[mythtv-users] WIKI: OTA Antenna Tuning

[Meatwad]

Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:01:27PM -0500, Meatwad wrote:
>> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 05:09:27PM -0500, Meatwad wrote:
>>>> Which brings up a question? What is the wiki owner's (Isaac?) policy on 
>>>> jpg's in the wiki? Lot's of pics building up over here...
>>> I don't think Isaac much cares either way, as long as they don't
>>> violate someone's copyright.
>>>
>>> I'd try to resize them to not much larger than 1kx before uploading
>>> them myself, unless lots of fine detail is critical to their usefulness.
>> I came across a reference to 600x800 max for pics in the wiki but 
>> cannot, for the life of me, find the page again. I did find 
>> http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/index.php/MythTV:Manual_of_Style#Pictures but 
>> no reference to dimensions there.
> 
> Well, there are some pictures for which the entire 12 megapixels are
> useful, in the click through, and of couse, MW lets you scale down the
> image as you include it on the page...  Use your judgement.

I'm getting the hang of WM. Just like radio: Long time listener, first 
time caller. After accidentally uploading a 440k jpeg, MW very politely 
suggested they be around 120k which seems to be working out. Still 
trying to wrap my head around the idea of intentionally downrezzing a 
photo ;)

>> WRT the photos I've been taking, Lightroom allowed me to build different 
>> export presets and I'll constrain to 72 dpi .jpg, sRGB colorspace and 
>> 600x800. I started to digest wiki authoring this afternoon. Later in the 
>> evening I dragged the lighter tripods and halogens into the attic above 
>> the garage -- I had to finish mounting the preamp to a rafter anyway, it 
>> was unceremoniously lying on the topside of the drywall.
> 
> Well, again, you don't have to upload as 800x600; you can scale down to
> that when you include a picture on a page...  The colorspace is a good
> choice, though.  What do you think of LR?

Started with Nikon's PictureProject and tried to couple it with Capture 
but found myself bouncing out to Photoshop and having metadata get 
creamed. Next, I tried Elements which was just crippled. Adobe really 
ought to make it go away. Bought the Macbook and put LR on it intending 
to try Aperture at the same time. I haven't bothered. LR is perfect for 
my needs. The best 'feature' is that the database allows you do whatever 
you like with your files. Move them, rename them, it often figures out 
what you did with no intervention. The others get very broken when you 
muck about with the files. Metadata can be stored in an XMP sidecar file 
for true RAW workflow or convert the RAW to Adobe's supposedly open .dng 
format. The Develop module is a little different than others in that it 
has constraints on how you adjust curves and such but all the basics are 
there. Excellent WB control. Bouncing out to PS and back is painless if 
you need to break out the big guns. They added a new colorspace which 
hasn't made it into my workflow yet. The keyboard mapping makes sense. I 
was impressed with LR when it came out but the point upgrade added 
m,any features and cleared up a number of nasties that users had been 
complaining about in the forums. That was also a good sign. Word is that 
Apple released Aperture out of nowhere. It was a skunkworks project and 
Adobe scrambled to freeze code, clean it and ship. The 1.1 version was 
mostly what they had hoped to release.

WRT the wiki, I've mucked about a little to get my feet wet. Have time 
tomorrow morning and all weekend to jump in.

--
mw