At 6/30/2015 23:56, you wrote: >Is there any downside to using bmps as TMG exhibits? (I have over 16,000 >exhibits at the moment and growing fast) The biggest downside is the size of the file. BMP files tend to be rather large in size. This can make slow the loading of a web page. >I understand that many TMG users create different formats in different >folders but I'm trying to avoid, or at least minimise, multiple formats for >the same exhibits. Most users keeping multiple formats keep the original file in a :master" folder. Then as a file is worked on to make a "use" file (for whatever purpose, the edited file is then stored in the normal TMG Exhibits folder (or comparable for some other program). I tend to keep all my original image files in one folder (with some sub-folders). Then, I copy the files to TMG (or wherever) in the edited and other (if desired ) format. >However my recollection is that John Cardinal has >suggested using jpgs for Second Site. Is this essential and what problems >might I have if I try to use bmps? Should I just scan as jpgs to start with >and forget the bmps? BMP (and other formats such as TIF) are what is called "lossless" formats. That is, repeated editing does not reduce the file resolution. JPG, GIF (and other) formats are "lossy" formats which tend to lose file resolution as they are edited. Most concerned users try to maintain their "master" files in a "lossless" format (again fairly large files) and work files in smaller "lossy" formats. As noted earlier, the larger image files in web pages tend to make loading a web page slower. For users with high speed broadband Internet connections, this is not usually that big a deal (depending on the number of images on the page maybe 30 seconds or more). But for someone on a dial-up connection (there are still some) or a smartphone (with limited data minutes), it can mean extra bucks for them. Now, that being said, if the intent is to allow the web page reader to download the image(s) with the intent of expanding the image to say 8x10, a small JPG or GIF file is not likely to be satisfactory as the expanded image will probably be somewhat blotchy looking at best. >To put this into context the Second Site output I am working towards will be >for around 6,000 people (all descendants of 1 couple) and the exhibits will >probably be around the same number. With that many exhibits, the web site will be fairly large in size and again slow to download. Also, most will not be interested in large high resolution images (the few that are can easily e-mail and ask for the few they wish -- assuming you wish to accommodate them). Lee Hoffman/KY

Thanks very much Lee and Bruce for these thoughts. You can imagine how big the task of creating jpgs from my bmp and tiff files would be, but the point about load speed is esp valuable. (I should have said that I'm not going to create a Second Site website. My plan is just to use Second Site to create a family journal on dvd (not in the cloud) and provide to family members.) The other issue I haven't calculated yet is whether my family journal will even fit on a dvd with all the exhibits. I suspect I will have to break it into parts and make a number of dvds, but will start doing some testing. Have a long way to go before it will be ready to finalise (18 months+) Bruce, what program do you use to create high quality jpg images? I'm scanning images at the moment so they're just being produced with the Canon software. Ann -----Original Message----- From: Lee Hoffman/KY [mailto:azchief@bellsouth.net] Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 3:05 PM To: Ann Carson; tmg@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TMG] TMG and Second Site - bmp versus jpg At 6/30/2015 23:56, you wrote: >Is there any downside to using bmps as TMG exhibits? (I have over >16,000 exhibits at the moment and growing fast) The biggest downside is the size of the file. BMP files tend to be rather large in size. This can make slow the loading of a web page. >I understand that many TMG users create different formats in different >folders but I'm trying to avoid, or at least minimise, multiple formats >for the same exhibits. Most users keeping multiple formats keep the original file in a :master" folder. Then as a file is worked on to make a "use" file (for whatever purpose, the edited file is then stored in the normal TMG Exhibits folder (or comparable for some other program). I tend to keep all my original image files in one folder (with some sub-folders). Then, I copy the files to TMG (or wherever) in the edited and other (if desired ) format. >However my recollection is that John Cardinal has suggested using jpgs >for Second Site. Is this essential and what problems might I have if I >try to use bmps? Should I just scan as jpgs to start with and forget >the bmps? BMP (and other formats such as TIF) are what is called "lossless" formats. That is, repeated editing does not reduce the file resolution. JPG, GIF (and other) formats are "lossy" formats which tend to lose file resolution as they are edited. Most concerned users try to maintain their "master" files in a "lossless" format (again fairly large files) and work files in smaller "lossy" formats. As noted earlier, the larger image files in web pages tend to make loading a web page slower. For users with high speed broadband Internet connections, this is not usually that big a deal (depending on the number of images on the page maybe 30 seconds or more). But for someone on a dial-up connection (there are still some) or a smartphone (with limited data minutes), it can mean extra bucks for them. Now, that being said, if the intent is to allow the web page reader to download the image(s) with the intent of expanding the image to say 8x10, a small JPG or GIF file is not likely to be satisfactory as the expanded image will probably be somewhat blotchy looking at best. >To put this into context the Second Site output I am working towards >will be for around 6,000 people (all descendants of 1 couple) and the >exhibits will probably be around the same number. With that many exhibits, the web site will be fairly large in size and again slow to download. Also, most will not be interested in large high resolution images (the few that are can easily e-mail and ask for the few they wish -- assuming you wish to accommodate them). Lee Hoffman/KY

>My plan is just to use Second Site to create a family journal on dvd (not in the cloud) and >provide to family members.) With the low price and much higher capacity of flash drives you may find it easier to buy a few small ones and store your copies on them instead of trying to segment your data to make multiple dvds. Dick