sure, seems like the way things are moving. On Jan 11, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Mike Hudack wrote:
> So are we cool with 640 x 480 then? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Garfield >> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 1:55 PM >> To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: Re: [videoblogging] Re: Blip JPEGs >> >> got it, thanks! >> >> On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Bill Cammack wrote: >> >>> It seems that he's saying that files that are too big are >> downsized... >>> not files that are 320x240 will be translated to a larger >> size. All >>> you would have to do is submit your thumbnails at your desired size. >>> >>> -- >>> Bill C. >>> http://ReelSolid.TV >>> >>> --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sounds big, but that's just me. >>>> >>>> I'd like 320x240 since I have a narrow main column. >>>> >>>> Can this be an option for people? >>>> >>>> On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:34 PM, Mike Hudack wrote: >>>> >>>>> The code itself is working okay, but it looks like our >> configuration >>>>> settings could use some tweaks. How does 640 x 480 sound >> as a new >>>>> max size / resize target? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Steve Garfield >>>> http://SteveGarfield.com >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Steve Garfield >> http://SteveGarfield.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > -- Steve Garfield http://SteveGarfield.com
