<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><font face="arial" size="2">What Hank says is all too true; the tendency of all manufacturers to think that more bells and whistles on every new thing (including software) is the only way to go. Like cell phones, I don't object to them including a camera and say a phone book and calculator and i actually take advantage of one of the free card games to entertain myself or help myself "be patient" quite regularly, but the other 7,467 functions or whatever are in the nine count them 9 menus on my simple cell phone (It was the simplest one AT&T had when I bought it) are completely useless to me and all they do is frustrate me when I need to find my calculator.</font><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><br></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;">Now I don't consider myself "Technology challenged" though my IT support/Son might
dispute that in spite of my having taught him enough computerse to make him find entry classes in Junior college a waste of his time, but the menu on my current camera defeats me, I know there are certain functions it will allow me to change, but beyond switching between still mode and video and using flash suppression or forced flash I am at a loss.</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><br></div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;">I say all this in prelude to pointing out that the fact your camera won't take an image less than 1280 X 1600 doesn't preclude using those images, it just means you have to massage the image. One thing you need to keep firmly in vies is the pixels are the measure of how much screen space an image uses and that depends on the resolution of the image. I scan at between 800 and 1200 pixels per inch depending on how important it is for me to get a good product. I routinely use 1200 for scanning
slides and mini negatives as that allows me to get a half way decent product, though I doubt I will be printing any 8" X 10" prints that way. My point is at the 800 pixels resolution I scanned in a historic document, well a class 1946 reunion photo caption, and ended up with a 4800 by 5729 pixel image. I am guessing that image would not meet the criteria for Glen's purposes. So I went online and found this site;</div><div style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><br></div><div><font face="arial" size="2">http://www.garyshood.com/imageconvert/</font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2">I selected the above mentioned image from my puter and typed 480 and 573 in the respective boxes. I try to reduce image by even whole amounts one fourth one half or whatever though that may not be necessary any more, but the important thing is to keep the ratio the same as your original image. I am not sure how
much trouble you might have finding that out, I now you can open paint and on the "Image" menu click on "attributes" and it will tell you, I am not sure what the new version of paint has but it probably still does this.</font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2">Anyway keep the ratio the same, making sure you select the format you want on the format pull down, and hit the send photo button and the image will pop up in the bottom of the screen. Right click on it and "save as" and you are good to go. The site also has a free downloadable version, but I don't know what kind of deal that might be.</font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2">I know it is a pain to have to take the extra step, but I like high res images for my files and I convert all my camera images to a tif file right away when I massage them because that is not a lossy format
like most of the formats are. I had a bit map of my little sister in one of my folders that had migrated through about six hard drives and I had to dump the folder and redownload it to my hard drive from my nephew's original CD because her image was covered with black blotches.</font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2">One of the big questions, and I believe Layne was the first person I heard discuss this is that none of these computer storage media is a permanent storage solution. CD's and DVD's and blue ray and whatever comes next, as I under stand it are questionable in terms of how long term they are readable, not to mention obsolescence; does anyone have a floppy drive on their computer any more? The last computer I had with a floppy wouldn't read the discs and was long out of warranty before I even needed it. Not to mention when was the last time you saw a desktop that
read five and a quarter inch discs?</font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2">My apologies for my usual terse discourse, but hopefully some of you will be able to use this info to good purpose.</font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial" size="2">Les C<br></font><br><blockquote style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt; border-left-width: 2px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><div id="yiv719644593">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>I was refering to the Pixals mine will not go below</p>
<p>1280? By 16?? and many programs cannot use</p>
<p>anything over 800 by 1200 pixals.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yeah, some company marketing duds try to make us think, like the
current ad on TV, that Bigger & Faster is Better -- not
necessarily. When you buy one of those big mega pixel cameras, the
one thing you want to check is how small a pic will it take -- mine
will go down to 640 x 480, as well as them high pixel shots that are
only good for cropping out a little section or 11x 17 prints.<br></div></div></blockquote></div></td></tr></table>