| Author | Message | ||
| bigbadbill
Intermediate Member Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 179 Registered: 10-2003 |
Well it's about time I posted some pics of my fabulous bass, serial no 04MJ13238. I'm still getting used to the camera so these may not be fantastic, but here goes...        Now as you can see, these pics are rather dinky (i.e. very small indeed); the original files are about 2.5M I think, and I had to shrink them greatly to get them to post. However I note that many people post huge great pics, so what am I doing wrong? (BTW, I'm a bit useless when it comes to new technology so please bear with me if the question seems stupid!). Oh, and just for the heck of it, here are 2 of my Triple O and Warwick Dolphin....   Any advice on posting bigger pics (preferably MUCH bigger pics) would be much appreciated! (Then I can go through the whole process again..) (Message edited by mica on April 21, 2005) | ||
| bigbadbill
Intermediate Member Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 180 Registered: 10-2003 |
Crikey, they didn't look like that on preview.... | ||
| poor_nigel
Senior Member Username: poor_nigel Post Number: 494 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hey Shaun. Convert them to JPEG (.jpg) files and then shrink them until they are a bit under 150kb and post one at a time, so you see they came out the way you wanted them to. If you don't have the software (Even Paint in Windows will work), email me three pictures per e-mail and I will do this for you. It is fun busy work for me, and I get some great pictures of a cool bass out of it. BTW - I really like Warwick Dolphins. Great basses. | ||
| bigbadbill
Intermediate Member Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 181 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hi Thomas Many thanks for the advice, although that's what I did do (or thought I did do; they're Jpegs and I did shrink them to just under 150k....but I'm obviously doing something wrong!)....maybe it's best if I take up your kind offer and e-mail you the pics!!! And then you can let me know what basic mistake I'm making  The Dolphin is great actually; totally different from the Triple O, but that's great as they cover very different ground. My first Dolphin has just come up on ebay over here; unfortunately I can't afford it at the moment or I'd buy it back. Ah well... | ||
| bigbadbill
Intermediate Member Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 182 Registered: 10-2003 |
BTW Mica, thanks for straightening the pics out! Thomas, I'll e-mail them this weekend if that's ok as I now have to sign off (having been on here for about 2 hours), otherwise I could be in the doghouse.... | ||
| poor_nigel
Senior Member Username: poor_nigel Post Number: 495 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hi Shaun: Go ahead and send the first batch of three of the originals you want done. I will process them and send em back. Repeat until done. On the last e-mail, send me all the little shots, and I will see if I can figure out what happened and e-mail you about it. | ||
| davehouck
Moderator Username: davehouck Post Number: 1632 Registered: 5-2002 |
Spectacular top and back woods! | ||
| kenbass4
Intermediate Member Username: kenbass4 Post Number: 172 Registered: 10-2003 |
Shaun, Ai Elena!! That is indeed the work of the Noldar at it's finest! (and I was just wondering why we haven't seen your bass yet) Ken (TEO) | ||
| bob
Senior Member Username: bob Post Number: 409 Registered: 11-2002 |
When you "shrink", you should usually have options to either reduce the size, or reduce the quality. Try setting quality down to 85-90%, without changing the size. | ||
| marcm
Member Username: marcm Post Number: 94 Registered: 12-2003 |
shaun certainly there is a touch of elvish craft in your bass! i've never seen the triple-o body shape complemented so well by the grain of the top- and back laminates i'm not an expert at interpreting serial numbers, but i know that series basses don't have them and they have different control layouts from yours. is that a 'dummy' dummy humcanceller, which you had installed in anticipation of a future upgrade to series electronics? (i'm prepared to be put in my place on this question) in any event, it's a spectacular bass! it must be a delight to play marc | ||
| sfnic
New Username: sfnic Post Number: 8 Registered: 3-2005 |
Marc - I suspect you meant that series basses don't have a letter code embedded in the serial number... The control package looks to be a straightforward "Signature" setup, which would make sense as the MJ code indicates a Mark King Signature Standard. Of course, that stunning body is anything BUT standard for the model. You're dead on about how the woodgrain and omega pattern complement each other. I'm a total sucker for TripleOs, and this one is one of the nicer ones I've seen. Yeah, some of the buckeye burl basses are awesome, but this one has an explosive elegance to it that's real hard to beat. | ||
| marcm
Member Username: marcm Post Number: 95 Registered: 12-2003 |
thanks nic, yes, i meant that they don't have letter codes in the serial number it is a gorgeous bass, and it does look like signature electronics. i'm curious about the black rectangle that looks a lot like a dummy humbucker, but i know that others have ordered their non-series basses set up for future upgrades to series pickups | ||
| sfnic
New Username: sfnic Post Number: 9 Registered: 3-2005 |
Good point. I did overlook that extra coverplate... | ||
| valvil
Moderator Username: valvil Post Number: 682 Registered: 7-2002 |
I'm fairly sure that in this case the dummy pickup is just a cosmetic feature. When customers ask us to prep for a future upgrade to series electronics, the 3 cavities are routed from the get-go and the body is made thicker. Valentino | ||
| bob
Senior Member Username: bob Post Number: 411 Registered: 11-2002 |
Okay, but (I've got my magnifiers on and) I don't see a plate on the back side, to cover the area that would be needed for Series electronics. So my guess is this is more of a cosmetic thing, because it would be really painful to rout out another cavity, in such beautiful wood. [edited just to add that val and i were talking at the same time, my 'Okay' was for the previous poster] (Message edited by bob on April 22, 2005) | ||
| grateful
Junior Username: grateful Post Number: 44 Registered: 12-2004 |
Beautiful bass Shaun: the wood grain complements the triple-o body shape. Regarding picture size: this is determined by pixel dimensions. Shrink your pics so the largest pixel dimension is 800 or so. Mark, ago | ||
| dadabass2001
Advanced Member Username: dadabass2001 Post Number: 363 Registered: 6-2002 |
And screen resolution is 72-96 pixels per inch, or maybe 35 pixels/centimeter. Mike | ||
| alanbass1
Junior Username: alanbass1 Post Number: 37 Registered: 4-2005 |
Nice bass and another lovely piece of walnut, Alembic must get the very best of this wood as I didn't think such figuring existed with walnut. regarding posting picture, you need to shrink below 150kb and then post one picture at a time. Each post has a 150 limit, so the more pictures you add to a single post the smaller they will have to be. | ||
| bob
Senior Member Username: bob Post Number: 413 Registered: 11-2002 |
Minor clarification: the 150kb limit is per image. You can have as many as you like in a single post, as long as no single image exceeds the limit. (At least that's how it was in January, and I rather doubt that it has changed since.) | ||
| bigbadbill
Intermediate Member Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 183 Registered: 10-2003 |
Hi guys! Thanks for the advice and the generous comments. Hopefully if I can get bigger pics posted then you'll be able to see the grain even better, although the pics still won't do the wood justice; in reality it's as if you can see through different layers of the wood, like some sort of hologram. With regards to the pictures, I think all the images were somewhere around the 150k mark(some possibly slightly smaller ); Bob, I think the quality remained the same whilst I shrunk the size, which could be where I went wrong, but I'll mail some shots to Thomas to see what he can do with them (thanks for the offer Thomas BTW, I'll do as you suggested). With regards to the questions re the hum canceller, it is indeed a fully functioning humcanceller, but as it isn't wired up it is indeed just for cosmetic purposes; this may sound strange but having grown up in an era when all Alembics had a h/c, I felt it just wouldn't quite look finished to me without one (which is not to in any way say there's anything wrong with those basses which don't have it; it's just a little idiosyncrasy of mine!!!). And unfortunately I couldn't afford the series electronics.... | ||
| poor_nigel
Senior Member Username: poor_nigel Post Number: 496 Registered: 7-2003 |
Testing:   Lower the quality when shrinking? Naw! Well, the process of shrinking the picture does lower the quality a touch, as it has to interpolate the pixels. But the quality loss is not very noticeable, really. Wow, the wood on this bass is just outstanding! More to come from Shaun, I'm sure. | ||
| bob
Senior Member Username: bob Post Number: 415 Registered: 11-2002 |
What an awesome piece of wood. Nigel, just for the confused here, you really should explain how you accomplished this. Given that jpeg is a compressed format, I've found that 90% quality will often reduce the file size by around half, and be barely discernable. Depends a lot on the image, of course, and the program and techniques you use - but you've done a great job, so tell us. | ||
| bigbadbill
Intermediate Member Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 184 Registered: 10-2003 |
Now THAT'S more like it! Wow!!!!!! Thomas, you are the man!!!! Many, many thanks!!!! BTW, I don't know if you sent anything back to me but we've been having a few problems both sending and receiving e-mails with any attachments bigger than a gnat's nose (pc is on it's last legs and is to be upgraded in the next few weeks to the Mac I mentioned in a much earlier thread); I'll try and send you some more pics if that's ok with you, although the way it's going I may have to send them one at a time. Any idea what I was doing wrong? I'd love to know how to put it right!! | ||
| poor_nigel
Senior Member Username: poor_nigel Post Number: 497 Registered: 7-2003 |
Second Set   You could be right about this Bob. I apologize for being so busy right now that I cannot go through and really investigate this. However, first free block of time that comes up will be used to answer your question. | ||
| poor_nigel
Senior Member Username: poor_nigel Post Number: 498 Registered: 7-2003 |
Last Call  | ||
| bigbadbill
Intermediate Member Username: bigbadbill Post Number: 185 Registered: 10-2003 |
Thomas, thanks once again, you've done a fantastic job with the pics. Can't wait to hear how you did it. All the best Shaun | ||
| poor_nigel
Senior Member Username: poor_nigel Post Number: 499 Registered: 7-2003 |
Hey Bob: I finally finished some chores and have compared the files I processed, so I can give you a definitive answer on what went on. We'll use the second picture down from where I started as the example. I started out with a 2,299 KB file and shrunk it down to 40% of its size. Color count before shrinkage was 339,919 colors. The finished file was 144 KB and only had 137,106 in it, as probably 70% to 80% of its pixels were eliminated. therefore, it will naturally have fewer distinct colors in it. Jpegs depend heavily on color indexing for size of the file, and not just its dimensions. As the number of colors increase, so does the color indexing and size of the file, in what seems an exponetial increase (Don't forget that z^(x/y) is still exponential), verses linear. Although the first picture and second picture are the same file size, 144KB, the second is larger, and has less color mapping, number of colors in it. This site states its limit at 150KB for uploads. However, this is false. It is actually 150,000 bytes. 150KB = 150*1024 bytes, which = 153,600 bytes. This is why I never go over 145KB to post on here, as when I try to get closer to 150KB, it starts failing to upload. Max size is actually 146.48 Kb. When I 'shrink these pictures, I use an old program called Irfanview. I use the old version, which is much less complicated and gives quick results. I open the original in it, click on View, select Resize/Resample and then Keep Aspect Ratio, and set the new size to 40% to start off with. This way the program reinterpolates the pixels from a fresh loading -> less distortion creeps in. Then tweak the percentage until you get between 144 KB and 146 KB. Easy, quick, and the results are excellent. You can do the same thing in any graphics processor, and get as complicated as you want, messing with size and 'quality (this is usually color depth in most programs)' as you go. I just don't bother. (Message edited by poor_nigel on April 28, 2005) | ||
| davehouck
Moderator Username: davehouck Post Number: 1663 Registered: 5-2002 |
Irfanview is what I use as well. | ||
| bob
Senior Member Username: bob Post Number: 419 Registered: 11-2002 |
Thanks, Thomas. On my Mac, I use GraphicConverter, which I highly recommend. Just choose Save As..., and assuming it's already a jpeg, a dialog will pop up with a Quality field at the top. There's a handy little slider to adjust it, and it shows you what the new file size will be. Funny, I also noticed that the limit is slightly less than 150kb, since I was struggling to post a pdf or something that didn't reduce well (got to 149 or so, and ended up zipping it). With a jpeg, simply dropping the quality a little usually does the trick, without changing the visual size of the image. | ||
| jacko
Intermediate Member Username: jacko Post Number: 178 Registered: 10-2002 |
Wow that's a fantastic looking bass bill. I love the walnut figuring. Looks like I'll have to come down to see it in the flesh sometime. Hmmm, now there's an idea - tour the UK taking in all the Alembics I can track down. That's got to be better than visiting national trust properties;-) Graeme. |
