Test Equipment Anonymous (TEA) group therapy thread

[Specmaster]

That said; you guys have no idea from SUVs. An X5 is a effing shoe box over here; soccer moms over here drive Suburbans and Escalades: 5.7 meters and 3 tons at ~16MPG. We have fuckwits who drive 1-ton, 4-door extended cab pickups with 8-foot duallie bed that are 7 meters long, then install aftermarket front & rear bumpers made from well-casing to add almost another meter. 

And YES, they drive that 10MPG douchemobile as personal transportation, or if they DO work with it, it's one day a month.    About 6 in 10 vehicles driven as daily transport in Texas are "light trucks" of some sort, and about 1 in 10 are one of those behemoths. 

And THAT is what we're sending our kids halfway around the world to die in a desert for. 

mnem
America eats its young.

Yep, can't argue about the size of your SUV's v ours but then everything is big over your side of the pond and that includes the roads, we have run vehicles that will fit our road system and for the average driver, 16mpg would be to much for them to put up with, most of our SUV's will return at least 20mpg.

[bd139]

@bd139, That's good news on the 7603, so its just a knob swap thats required, now? You really struck gold with that for sure 

Yep that's it!

Need to find somewhere to put it. I'm thinking it goes on top of my drawer cabinets and the printer goes on the top shelf on the bench

[Specmaster]

I thought your drawer cabinet was one of those multicolour plastic jobbies or am I getting confused with someone else now? You can get plugins for that to make it into a SA can't you? 

[bd139]

Nope that's the one. They're ridiculously strong things those plastic drawers.

[Specmaster]

For the sake of that lovely 7603 I hope so too 

[tautech]

Yeahhh... NO.

2MB is ridiculously tiny; even for a single image in many cases. No 2 ways around it. Low-res is being kind.

Not going to get into an argument over filetypes vs compression methods, etc, but shit, even Yapoop allows 25MB of attachments/eMail, and they're well-known cheap-asses when it comes to storage.

mnem
America eats its young.

Yeah I get all that but SMF is what it is and we have to work with it.
Even the 12MP $10 compact I got the other day takes 2mb+ pics and I've wound it down some.

The external pic hosters may have had a wake up after all the recent bad press so maybe they'll be a bit more hesitant to restrict usage in the future, who knows.
I won't be using them, period !

[mnementh]

Roughly similar set up I understand but you guys have spurs instead of rings. My bench is on a GFCI (RCD as we call them over here) so that’s already covered.

2MB images are tiny. Seriously. All the ones I upload to imgur start at 6M. The NEFs my DSLR kicks out are 40M a go

Yeah, I was talking about the earlier point of making the Heathkit VTVM safe for the next guy who gets it. GFCI plugged into a GFCI should not trip accidentally, and when it does trip, should trip the mains as well as breaking the circuit internally.

My personal opinion is that Heath was first and foremost an electronics experimenter's family of products, and they revised kits (even offered retrofit kits for owners of legacy versions) all the time to reflect changes in general electronics development and changing electrical regulations. If they existed as a commercial entity when selenium rectifiers became recti-fire hazards, they'd have issued a retrofit kit. I see no problem in updating for safety, even if you want to maintain the "heirloom" aspect; just use period/brand-appropriate terminal strips and construction methods otherwise.


I know 2MB is tiny... times change, even .jpgs get bigger. Besides... .jpg SUCKS.   


mnem
...and BLOWS at the SAME TIME!   

[neo]

Roughly similar set up I understand but you guys have spurs instead of rings. My bench is on a GFCI (RCD as we call them over here) so that’s already covered.

2MB images are tiny. Seriously. All the ones I upload to imgur start at 6M. The NEFs my DSLR kicks out are 40M a go

The tube tester picture, the full size one, is 12 meg. Proper pictures are massive.

@bd139, That's good news on the 7603, so its just a knob swap thats required, now? You really struck gold with that for sure 

Reminds me of my 7704A bought for peanuts fully working with half the plug ins i needed, only had to buy a time base and additional vertical plug-in to fix the knobs.

[mnementh]

In Other News...

I just took apart my new backlit keyboard to spray the plungers with food-grade silicone lube; a mod I've done on every keyboard I've owned for decades to ensure it stays smooth and extend the life. Got it all back together and saw it had some overspray on the keys, so wiped them all down with IPA and... the shiny didn't go away. They were clean, allright... just I've used it that much in the ~3 weeks I've had it; the keys are already getting shiny. None of the paint coming off yet... just shiny.

I donn' care... they're smoooooove. 

mnem
*Lit AF*

[tggzzz]

The tube tester picture, the full size one, is 12 meg. Proper pictures are massive.

20 years ago, gulp, I was on a project that digitised professional high quality 35mm slides of wildlife.

There was no point in going above 3k*5k resolution; if you did then you were digirising grain. Those images were stored as, IIRC, 27MB TIFFs. The jpgs were, of course, much smaller.

So, quite frankly, I remain to be convinced that high quality required 12MB or more. The pictures might be that, but that's not the same thing as needing to be 12MB.

And then there's the issue of whether the lens and photographer are good enough! Many cameras have "creative" specs that mean little in practice but which give journalists and undemanding purchasers something to talk about.

[mnementh]

The tube tester picture, the full size one, is 12 meg. Proper pictures are massive.

20 years ago, gulp, I was on a project that digitised professional high quality 35mm slides of wildlife.

There was no point in going above 3k*5k resolution; if you did then you were digirising grain. Those images were stored as, IIRC, 27MB TIFFs. The jpgs were, of course, much smaller.

So, quite frankly, I remain to be convinced that high quality required 12MB or more. The pictures might be that, but that's not the same thing as needing to be 12MB.

And then there's the issue of whether the lens and photographer are good enough! Many cameras have "creative" specs that mean little in practice but which give journalists and undemanding purchasers something to talk about.

I've been in digital photography since it was a breakthrough when Kodak/Digital Science broke the 1MP barrier. It IS true that as with analog, lenses make a huge difference, and you can take great pics with low-res hardware. I use a 6MP Sony DSC-H2 every day and it takes amazing pictures, and this camera is known for taking great pics. But just like with film, you need higher res or finer grain (analog needs lower ISO or B/W) to capture more detail.

neo's pic of the Hickok is a large subject and it has lots of detail that is important subject matter... to be able to see the text on the setup rolls, for example, you just plain need a lot of res. No two ways about it.

mnem
*Proud parent of the Nukular family*

[bd139]

The tube tester picture, the full size one, is 12 meg. Proper pictures are massive.

20 years ago, gulp, I was on a project that digitised professional high quality 35mm slides of wildlife.

There was no point in going above 3k*5k resolution; if you did then you were digirising grain. Those images were stored as, IIRC, 27MB TIFFs. The jpgs were, of course, much smaller.

So, quite frankly, I remain to be convinced that high quality required 12MB or more. The pictures might be that, but that's not the same thing as needing to be 12MB.

And then there's the issue of whether the lens and photographer are good enough! Many cameras have "creative" specs that mean little in practice but which give journalists and undemanding purchasers something to talk about.

35mm film isn’t very big and the resolution isn’t very high. The grain limits that.

Things have however somewhat changed. Having 35mm was like saving reality in an 80% quality jpeg at 1024x768 (I exaggerate a little there). We’re mostly used to looking at stuff on screens. Then you get used to a Retina display and everything looks like shit suddenly.

20 years later we have better mass produced optics, amazing sensors and image processing engines in our hands. Looking at an iPhone for example, the camera on which has made my DSLR gather dust.

Now when you grab a consumer DSLR you’re buying dynamic range, the glass and the image processing engine. This makes a hell of a difference. If you have more pixels you can make more rational use of interpolation and noise reduction algorithms.

As cost rises, dynamic range increases, sensor size increases and you can trade noise for resolution and speed basically as and when you need it. So your sports or press photographer can snap an action photo at 120000 ISO equivalent with no noise. And you can use the same camera to shoot a billboard sized print in one go.

Then there’s 4K video which uses the same tech.

Talent however is an issue. My father, a notorious photographers, wasn’t all that good sonyoure right there.

Then again from an art perspective the best photo I ever took was on Ilford B&W film I shot on an old Praktika camera with Zeiss lens and developed and printed myself in the spare toilet at home.

My first digital camera was a Canon Ion. Been around a while in this side of things

[orin]

That said; you guys have no idea from SUVs. An X5 is a effing shoe box over here; soccer moms over here drive Suburbans and Escalades: 5.7 meters and 3 tons at ~16MPG. We have fuckwits who drive 1-ton, 4-door extended cab pickups with 8-foot duallie bed that are 7 meters long, then install aftermarket front & rear bumpers made from well-casing to add almost another meter. 

And YES, they drive that 10MPG douchemobile as personal transportation, or if they DO work with it, it's one day a month.    About 6 in 10 vehicles driven as daily transport in Texas are "light trucks" of some sort, and about 1 in 10 are one of those behemoths. 

And THAT is what we're sending our kids halfway around the world to die in a desert for. 

mnem
America eats its young.

Yep, can't argue about the size of your SUV's v ours but then everything is big over your side of the pond and that includes the roads, we have run vehicles that will fit our road system and for the average driver, 16mpg would be to much for them to put up with, most of our SUV's will return at least 20mpg.

Are we talking US mpg or UK mpg?  US gallon is 4/5ths of UK gallon...

[Specmaster]

The actual file size of a photo will not always be the same, it will vary according to the level of details and colours etc contained with the subject. Photos taken on phone for instance, and I have it dialled down from its maximum files size can vary from 1.5MB to around 5MB with the average file size that I post here being 3MB. My DSLR can produce pictures with files sizes of upto around 15MB and when I share pictures of say an aircraft that I snapped at an airshow, I can resize it to make suitable for internet use, by running it through something as basic as paintshop and it will produce a picture that is worthwhile in as little as 174KB as the attached picture of the Vulcan I shot at Eastbourne a couple of years ago, shows. But where you need the extra clarity that comes from having a larger file size is shown by the photo of part of the PCB inside a Solartron 7045 because you need the extra resolution to be able to read the legends etc to aid the level of understanding the topic of the photo in relation to the text and that file size is 2.6MB taken on my phone.



 

[neo]

Just out of curiosity i looked up the patent number of that tube tester, it was applied for patent on April 23, 1934 and granted on the 30th of the same month and year.  Holy shitballs! I knew it was old but i expected middle to late forties not the tail end of the depression!

For those oddballs that like to read patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US1999858

[bitseeker]

But where you need the extra clarity that comes from having a larger file size is shown by the photo of part of the PCB inside a Solartron 7045 because you need the extra resolution to be able to read the legends etc to aid the level of understanding the topic of the photo in relation to the text and that file size is 2.6MB taken on my phone.

Yes, detailed images require larger file sizes. However, even that PCB shot that you linked to is under 1MB despite being 4128x2322. So, the attachment limits here aren't that restrictive. Need even more detail than an 8MP image to get a point across? Crop out the required region, pixel-for-pixel, and attach it as supplemental content. A single post can have 2MB of attachments, total.

Of course, if you want to share something like a full-size print-quality scan of a vintage scroll, manual, or similar, then it makes sense to use a file sharing service. For general "look at this" pics (even when discussing repairs), attaching them to the post should be fine.

[tautech]

But where you need the extra clarity that comes from having a larger file size is shown by the photo of part of the PCB inside a Solartron 7045 because you need the extra resolution to be able to read the legends etc to aid the level of understanding the topic of the photo in relation to the text and that file size is 2.6MB taken on my phone.

Yes, detailed images require larger file sizes. However, even that PCB shot that you linked to is under 1MB despite being 4128x2322. So, the attachment limits here aren't that restrictive. Need even more detail than an 8MP image to get a point across? Crop out the required region, pixel-for-pixel, and attach it as supplemental content. A single post can have 2MB of attachments, total.

Of course, if you want to share something like a full-size print-quality scan of a vintage scroll, manual, or similar, then it makes sense to use a file sharing service. For general "look at this" pics (even when discussing repairs), attaching them to the post should be is fine.

100% agree with an error correction. ^

[Cerebus]

35mm film isn’t very big and the resolution isn’t very high. The grain limits that.

The resolution of film is surprisingly high, on the right film of course. Fuji Velvia (colour slide, 50 ASA) would resolve 160 line pairs/mm. Specialist monochrome films like Ilford PanF and Kodak Technical Pan could be pushed with careful and specialised processing to close to 1000 line pairs/mm. (That's rated at 12 ASA or even lower.)

Taking the 160 lp/mm: you have to double that to get the equivalent digital resolution (line pairs remember), so 320 dots/mm. The 35 mm frame is 24mm x 36mm, so that gives you a resolution of ~88.5 Mpixels. The truth is that no lens, not even Angénieux or Zeiss's priciest lumps of glass, could ever make full use of that resolution. Good professional SLR lenses typically deliver on the close order of ~30 line pairs/mm with a MTF of 0.5 at the centre (can be much worse at the edges).

It's no accident that the first professional digital 35mm cameras that gained wide acceptance were the 3 Mpixel ones like the Nikon D1, that's the magic point where most of the practical resolution of lenses on 35mm film gets transferred to the digital image. 6 Mpixels is probably a bit better than the lens, 12 Mpixels definitely exceeds the capability of the lenses, anything beyond that is pure marketing wank. This obviously isn't the case for physically bigger sensors such as the professional 6x6cm sensors, it only holds for 35mm size systems.

I'm with tgzzz on practical resolution. Back in the day, when we sent transparencies (6cm x 6cm, 5 x 4 in) out for drum scanning it wasn't worth going beyond 2400-3000 lines per inch on the film. By the time you'd got there you'd captured all the detail that the lens had managed to deliver.

[mnementh]

But where you need the extra clarity that comes from having a larger file size is shown by the photo of part of the PCB inside a Solartron 7045 because you need the extra resolution to be able to read the legends etc to aid the level of understanding the topic of the photo in relation to the text and that file size is 2.6MB taken on my phone.

Yes, detailed images require larger file sizes. However, even that PCB shot that you linked to is under 1MB despite being 4128x2322. So, the attachment limits here aren't that restrictive. Need even more detail than an 8MP image to get a point across? Crop out the required region, pixel-for-pixel, and attach it as supplemental content. A single post can have 2MB of attachments, total.

Of course, if you want to share something like a full-size print-quality scan of a vintage scroll, manual, or similar, then it makes sense to use a file sharing service. For general "look at this" pics (even when discussing repairs), attaching them to the post should be is fine.

100% agree with an error correction. ^

Which is EXACTLY the case here... neo had a really big subject in that Hickok front panel; and a LOT of detail he wanted to show which represents its amazingly good condition. Cropping doesn't work, you just plain need more pixels. Same with me and my posts; MOST of the time I attach my pics directly to the post, unless it's dumb stuff like emojis and tchotchkie pics, or I need more res to convey what I want to show.

Time marches on. What used to be considered acceptable detail is now just fugly-blurry. Minimum standards tend to increase in jumps; sometimes exponentially. C'est la vie!

mnem
Life is messy. Bring a sponge.

[neo]

But where you need the extra clarity that comes from having a larger file size is shown by the photo of part of the PCB inside a Solartron 7045 because you need the extra resolution to be able to read the legends etc to aid the level of understanding the topic of the photo in relation to the text and that file size is 2.6MB taken on my phone.

Yes, detailed images require larger file sizes. However, even that PCB shot that you linked to is under 1MB despite being 4128x2322. So, the attachment limits here aren't that restrictive. Need even more detail than an 8MP image to get a point across? Crop out the required region, pixel-for-pixel, and attach it as supplemental content. A single post can have 2MB of attachments, total.

Of course, if you want to share something like a full-size print-quality scan of a vintage scroll, manual, or similar, then it makes sense to use a file sharing service. For general "look at this" pics (even when discussing repairs), attaching them to the post should be is fine.

100% agree with an error correction. ^

Which is EXACTLY the case here... neo had a really big subject in that Hickok front panel; and a LOT of detail he wanted to show which represents its amazingly good condition. Cropping doesn't work, you just plain need more pixels. Same with me and my posts; MOST of the time I attach my pics directly to the post, unless it's dumb stuff like emojis and tchotchkie pics, or I need more res to convey what I want to show.

Time marches on. What used to be considered acceptable detail is now just fugly-blurry. Minimum standards tend to increase in jumps; sometimes exponentially. C'est la vie!

mnem
Life is messy. Bring a sponge.

Thank you, small correction though. It's in amazing physical condition after 80 or so years spent on gods green earth it's developed an intermittent fault. My bet is a capacitor or two, maybe a dozen, and possibly a few resistors.

[mnementh]

But where you need the extra clarity that comes from having a larger file size is shown by the photo of part of the PCB inside a Solartron 7045 because you need the extra resolution to be able to read the legends etc to aid the level of understanding the topic of the photo in relation to the text and that file size is 2.6MB taken on my phone.

Yes, detailed images require larger file sizes. However, even that PCB shot that you linked to is under 1MB despite being 4128x2322. So, the attachment limits here aren't that restrictive. Need even more detail than an 8MP image to get a point across? Crop out the required region, pixel-for-pixel, and attach it as supplemental content. A single post can have 2MB of attachments, total.

Of course, if you want to share something like a full-size print-quality scan of a vintage scroll, manual, or similar, then it makes sense to use a file sharing service. For general "look at this" pics (even when discussing repairs), attaching them to the post should be is fine.

100% agree with an error correction. ^

Which is EXACTLY the case here... neo had a really big subject in that Hickok front panel; and a LOT of detail he wanted to show which represents its amazingly good condition. Cropping doesn't work, you just plain need more pixels. Same with me and my posts; MOST of the time I attach my pics directly to the post, unless it's dumb stuff like emojis and tchotchkie pics, or I need more res to convey what I want to show.

Time marches on. What used to be considered acceptable detail is now just fugly-blurry. Minimum standards tend to increase in jumps; sometimes exponentially. C'est la vie!

mnem
Life is messy. Bring a sponge.

Thank you, small correction though. It's in amazing physical condition after 80 or so years spent on gods green earth it's developed an intermittent fault. My bet is a capacitor or two, maybe a dozen, and possibly a few resistors.

Yeah, well... broken you can fix. You can't turn back the march of time on a unit borked by exposure and consumption. 


mnem
"A man made it; a man can fix it." Miss you, Baba. *Sigh*

[Cerebus]

Which is EXACTLY the case here... neo had a really big subject in that Hickok front panel; and a LOT of detail he wanted to show which represents its amazingly good condition. Cropping doesn't work, you just plain need more pixels. Same with me and my posts; MOST of the time I attach my pics directly to the post, unless it's dumb stuff like emojis and tchotchkie pics, or I need more res to convey what I want to show.

Time marches on. What used to be considered acceptable detail is now just fugly-blurry. Minimum standards tend to increase in jumps; sometimes exponentially. C'est la vie!

mnem
Life is messy. Bring a sponge.

I have to beg to differ. Compare this picture, 6 MPixel with maximum compression for a filesize of 432k, against that 32 MPixel picture of Neo's with a filesize of 2Mb. Try downloading both and looking at them side by side at actual pixels/100%. I think you'll be forced to agree that mine is way sharper and more detailed.



Bonus points for the TEA addict who correctly identifies the ware in the photo.

[Specmaster]

But where you need the extra clarity that comes from having a larger file size is shown by the photo of part of the PCB inside a Solartron 7045 because you need the extra resolution to be able to read the legends etc to aid the level of understanding the topic of the photo in relation to the text and that file size is 2.6MB taken on my phone.

Yes, detailed images require larger file sizes. However, even that PCB shot that you linked to is under 1MB despite being 4128x2322. So, the attachment limits here aren't that restrictive. Need even more detail than an 8MP image to get a point across? Crop out the required region, pixel-for-pixel, and attach it as supplemental content. A single post can have 2MB of attachments, total.

Of course, if you want to share something like a full-size print-quality scan of a vintage scroll, manual, or similar, then it makes sense to use a file sharing service. For general "look at this" pics (even when discussing repairs), attaching them to the post should be fine.

Interesting because the file size I quoted for the circuit board of 2.6MB is correct on the original file as it sits on my desktop. You are also correct when you say that the file size under 1MB so it seems that IMGUR when you upload a file to them is automatically resized (not cropped) to make the file optimised for internet viewing and mu st use some pretty powerful algorithms to decide where it can adjust the file without loss of definition.

That means that if you wanted to ensure that your photos to remain on the forum, even if they get deleted from IMGUR, all you have to do is load up IMGUR, upload your original photo to their site, then click on images tab, select the photo to attach, is to right click the image, and select "save as" and save it to your desktop, aid its optimed for the internet and our forum.
 

[Specmaster]

@ Cerebus I have to agree it seems to a hell of lot less grainy.

[tautech]

Bonus points for the TEA addict who correctly identifies the ware in the photo.

HP or Agsight bench DMM, dunno which model.