View Full Version : *CONTEST* Guess the Album Title & Artist
richt@daytonaudio.com
02-12-2009, 03:39 PM
http://i43.tinypic.com/jtvr0z.png
__________________________________________________ ________________
http://i44.tinypic.com/2ln97gm.jpg
Man, that is a very small image. I can hardly see it, or see what it is.
brianpowers27
02-12-2009, 03:45 PM
Nirvana - in utero
Nirvana - in utero
Oh yeah, looking at the left shoulder where the wing connects.
And I have the CD, but the color is somewhat different.
The picture on the disc kind of creeps me out. Some guy dressed in drag with hairy legs!
This wasn't very fair. DO NOT USE PNGs WITH TRANSPARENCY! Internet Explorer older than 7 won't render it. Here's proof.
brianpowers27
02-12-2009, 04:03 PM
This wasn't very fair. DO NOT USE PNGs WITH TRANSPARENCY LAYERS! Internet Explorer older than 7 won't render it. Here's proof.
I am using 7...
This wasn't very fair. DO NOT USE PNGs WITH TRANSPARENCY LAYERS! Internet Explorer older than 7 won't render it. Here's proof.
Hey, could you explain that for me so that I could learn something?
Transparency Layers. Something created with PhotoShop?
Or The Gimp or a host of other image editors. PNGs have alpha support (transparency). Microsoft, in their normal stand-offish way, resisted the use of PNGs on the net, providing only the most basic rendering support. Only recently did IE start showing PNGs properly.
donparsons
02-12-2009, 04:13 PM
This wasn't very fair. DO NOT USE PNGs WITH TRANSPARENCY LAYERS! Internet Explorer older than 7 won't render it. Here's proof.
What he meant to say is congratulations to Brian and thank you for hosting a contest. I hope I do better next time you and I hope you continue to have these contests. :)
What he meant to say is congratulations to Brian and thank you for hosting a contest. I hope I do better next time you and I hope you continue to have these contests. :)
I'm not whining because I didn't get free stuff (I hardly feel that sort of entitlement anymore). And yaay for Brian and all, but when I opened [the page], I was presented with two black boxes and absolutely no idea what was going on. My first thought was "Metallica - Self Titled (Black Album)". I didn't even have any idea anything was at stake, since I couldn't see the pair of tweeters until I had saved the two images to disk and then tried opening them.
Or The Gimp or a host of other image editors. PNGs have alpha support (transparency). Microsoft, in their normal stand-offish way, resisted the use of PNGs on the net, providing only the most basic rendering support. Only recently did IE start showing PNGs properly.
I'm not using IE or Microsoft.
Firefox 3
How or what could I have done to see or known about the layers?
Thanks
Firefox renders PNGs properly. Always has, given its open source Linux roots.
PNGs themselves don't have layers. I mis-spoke above, and should edit that. They do have transparency data, though. When you export a transparency-laden image from the image editor (Photoshop, The Gimp, etc), it will merge the layers down and come up with a PNG with the transparency data for each bit merged in with the rest of the data. The problem is that IE does not properly interpret that transparency data.
Thanks for the info. But I'm still trying to figure out how he knew it the .PNG had layers and how he displayed or observed the layers.
Firefox renders PNGs properly. Always has, given it's open source Linux roots.
PNGs themselves don't have layers. I mis-spoke above, and should edit that. They do have transparency data, though. When you export a transparency-laden image from the image editor (Photoshop, The Gimp, etc), it will merge the layers down and come up with a PNG with the transparency data for each bit merged in with the rest of the data. The problem is that IE does not properly interpret that transparency data.
Thanks for the info. But I'm still trying to figure out how he knew it the .PNG had layers and how he displayed or observed the layers.
I right-clicked on one of them and saw it was a .png file, as opposed to .jpg. That's when I figured it was IE being stupid. I did a "Save As", dumped them on the desktop, and then opened them with an image viewer. Then I could see the contents.
I right-clicked on one of them and saw it was a .png file, as opposed to .jpg. That's when I figured it was IE being stupid. I did a "Save As", dumped them on the desktop, and then opened them with an image viewer. Then I could see the contents.
So he used a separate image viewer, not an add on to his browser?
I have an EXIF view added on to my browser.
Hmmm, I wonder which image viewer I should use?
brianbunge
02-12-2009, 05:23 PM
More importantly, does anyone know what tweeters those are? I'm at a loss.
Dennis H
02-12-2009, 05:55 PM
While we're on the subject of images, can anything be done about the size limits? GIF images of graphs will be clearer and use less bandwidth than JPG but the 280 pixel height limit is too small. JPG files also need a size limit so we Luddites with CRT monitors don't have to scroll back and forth to read a thread. I'd suggest an 800x600 limit for all images.
Filesize Width Height
bmp 19.5 KB 620 280
doc 19.5 KB - -
gif 19.5 KB 620 280
jpe 19.5 KB 620 280
jpeg 19.5 KB 620 280
jpg 97.7 KB - -
pdf 19.5 KB - -
png 19.5 KB 620 280
psd 19.5 KB - -
txt 19.5 KB - -
zip 97.7 KB - -
shawn_a
02-12-2009, 10:25 PM
More importantly, does anyone know what tweeters those are? I'm at a loss.
I'm going to take a WAG here but I say it's a silk dome RS tweeter. Has an Usher kind of face plate to it except without that extra little ring around the dome like the Usher tweeters. Like I said, a WAG.
shawn
I'm going to take a WAG here but I say it's a silk dome RS tweeter. Has an Usher kind of face plate to it except without that extra little ring around the dome like the Usher tweeters. Like I said, a WAG.
shawn
Yeah- that would be my best guess as well. It has an Ushery look to it, but sorta atypical in that regard. If that is what these are- Brian will be having a houseguest when these are finally implemented!!!
Later,
Wolf
brianpowers27
02-13-2009, 06:58 AM
I don't know what kind of tweets these are. PE doesn't carry very many with 4 screws on the faceplate. Could be an usher...
brianbunge
02-13-2009, 07:53 AM
That's what I'm hoping (and was wondering) that these are! If so, I may have to skip using the RS28a in favor of these for my version of the Li'l Thunder Sticks. Either that or just use the pair of Seas 27TDFC's I have on hand. But I'd like to keep it all Dayton if possible.
That's what I'm hoping (and was wondering) that these are! If so, I may have to skip using the RS28a in favor of these for my version of the Li'l Thunder Sticks. Either that or just use the pair of Seas 27TDFC's I have on hand. But I'd like to keep it all Dayton if possible.
If that's what they turn out to be, maybe I WILL whine about not getting free stuff. ;)
shawn_a
02-13-2009, 12:23 PM
Because I'm feeling pretty good that they are indeed RS soft domes. I can feel it in my gut. Either that or I need to go eat lunch soon.
shawn
jkrutke
02-13-2009, 10:07 PM
http://i43.tinypic.com/jtvr0z.png
Fun little contest. I got it right away also, and I don't even own that cd.
I'm tempted to fire up a contest myself. I'll have to dig through my closet and find something of my own to give away. I would have to make it a little more difficult though. ;)
I'm also curious what the tweeters are.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.