In the fall of 08 I began attending Miami University in Ohio. For myself and my fiance, this was our first time out of our parents house. I spent the entire summer designing and building furniture for our very first apartment. I set up shop in my In-Laws two car garage with nothing more than a circular saw, drill, and basic hand tools. I had to create a quick workshop that was cheap and easy to tear down. I came up with this design for a table saw/ router table combo. I built it out of 2, 4′-8′ sheets of 3/4″ MDF. It provides a powerstrip in the rear for electrical hook-up, a “dust collection” drawer, and the rest is used for tool storage. I applied 4 rubber locking casters to the base of the cabinet to make it very mobile and easy to use. I bought a DELTA table saw for $100 and based the dimensions of the cabinet around that. If you plan on using this design, one important construction tip you must keep in mind is the area of the cabinet that the saw attaches to. You must cut a hole big enough to allow the dust to exit beneath, and also you should reinforce the MDF with a 2*4 frame beneath the table saw. Most table saw manuals specify the size of the hole needed to be cut out of the base.
Replies
I for one hope your dreams are as big as the picture you posted!
Second.. For myself and my fiance, If SHE is your Heart Beat! Spend more time with HER than in the shop! Unless she is there beside you doing the hard work as in finishing!
EDIT: I forgot HAVE FUN!
Edited 4/21/2008 3:29 pm by WillGeorge
Will,
I for one hope your dreams are as big as the picture you posted!
If instead of pressing the left mouse buttone you press the right button a drop down menu appears with a selection that says, Open on new Window.
Try that for better/easier viewing LARGE pics.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
That does bring up a good question, What is a good size for photos if you want them to open in the post vs in a another window?
Doug
Hi Doug,
I use Irfanview and set the resize to inches an duse 7-8" horizintal. I also don't mess with the aspect ratio so the vertical gets sized appropriately so it doesn't get distorted.
If someone wants big ones I'll gladly email the full blown pic to them but they are typically almost 2 meg in size. Pics taken at high res typically don't lose all that much detail when they're resized.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Another option is a freeware programme called "jpeg resampler" I use it - it will resize a batch of photographs in one hit and takes about 30 seconds to do about 10 or so.I aim at 30-50kB per image for posting on-line. A 2MB image can be reduced to about 200kB without losing out too much on the detail.Cheers,eddie
And Beethoven's Fifth can be played on a kazoo."There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster
I wish I could answer you, rsaunders, but your statement there's a trifle ambiguous as to what you disagree with. Perhaps it's this you're referring to?
http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=41110.35I'm happy to clarify things if you want. What in particular do you not agree with? I've been using the programme for a number of years.Cheers,eddie
Edited 4/22/2008 6:18 pm by eddiefromAustralia
Sorry, didn't mean to be ambiguous. I was disagreeing with your statement that a 2MB image can be reduced to about 200kB without losing out too much on the detail."There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster
Of course you lose the finer detail, but the pictures can still be resolved satisfactorily **at screen resolution** with about 80-90% reduction. If you were looking for image quality, then you wouldn't go that muchI'll take a simple screen image here - and then reduce it to 20% of the original size and 10% of the same. Without pre-empting results, the 10% may be recognisable, while the 20% will definitely be so.Bear in mind that JPEG resampling is designed more for pictures than for text. The image will not be as badly affected as the text in the resize. JPEG, is, by its definition, a very lossy compression program.Cheers,eddie
Hi eddie,
Sorry man but I think you might have a few apples mixed in with your oranges there. Instead of taking screen capture of a WEB page that has, in all likelyhood been doctored to be smaller, and start with a pic from a digiatal camera.
If I take a pic with my dig camera at high resolution (say about 1+ meg.) and open it in Irfanview it tells me that it is 2272w x 1704h pixels or 31.56"h x 23.67"w at my screen resolution of 1152 x 864 which is obviously way too large to be seen on my screen.
I then would be scrolling all over the place to see it, all the while not being able to see the whole pic at once. Even if I resize it to fit on my screen it would still be way too large to fit into the viewing frame here on Knots.
Result is that it's a royal PITA and I feel it radically detracts from the overall viewing experience, YMMV, whilst a lower screen resolution makes matters worse. If I wanted to see a high resolution pic of something here I would email the poster and request one, and not expect to see it here irrespective of the bandwidth of my Internet connection.
In my opinion high resolution pics on Knots really don't serve any useful purpose anyway.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Hi Bob,I agree with what you said.For the purposes of demonstration, I grabbed a screen shot as the process is the same - I was looking at degradation of the image more than the image itself.As well, remember that we're talking only about photos for screen display. The higher resolution images are far superior for picture/image/photography purposes. As I understand it and without going into the heavy detail, the JPEG resampling process splits the image into groups of 8 x 8 pixels and looks to the colour variation in each grouping as well as the average colour of the adjacent pixel groupings. It then makes a decision against a set of logic tables and changes colour/pixel resolution accordingly.It's no problem to repeat the exercise with a small section of a higher resolution image.I just don't have time at the moment.When they're viewed to show the same section of the picture at the same magnification, the highest dpi section will have the best image, going downhill.Aahh - what the h3II, it's only 10"I'll get the camera and go outside.Feel free to explore the attached file - by saving it to your computer and zooming in and out, you can see the effect of resizing an image. The original (full) image was 3072 pixels by 2304 pixels and about 5MB size***************************************Bear in mind, you are looking at all these images on a screen of resolution 72dpi. The finer detail present in the higher resolution images is not shown until you magnify it. ***************************************For a general overview, the smaller photos are fine.A standard 6" x 4" photograph resized to about 50kB is about all you need for general presentation purposes on-line. A photograph for reproduction is different.Cheers,eddieEdit: The photo I'm working with (on the LHS) is a small section of the original photo, and the original data from the camera (ie: raw data, not resized in any way)
Edited 4/23/2008 7:27 pm by eddiefromAustralia
I disagree, all three are totally unacceptable unless you are reproducing for the Enquirer. Might be acceptable for piss poor woodworkings site or close enough woodworking. For this site and the caliber of work presented nothing less than fine is desirable. I have no problem with offering different file sizes for those who don't care or can't discern but to dumb down the standards serves no one well.
Like I said classical music can be reproduced on a kazoo for the masses, but is that desirable?"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster
Thanks, rsaunders.I do understand your point of view even though it's not one I share. While I feel that a 6x4 photo shrunk down accordingly to about 50kB is fine, no, you don't see the fine detail. Quite often you don't need to. If you want to show the fine detail, take a close-up shot. Horses for courses. Having said this, it's nothing to die in the ditch over.Download time vs image quality is always a bugbear. Cheers,eddie
Edited 4/24/2008 3:30 am by eddiefromAustralia
OK, tell me. What purpose does a high resolution pic serve here in Knots?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
For an example of photos that have been very well resized, achieving small file size without loss of image quality, see 17271.23. It can be done.
In the case of work where you want to be able to examine details, it is far better to provide close-ups of those details, rather than one humongous photo of the entire piece:
View Image
-Steve
Open on new Window. I DO! Just gettin' on your case a bit!
Bob you are the guru for this site. I did not know that trick either and I bought my first PC in 86 for $7200 bucks.
AZMO <!----><!----><!---->
-----------_o
---------_'-,>
-------(*)/ (*) http://www.EarthArtLandscape.com
Boy,This one got hijacked in a hurry!
Good Work,Idea and drawings look great!Looks like your arc training is going well.
Welcome to Knots,
Taz
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled