On 9 Dec at 18:44, "Tony Proctor" <[email protected]_NoMore_SPAM.net> wrote: > > "Iain Archer" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] > > MB <[email protected]> wrote on Sun, 7 Dec 2014 at 15:39:40: > > > On 07/12/2014 11:42, Anne Sherman wrote: > > > > Like others I generally only use this site for the newspapers > > > > now. > >> > >> > > > I have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive for that as > > > well as online library access to Scotsman, Grauniad, Times, 19th > > > Century and 17/18th Century newspapers so never used the more > > > limited FMP access. > > > > I've just been downloading some newpaper pages via the FMP site. > > Despite my efforts I seem only to get downloaded PDF files of > > 400-500 kB, which isn't large enough when I then open and zoom in on > > them for reading. That's despite the fact that when viewing them > > on-site I can zoom in on them greatly without seeing any damaging > > degradation of image. > > > > That differs from my experience using the British Newspaper > > Archive's own website where, afair, if I was viewing a > > well-magnified full page, I could download it as a file of maybe 2 > > or 3 MB and have no difficulty reading from it. I'm not sure > > whether this is due to an intrinsic difference betwen the two sites > > or to something happening at my end. However, uninstalling the > > NoScript Firefox addon -- the only recent software I remember > > installing -- hasn't made any difference. Any suggestions or > > different experience? -- Iain Archer > > I tend to get downloaded pages of 800-900kB Ian, which probably just > depends on the paper, but nothing approaching 2-3MB. I believe this is > some arbitrary limitation imposed by FMP. I admit that it's > frustrating. > > They probably imagine that the resolution is perfectly readable, and > so they don't need to send larger files. My justification for this is > that I've previously asked that they support higher magnification on > their census images, etc. Rather than understanding that this was to > analyse pen-strokes and other image anomalies -- as any genealogist > would -- it was implied that the current maximum is perfectly good for > normal eyesight. > > Sigh... This is not a new problem. When the Newspaper Archive was first made available, the downloads either did not work or were of low definition. I reported on this several times but nothing happened. Like most I was able to enlarge browsed images and get a satisfactory definition, but not of the whole article or whatever at once. I therefore developed some skill at stitching these snippets together. The whole performance was hopeless, particularly compared to the good results obtained from The Times Digital Archive. So I gave up on The "New" Newspaper Archive and wondered if it would ever get any better. It sounds as if FindMyPast has Found a Past version of the software and the files and not the version that is now reported to be on the Archive's own website. Perhaps there has been too much of skinflinting at FMP and not enough of sensible user experience. I wonder, with these poor reports, whether someone will do as happened last week and wake up and sort the thing out? Sounds like the first line of FMP's customer service is doing a very poor job. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/