Hosting my gigantic pics

For everything else.

Moderator: victimizati0n

Post Reply
Message
Author
2005
Site Jock
Posts: 2258
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

Hosting my gigantic pics

#1 Post by 2005 » Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:24 pm

It seems photobucket has a 512KB file size limit, which is about 1/8th the ammount I need. I want to be able to upload my pictures at 3264x2448 and fullest file size, what the hell was the point of getting an 8.0 MP if everything gets scaled down. I tried makeing a new account at webshots but their retarded and every time I go to make a new album it gives me this shit.

"Before makeing a new album you must confirm your email address, a letter will be sent to that address with a link for activation" I eneter the email correctly and 5 or so min later go into my email account and click the link they sent me. Just sends me back to the same page asking for email confirmation and sends me another letter with a link that sends me BACK to the SAME page AGAIN in a big loop. Pisses me off.

I just want to upload my photos (preferable to a gallery/album type deal) at full size/res without paying money. :roll:
Image
Top
palmboy5
Site Administrator
Posts: 7477
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Hosting my gigantic pics

#2 Post by palmboy5 » Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:38 pm

2005 wrote:what the hell was the point of getting an 8.0 MP if everything gets scaled down.
exactly, stop bitching about mine -_-


http://www.gwgaming.net/
its not exactly a gallery type thing but you can set a page up to do it.. 2GB transfer seems a little limiting though
For computers, buying cheaply and often will only leave you constantly in a world of shit.
Image
Top
2005
Site Jock
Posts: 2258
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

#3 Post by 2005 » Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:57 pm

Never bitched about yours, complained 1 time and appoligised like 4 posts later. jesus
Image
Top
palmboy5
Site Administrator
Posts: 7477
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

#4 Post by palmboy5 » Sun Dec 04, 2005 4:58 pm

oh yes.. well w/e *looks at dragon*
For computers, buying cheaply and often will only leave you constantly in a world of shit.
Image
Top
I7Iz490N
Site Moderator
Posts: 4455
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:15 pm

#5 Post by I7Iz490N » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm

lol
Last edited by I7Iz490N on Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
mannyace
Posts: 794
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:46 am

#6 Post by mannyace » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:12 pm

goodness what r u doin with 3264x2448 sized pics?

im just askin, not bitchin (...yet lol)
Top
palmboy5
Site Administrator
Posts: 7477
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

#7 Post by palmboy5 » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:28 pm

its just.. better that way.. lol
so you know when u clip something out of a photo itll still be rather high res

i espeically need it in digital imaging class, teacher wants us to make our photoshop pics 8.5" x 11" @ 300+dpi, guess what, thats larger than what my camera can do.
For computers, buying cheaply and often will only leave you constantly in a world of shit.
Image
Top
2005
Site Jock
Posts: 2258
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

#8 Post by 2005 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:04 pm

Well my camera is 8.0 MP so why not have the quality I paid for???

PB can my camera even do that, mine is only .9MP higher then yours with same digital and optical zooms?? I so wish we had a digital imaging class.
Image
Top
neuralmop
Site Druggie
Posts: 675
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:33 pm
Contact:
Contact neuralmop

#9 Post by neuralmop » Mon Dec 05, 2005 6:41 pm

Why pay for quality that you're not going to use? :b
Top
2005
Site Jock
Posts: 2258
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

#10 Post by 2005 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:20 pm

I paid for the quality, im going to use it. Ill scale most down to 1600x1200 or so. But to show off the cameras power, I want full res full size shots.

Apparently PB's camera is better then mine, even considering the smaller res. Its said to be better because it takes pics "faster", and that you can't take spontaneous pics with mine or something.
Image
Top
palmboy5
Site Administrator
Posts: 7477
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

#11 Post by palmboy5 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:28 pm

ya.. 2 pictures per second... i did it ONCE with flash on and it worked but i havent managed to pull that off again o.O haha battery died right after ^^ it is not a really useful feature to me.. btw your camera has anti-shake, does it work? i want that..

my camera can fit 8.5" x 11" @ 300dpi for the most part, pic ratio is different from 8.5:11 so its a little off
Last edited by palmboy5 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For computers, buying cheaply and often will only leave you constantly in a world of shit.
Image
Top
2005
Site Jock
Posts: 2258
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

#12 Post by 2005 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 7:30 pm

The anti-shake does work wonderfully, it almost produces photos like im using a tripod. It also works very good when recording movies, the image is very stable considering how hard it is to keep the camrea steady.
Image
Top
palmboy5
Site Administrator
Posts: 7477
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

#13 Post by palmboy5 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:16 pm

nice, gotta make sure my next camera has it... its just canon had no good antishakes, if any at all, and i dont like to deviate away from Canon and Nikon.. i laugh at Casio and its owners ^^

but i am getting rather good at a steady or "smart" hand movements that keep the thing pointed at the target of interest even though the camera is moving, usually it works out fine that way
Last edited by palmboy5 on Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For computers, buying cheaply and often will only leave you constantly in a world of shit.
Image
Top
2005
Site Jock
Posts: 2258
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

#14 Post by 2005 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:18 pm

Canon is okay, never owned one. My highschool had a few of each canon and Nikon.

Any particular reason for staying brand loyal?? LOL I didnt even know the brand KONICA MINOLTA existed before I walked into circuit city.
Image
Top
palmboy5
Site Administrator
Posts: 7477
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

#15 Post by palmboy5 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:20 pm

brand loyal? image quality, i doubt yours is as good, look in one of the older but recent popular science, it has my model, your model, and some other model... mine was rated top for its quality.. konica had like 3.5 stars or something
For computers, buying cheaply and often will only leave you constantly in a world of shit.
Image
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Misc”