All I do is crop part of the picture to 200pixels square (to omit any 'rude bits') and save for web at medium or low quality (resolution is usually 300 dpi). Upload "picture.jpg" and then the thumb as "picturethumb.jpg".
Is that what you meant, though?

Rendering faster than P7, but overall performance often slow to respond and sluggish - parameter dials seem "stiff" (same in P7 for a while).
I expect there will be some more SRs to come, hopefully ones that will address the general speed of loading and moving figures.

Quote -

OK this is getting REALLY long haired L I don't understand anything of this. And I'm sure someone more math savvy than me would find it easy.. it just makes my brain hurt L

Sorry - I used to teach Maths; and it leaks out sometimes ...

Quote -
Man, this OT has gone far afield OT.  See what you started dphoadley?
-R

Not entirely his fault ...

Shaun
(Secretary of the Dozenal Society of Great Britain)

Quote - Again corrected on the base 60 rather than base 6, and I do see the advantages of twelve.  @Kawecki: 7DA CE?

-R

Base sixteen
7 x 16 x 16 = 1792
13 x 16 = 208
10
1792 + 208 + 10 = 2010
(D=13 base ten, A = 10 base ten)

Quote - Actually like the idea of metric time.  And what about a 100 degree circle?  The old base six math is as old as civilization. 

Base sixty, not six.
OK, so 100 degrees to the circle; how many degrees in each angle of an equilateral triangle?
There's a decimal clock - or was (I was there in 1962) - in Dusseldorf; three faces normal and one decimal. And wasn't the clock in "Metropolis" decimal, or was it in a Chaplin film?

Never did like decimals; counting in twelves is a far more elegant and sensible system. (If you're interested, Google "dozenal".)

Quote -

Ah - that I think I can explain. You see, we (at least in the US) have always counted up by every three digits (because it's handy to stick in a comma once every three digits, unless you're in Europe, where they count as decimals, and stuff :) ). Each new fourth digit we tack on gets a name.

A new name, not an -illion type, would do. Using the -illion is illogical - after all, if you call 1,000,000,000 a billion where bi means two, what's it two of?

Anyway, apart from that, if you want to go in threes then why not use the metric prefixes - e.g. $1,000 = 1K$, $1,000,000 = 1M$, $1,000,000,000 = 1G$; saves writing all those noughts and avoids the fact that we are divided in our interpretation of the word billion (etc).

Done.
Thanks.
S

2010 ends the last decade, which started in 2001.
2011 will start the next decade, which ends in 2020... and so on.
You start counting with 1, not 0. Count to 10; the next lot of 10s starts with 11.

But not many people give tuppence for for all that; they celebrate the millenium start at 2000, when it is in fact the last year of the 20th century. The 21st century started with 2001.

And while we're on about the illogical use of numbers ... what about those damn small billions the Americans use (which our beloved Government in GB has also saddled us with) - their billion is only a thousand million, not the real billion which is a million million. Trillion = million million million (three lots, tri = three); the US trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 (thousand thousand million) i.e. our British billion.

Maybe no-one else cares, but it gets right up my nose.

They're all great models - I've just added the free KCars to my collection - and all greatly appreciated!

Mostly fantasy stuff, and sci-fi.

The robots have taken over ... Robots, portraits of pretty faces, the occasional abstract or landscape - and moggies, of course.

It all depends what comes into my mind - maybe a phrase, a snatch of a song, an absurd idea - but I must admit, the real world rarely gets a a look-in!

Is it any faster on a 32-bit machine? Or just on th 64?

Quote - This update was mainly for Mac users. 6.3 is primarily code rewriting for compatibility with Mac OS 10.6 Snow Leopard, with a lot of minor tweaks and bug fixes for both the Windows and Mac versions. I am sure that they have given it heaps of beta testing.

I wonder ... It certainly keeps crashing on PowerMac 10.5.8 Leopard ... And my Mac won't run Snow Leopard. I'm still using version 6 as every upgrade since has failed to work on 10.4.11 Tiger.
Let's hope this is just a test version and that version 7 will be the real deal!

Quote - Does 6.3 render any quicker than 6.1?

Not on PowerMac with Leopard it doesn't ...

Still learning - and there's lots more to master.
But it keeps me happy and, I think, creative.