re: Picture size in W2k?? Wednesday, December 31, 2008 at 5:20 am Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum Posted by Len (72 messages posted) Thanksfor the interesting page. The giant jpg files are not from my camera, but sent to me. I'm having problems opening them and wondered whether Wk2 was the limiting factor or CPU or RAM? On Monday, December 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm, geek9pm wrote: >It all depends what format they have. And what level of compression they have. Windows >XP will show thumbnails for some, by not all types of picture formats. >For camera pictures, it is most often JPG format. To reduce space, the picture should >be saved with at least a compression index fro about 6 to 12. By using even higher >compression, up to about 40, you can save more space on your hard drive and still >have fair snapshots quality. >Your camera should have a setting for this. But it may not tell what the index is, >just something line this: Best, Better, Good and Draft. The 'Better' format will >have some compression. Maybe between 4 to 8 more or less. >If you are new to Digital Pictures, look at this: > >http://www.shortcourses.com/workflow/workflow1-1.html > > >Microsoft, as you know, is not doing much for Windows 2000 users other than security >updates. So of the new image software MS offers may not work on Win 2K. Written in response to: re: Picture size in W2k?? (geek9pm: Monday, December 29, 2008 at 5:19 pm) Responses to this message: re: Picture size in W2k?? (geek9pm: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 at 1:13 pm) All messages in this thread [show all] Picture size in W2k?? (Len: Mon, Dec 29, 2008, 10:15 am) re: Picture size in W2k?? (geek9pm: Mon, Dec 29, 2008, 5:19 pm) re: Picture size in W2k?? (Len: Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 5:20 am) re: Picture size in W2k?? (geek9pm: Wed, Dec 31, 2008, 1:13 pm) Reply or follow-up to this message Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum