Hi all, another thing I have noticed, and I'm sorry but I can't remember which site it was, is that you sometimes get a .tif or .png document - the .tif are TWENTY times the size of the .jpeg. It seems some sites (FMP) do different things - if you Right-click and 'Save the images as...' (you get a .PNG) or 'Download' the image (you get a jpeg) or 'Copy the image' - never found out where or what it does! David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy via Sent: 01 January 2016 12:53 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: [FHU] References I used to show, say, 'Find my Past - Parish Records' as the source for entries. Now I am finding that I can get the actual detail of the marriage as a .pdf which I could attach to the citation. However, I would need each citation to be a separate entry in order to attach an image to it. My question is that would mean about 3000 individual entries in my case. Is this normal/average? or excessive? Jeremy truffle@cix.co.uk ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

'Copy the Image' will almost certainly copy to the 'clipboard' from where it can be pasted into most photo editors, etc. Happy New Year, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References Hi all, another thing I have noticed, and I'm sorry but I can't remember which site it was, is that you sometimes get a .tif or .png document - the .tif are TWENTY times the size of the .jpeg. It seems some sites (FMP) do different things - if you Right-click and 'Save the images as...' (you get a .PNG) or 'Download' the image (you get a jpeg) or 'Copy the image' - never found out where or what it does! David

David, "... I can't remember which site it was ..." Possibly one of the websites you're thinking of is FreeBMD, where images of the original documents that have been transcribed can be downloaded in a variety of formats (GIF, JPEG, TIFF, PDF, "original"). The website suggests that the image is held in one format ("original") and converted on the fly if you download it in another. Contrary to what the FreeBMD site says in it's "Which format to use" advice, TIFF image files are very large, because they're uncompressed (and therefore never lose any information/resolution/definition). Contrast that with JPEG (or PNG), which are compressed formats, so the files are smaller but you may lose some detail (resolution). If you edit and save a JPEG more than once, you will successively lose detail (resolution) each time. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

John, you haven't quite finished the alternatives. PNG usually gives the best of both worlds. It is a compressed format, as you say, and often little different in size from a JPEG. BUT PNG format does NOT lose detail when edited. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- Subject: Re: [FHU] References David, "... I can't remember which site it was ..." Possibly one of the websites you're thinking of is FreeBMD, where images of the original documents that have been transcribed can be downloaded in a variety of formats (GIF, JPEG, TIFF, PDF, "original"). The website suggests that the image is held in one format ("original") and converted on the fly if you download it in another. Contrary to what the FreeBMD site says in it's "Which format to use" advice, TIFF image files are very large, because they're uncompressed (and therefore never lose any information/resolution/definition). Contrast that with JPEG (or PNG), which are compressed formats, so the files are smaller but you may lose some detail (resolution). If you edit and save a JPEG more than once, you will successively lose detail (resolution) each time. John

Hi Mike, I didn't include PNG in my reply as it's not a format offered by FreeBMD, which I was referencing. And, whilst PNG was designed, and is mostly used, as a lossless format, some PNG encoders can pre-process image data in a lossy manner (e.g. reducing the number of colours, or changing how transparency is handled) to further improve PNG compression. So it's not wholly accurate to say it can never lose detail; it depends on the encoder. See http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/formats/#png_compress for an example. Regards, John Pedantic? Moi? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

John FreeBMD does now have all the BMD details there are many that are missing. The local registry office is more complete. You will find many on UKBMD unfortunately not all areas of the country are included as some local registry offices wouldn't allow the details to be transcribed. UKBMD gives additional details which FreeBMD does not. For marriages it lists where the marriage took place (name of church or registry office for example) Personally I just copy the FreeBMD details and you can add 'add GRO source' to FH software. I use this all the time. Just download it from FHUG group Victor On 02/01/2016 10:58 AM, family-historian-users via wrote: > David, > > "... I can't remember which site it was ..." > > Possibly one of the websites you're thinking of is FreeBMD, where images of the original documents that have been transcribed can be > downloaded in a variety of formats (GIF, JPEG, TIFF, PDF, "original"). The website suggests that the image is held in one format > ("original") and converted on the fly if you download it in another. > > Contrary to what the FreeBMD site says in it's "Which format to use" advice, TIFF image files are very large, because they're > uncompressed (and therefore never lose any information/resolution/definition). Contrast that with JPEG (or PNG), which are > compressed formats, so the files are smaller but you may lose some detail (resolution). If you edit and save a JPEG more than once, > you will successively lose detail (resolution) each time. > > John > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Victor, You appear to have misunderstood my post, which was about image FORMATS, and not about the content of the BMD document images. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi John No I did not misunderstand at all. I was just making it clear to others that FreeBMD does not have all the BMD details and there are more details on local registry offices. For any marriages in Lincolnshire you can look up this site set up by Ann Cole of Lincs FHS http://mi.lincolnshiremarriages.org.uk/ Here you will get more details than you can get on FreeBMD Victor On 02/01/2016 10:00 PM, family-historian-users via wrote: > Hi Victor, > > You appear to have misunderstood my post, which was about image FORMATS, and not about the content of the BMD document images. > > John > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks to everyone who replied. I now have a better idea of Sources/Citations. I think I will probably use a mixture of Methods 1 and 2, I think that it would be easier to locate the info I might need that way - I accept that this will produce a multitude of Sources, rather than few sources with lots of citations! On further experimentation, I definitely want a number of sources as I would want to just call up the image direct from the citation, not having to go through the 'all' tab. A couple of points arising from your responses: 1. I will use .pdf a lot less, I can now see the advantages of using images instead. 2. I have been using a programme called "my print screen" for years and find it very useful. It takes over the print screen button on the keyboard and you can outline the area of the screen you want to save/print instead of copying the whole screen. It is a free download. Thanks for all your support, Jeremy truffle@cix.co.uk In article <000b01d144d2$d7c64050$8752c0f0$@com>, dcbanks@btopenworld.com (D C Banks) wrote: > *From:* D C Banks <dcbanks@btopenworld.com> > *To:* truffle@cix.co.uk, family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > *Date:* Fri, 1 Jan 2016 20:27:31 -0000 > > Hi all, another thing I have noticed, and I'm sorry but I can't > remember > which site it was, is that you sometimes get a .tif or .png > document - the > .tif are TWENTY times the size of the .jpeg. It seems some sites > (FMP) do > different things - if you Right-click and 'Save the images as...' > (you get a > .PNG) or 'Download' the image (you get a jpeg) or 'Copy the image' > - never > found out where or what it does! > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of > Jeremy via > Sent: 01 January 2016 12:53 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: RE: [FHU] References > > I used to show, say, 'Find my Past - Parish Records' as the source > for > entries. Now I am finding that I can get the actual detail of the > marriage as a .pdf which I could attach to the citation. However, I > would > need each citation to be a separate entry in order to attach an > image to > it. My question is that would mean about 3000 individual entries in > my > case. Is this normal/average? or excessive? > > Jeremy > truffle@cix.co.uk > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > >