SFW Thread

[P3D Bob Shotsberger <bshots1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

May You All have had a Happy Holiday.

To add more to the SFW thread:

gjw wrote:
>
>> gjw@xxxxxxxxxx said...:
>> I've tried it some weeks ago. The pictures come on a regular 3.5" 
>> disk. They use a proprietary file format which cannot be converted to 
>> any other format other than by a screen shot. Resolution is 640x480, 
>> which would be suitable for the web,     but it cannot be compared to 
>> photo disk resolution and quality. It's a nice gimmick if you want to 
>> see your images on a computer screen rather than on paper prints. And 
>> it's a lot      cheaper... 

And Ronald Beck replied{
>
>I'm sorry but I believe you are incorrect and need to check the SFW 
>software that came with your "pictures-on-disk".  If I remember correctly 
>(and I'll check this evening with mine), you can display a photo and then 
>do a "save as" under the file option and save the photo in a number of 
>different formats.
>
>Again, I'll verify that with my copy of the program as I haven't used it 
>in a while. 


I couldn't wait, I knew I have converted several images
foramts from within SFW's program so I ....

I just converted four pictures from SFW format to 
"TIF" format and read them into a graphics program 
to be sure I had done it and they worked just fine.

While I was at it, I checked SFW's software for what conversions
can be made, I have Photoworks 2.2 and Photoworks Plus 2.2,
both for Windows. 

With those two you can convert SFW POD to about 15 graphics formats.
I have only used "TIF" so far, but there is ".JPG", ".BMP",
".GIF", ".IFF", ".PCT", ".TGA", ".WMF", ".ICO", ".WPG" and
a few others that I have not mentioned. Other than the "TIF"
I've used I can't say how they work or what dialect they are in.

You will find these conversions under "FILE" then "Save As".


And from Allen Woods wrote:

>Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 14:05:50 -0800
....
>
>I was ruminating about the comments regarding Pictures on Disk from SFW,
>and it seems to me the general drift is:
>
>1.) The pictures aren't as good as better ones.
>2.) They don't cost enough.
>
>I thought this time of year was time for Christmas Goose, not 
>Christmas grouse.  ;-)
>
>allanwx@xxxxxxxxxx
>

I kinda grazed over the thread the same way you do. ;-)
I was wondering if I was alone. ;-)

I'll agree that:

SFW POD isn't as good as a PhotoCD Disk, nor as good as scanning a print
with a HP Color Jet 3(?) or whatever the latest scanner model is. And I 
have used both of them as well as Kodak DCS 40. But at home I can't 
afford any of those three options, yet.

So SFW is a relatively quick, effective and cheap way to get my
pairs into digital form where I can do something with them.

The four photos I just converted, in few evenings, will end up as two
stereographic views ready to be used in a viewer. 
 
I don't have to cut up any prints, I can preview in full size and
color on my monitor and know what I will be getting off my Ink Jet printer.

If I ever get a view card that I really like, then, to make a  high
quality card, I will get prints made and I'll know how to cut
and mount them without the trial and error cutting of original prints.

Happy New Year to all. 

Bob Shotsberger


------------------------------