2012-01-06) | Andy, I'm using what I always do, the HP Photo & Imaging and looking at a typical scan, the resolution [pixels/inch dpi] is 200, so to get this pic, above, down, I'd alter that to 150, then keep decreasing the pixel width and height til the image is small enough to be accepted. This is a scan from printed material, but if downloading digi photos I get no problem. The old 'film' photos used to be a problem sometimes. | davidmorgan
(2012-01-06) | Any chance of a tutorial from one of the photo experts on how to do this well? I've found that some of my photos, especially the Mexican ones with lots of carvings/staircase detail, come out pretty pixelated when I jpg them. | Martin L
(2012-01-06) | Not being one of the mentioned experts I try to answer it anyway.
As Andy said it is about the jpg.compression.
Scan with highest possible resolution. At scale 100%.
Then open file with a photoeditor (i use XNview a great and simple freeware), cut the picture if necessary and change the pixel-size as it is needed (for example 750 x 500, 800 x 600, ...) and set the .jpg compression (the programs often call it ‚quality’ (XnView has 100(best), 1(bad), others programs vice versa. Of course it depends on the image, but a setting around 90 usually is best) and save the resized image. Using these settings result in a clear 800 x 600 image with 100- 200kb.
In this special case a further reduction would have been achieved by changing from RGB to grey-scale.
| davidmorgan
(2012-01-06) | Thanks Martin. I've been saving at 75. I'll have a go at different compression rates to see what file sizes I get. | Martin L
(2012-01-06) | Cheers David. Might by hard to say in general, but from my experience with Xnview "quality 75" indeed results in a compression with significant loss of details.
| AngieLake
(2012-01-06) | Martin: For this pic above then, ought I to have reduced the resolution (after scanning) to less than 150 before making the pixel dimensions [ie: 750 x 500] smaller? I thought the less resolution, the harder it would be to see the detail. The original pic scanned here was only 13 x 8 cms, and quite hard to read. | Martin L
(2012-01-06) | A later (after scan) change of resolution is an irrelevant parameter for display at screens and filesize. Do not change it at all. Try as described. | holger rix
(2012-01-06) | Hi Angie.
I would scan this as a b/w original with high resolution (like 600dpi) which will produce a picture with very big size, but very fine detail.
After that I would save it as a reduced gif (b/w) at a size of apprx. 1200 - 1600 pixel width.
The data size will be greatly reduced by using gif, but the fine details will all be visible. Feel free to send your original scan to a filehoster like rapidshare, I'll show you how it comes out and explain the work in detail.
(will use Irfanview, also freeware) | Andy B
(2012-01-06) | We have detailed help on this linked below. I would not adjust with DPI settings. For colour scans to go on the Portal I would start with 300 DPI which as has been said will produce a big size scan which you can tell your scanner to save as JPG and keep for other purposes such as printing out or selling to the Daily Mail if it's your own photo (you wish :) ) 600 DPI is ideal but is slow and produces a very large file. Save the original as a TIFF if you want to be really professional but this will produce really huge files.
I'm not sure if the Portal likes GIFs. Probably best to stick to JPG for simplicity although not ideal.
Load in the JPG you have saved in your photo editing program. I would recommend http://www.getpaint.net as this allows for loads of adjustments and is easy to use. Resize it down (in pixels not DPI). Then save it with a different file name.
For this particular scan you'll need to experiment with the resizing to get it as small as you can while still being readable. Perhaps 1000 pixels across or maybe even 1200. Normally we use 750 x 500 or 800 x 600 ish as you know.
XNview quality of 75 will I expect be JPG compression of 75 which will be very poor quality, too much compression. Setting a JPG compression of about 90 to 95 (this is often just called Quality) when saving a photo of about 750 x 500 pixels is much better and will usually be below our file size limit. Then check what comes out. If the file size comes out too big then increase the compression to about 80 or 85 and try saving again. Programs like Paint.net that allow you to set the compression each time you save a JPG are easier to use.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=FAQ&file=index&myfaq=yes&id_cat=2&categories=Contributing+photos+and+information
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=FAQ&file=index&myfaq=yes&id_cat=10&categories=Scanning+Tips+to+get+the+best+quality | AngieLake
(2012-01-06) | Thanks for all the advice. Scary stuff to me, who's *never* altered the scanning set-up! Too late tonight, might practice over the weekend, and see what happens. ;-) | Andy B
(2012-01-26) | We've uploaded a rescanned version here - thanks Angie
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=a312&file=index&do=showpic&pid=86331&orderby=dateD |
To post comments first you must Register! | |
Megalithic Portal eGallery, images of megaliths and prehistoric sites worldwide, free to view. |
Main News