Interesting Texas Beach Fossils

[tracer]

Fossilized burrows of Pholadidae (Angelwings/Piddocks) seem prevalent at a site I have visited in Jefferson County, Texas. But I also found one fossilized Angelwing that apparently was buried in its tubular burrow and preserved there in spite of it's fragile shell. These molluscs use the rasping teeth on their shells to burrow down and live for years without ever leaving their burrow. I just thought these two fossils were interesting.

Regards,

Tracer

[Guest N.AL.hunter]

I love it when someone posts a fossil that I have never seen before (much less heard of). Thanks!!

[Auspex]

Very fortunate to have an ichno fossil associated with the trace maker; so many ichnos are just described with a name of their own and no clear idea as to what made them.

[Harry Pristis]

Fossilized burrows of Pholadidae (Angelwings/Piddocks) seem prevalent at a site I have visited in Jefferson County, Texas. But I also found one fossilized Angelwing that apparently was buried in its tubular burrow and preserved there in spite of it's fragile shell. These molluscs use the rasping teeth on their shells to burrow down and live for years without ever leaving their burrow. I just thought these two fossils were interesting.

Regards,

Tracer

I can scroll left or right, up or down, to see your image -- the image is otherwise just too large for my 17-inch monitor.

When I make a SHQ or HQ image with my six megapixel camera, the resulting image is as large as 39 inches wide by 29 inches high. I have to reduce the image size with my editing software to even work with it conveniently.

You can produce excellent photos with the Standard Quality (SQ) setting on your camera. (See some of Worthy's or Mike Owens' recent posts.) If you are going to post images that are not edited, that is, images directly from your camera, SQ is the camera setting you should be using.

Usually, I don't bother to open very large images beyond the thumbnail. But, I'd like to see your pix. I hope you can post some images that are more manageable for everyone on the forum.

------Harry Pristis

[Fruitbat]

Harry....

Not to start an argument or anything but you do seem to have a lot of problems seeing pictures that nobody else has problems seeing. I've got a 17-inch monitor and have no problems at all with any of the pictures that you've commented on in various posts. Just out of sheer curiosity, what screen resolution are you using?

-Joe

[jkfoam]

Harry/Joe,

When my computer opens this attachment it opens it really big, (larger than my monitor can accomodate), but as soon as it is completely loaded my computer automatically resizes the attachment to fit the screen. I'm using Windows XP as an operating system, if that makes any difference.

JKFoam

[Harry Pristis]

Harry/Joe,

When my computer opens this attachment it opens it really big, (larger than my monitor can accomodate), but as soon as it is completely loaded my computer automatically resizes the attachment to fit the screen. I'm using Windows XP as an operating system, if that makes any difference.

JKFoam

Well, I'm operating with Windows XP and the image, when loaded, does not automatically re-size. I have tried all the available screen resolutions.

I am able to fully scroll left and right because someone here pointed out that double-clicking on the image header re-sizes the image. But, this image (and others) remains over-sized and pixelated under any circumstances.

My posture in the matter is this: I will continue to notify new subscribers about the possibility that not everyone will be able (or will not bother) to open larger image files. Then it is up to the subscriber.

To test my assertion, those of you who are inclined to post these large image-files can simply observe how many times those files are actually opened by other subscribers. You can do this by clicking on "My Controls" in the forum toolbar. Judge for yourself.

I think this is a worthwhile effort or I would not be making it. There is no hostility involved. Why would it bother anyone who does not have this problem?

-------Harry

[Maryland Mike]

Well, I'm operating with Windows XP and the image, when loaded, does not automatically re-size. I have tried all the available screen resolutions.

I am able to fully scroll left and right because someone here pointed out that double-clicking on the image header re-sizes the image. But, this image (and others) remains over-sized and pixelated under any circumstances.

My posture in the matter is this: I will continue to notify new subscribers about the possibility that not everyone will be able (or will not bother) to open larger image files. Then it is up to the subscriber.

To test my assertion, those of you who are inclined to post these large image-files can simply observe how many times those files are actually opened by other subscribers. You can do this by clicking on "My Controls" in the forum toolbar. Judge for yourself.

I think this is a worthwhile effort or I would not be making it. There is no hostility involved. Why would it bother anyone who does not have this problem?

-------Harry

Harry, I think I may have the solution to your problem. I understand the frustration it must be causing you. I tested the solution out on my computer and can create and solve the same problem you are having.

With Internet Explorer open, click on "Tools" in Menu bar.

At the bottom, you should see "Internet Options." Click that.

A window should pop up and all the way at the top right, click on the tab labelled "Advanced"

Scroll down to the heading "Multimedia" Make sure there is a check mark in the box next to "Enable automatic image resizing"

Also, (and this could be useful for everyone) if you have a high-speed connection of some kind, but not if you still have dial-up,

scroll down to the heading "Security"

Make sure there is a check in the box "Empty Temporary Internet Files When Browser is Closed"

Internet Explorers default is to leave this box unchecked.

By checking it, your Temporary Internet Files cache is emptied. When this gets near the limits that your computer is set for, your whole computer can slow down.

Alternately, do a "Disc Cleanup" weekly or at the very least monthly, particularly if you do a lot of internet browsing.

If you have a dial-up connection, it is better to leave the box unchecked, otherwise your computer has to download every image on the sites you visit regularly and for dial-up it will slow your browsing.

Hope this solves your problem!

[Fruitbat]

Harry...

I really wasn't trying to start an argument but I have noticed you 'voicing' similar complaints about image sizes on a number of occasions and was simply trying to see if I could be of any assistance. Maryland Mike's suggestion was going to be my next one if the screen resolution wasn't the problem. Hopefully that will resolve the issue. Didn't mean to hijack the post....the fossil is exquisite!

-Joe

[Maryland Mike]

Yes, thanks for the fossil pictures!

[safossils]

With Internet Explorer open, click on "Tools" in Menu bar.

At the bottom, you should see "Internet Options." Click that.

A window should pop up and all the way at the top right, click on the tab labelled "Advanced"

Scroll down to the heading "Multimedia" Make sure there is a check mark in the box next to "Enable automatic image resizing"

Thanks, that actually worked for me. I had to click on the small double square between the minimize (-) and the close [X] button at the top right of the screen to resize the window before the image would resize however. I think this tip should be eligible for a sticky somewhere....

Best,

Walt

[Harry Pristis]

Harry, I think I may have the solution to your problem. I understand the frustration it must be causing you. I tested the solution out on my computer and can create and solve the same problem you are having.

With Internet Explorer open, click on "Tools" in Menu bar.

At the bottom, you should see "Internet Options." Click that.

A window should pop up and all the way at the top right, click on the tab labelled "Advanced"

Scroll down to the heading "Multimedia" Make sure there is a check mark in the box next to "Enable automatic image resizing"

Also, (and this could be useful for everyone) if you have a high-speed connection of some kind, but not if you still have dial-up,

scroll down to the heading "Security"

Make sure there is a check in the box "Empty Temporary Internet Files When Browser is Closed"

Internet Explorers default is to leave this box unchecked.

By checking it, your Temporary Internet Files cache is emptied. When this gets near the limits that your computer is set for, your whole computer can slow down.

Alternately, do a "Disc Cleanup" weekly or at the very least monthly, particularly if you do a lot of internet browsing.

If you have a dial-up connection, it is better to leave the box unchecked, otherwise your computer has to download every image on the sites you visit regularly and for dial-up it will slow your browsing.

Hope this solves your problem!

Thank you, Mike. I do appreciate your effort.

My Windows Internet Explorer control for enabling auto-resizing has been checked for some time already. I am also dumping temporary Internet files when I shut down.

The only thing that has been effective here has been double-clicking on the image header (or the maximize) button. That seems to only slightly change the image size, but it does enable the scroll left to the full width of the image. (I think this may be the function that "safossils" is referring to.)

It's still a puzzle.

-------Harry Pristis

[Maryland Mike]

Thank you, Mike. I do appreciate your effort.

My Windows Internet Explorer control for enabling auto-resizing has been checked for some time already. I am also dumping temporary Internet files when I shut down.

The only thing that has been effective here has been double-clicking on the image header (or the maximize) button. That seems to only slightly change the image size, but it does enable the scroll left to the full width of the image. (I think this may be the function that "safossils" is referring to.)

It's still a puzzle.

-------Harry Pristis

Let's go to this thread to continue the discussion http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?sh...ic=1877&hl=

[Uncle Siphuncle]

Tracer

TX doesn't seem to have the abundant, cool beach fossils that FL does, but spoil islands up and down the coast do spit out some sand dollars, bivalves and gastropods in matrix. I've seen shark teeth taken by others from time to time as well, and I've collected High Island once with lackluster results. I've heard of cool crabs and Pleistocene terrestrial vert material coming to hand at the coast as well. Thanks for posting.

[tracer]

Hmm, I'm not a computer graphics guy. I actually cropped the photo before I uploaded it and it showed at 1.3 meg so I figured it would work for anyone. I cropped it on a Dell running XP and it wasn't full screen. I'm looking at it now on a Macbook with OSX Tiger and with a 13'' screen and it isn't full screen. I pretty much always browse with Firefox. I don't know. I will probably try though to shoot future pics at lower res or at least edit them to lower res before posting. I guess the issue though is what resolution works for all viewers? I have an older pentium in another room running Ubuntu Linux that views high res OK too. Have you ever seen what your video card will display? Like right-clicking on the desktop and resetting the screen resolution to a higher one? The only reason I'm saying this is because I don't have a problem at all uploading whatever works best for everyone, but I personally love high res and being able to zoom in on a picture and examine it in minute detail.

[Guest solius symbiosus]

^ It is always best to "shoot" at the highest resolution possible. If one constrains the camera, it is like "shooting" with a camera that is much inferior.

If an 8 meg is "stopped" down, it is like taking a pic with a much inferior camera.

If one stops a camera from 2500 to 1200, then one is losing around 70% (approximate)of the chip's resolution.

If you buy an 1/8in chip, why only use 1/16th(or 1/32nd, or less) of the area?

[RJB]

I use the Vista Operating system, but I have a very slow 56K modem. When I see any photos larger than 200 kb's, I dont even bother to try and open it. Simply takes too much time. which sucks at times!

RB

[tracer]

I use the Vista Operating system, but I have a very slow 56K modem. When I see any photos larger than 200 kb's, I dont even bother to try and open it. Simply takes too much time. which sucks at times!

RB

Wow, I didn't even think about the modem issue. As multi-media intensive as the net has become, I haven't had a dial-up connection in a long time. I'll take all this under advisement and use a conversion utility to knock down the res on any future pictures I upload.

[Harry Pristis]

^ It is always best to "shoot" at the highest resolution possible. If one constrains the camera, it is like "shooting" with a camera that is much inferior.

If an 8 meg is "stopped" down, it is like taking a pic with a much inferior camera.

If one stops a camera from 2500 to 1200, then one is losing around 70% (approximate)of the chip's resolution.

If you buy an 1/8in chip, why only use 1/16th(or 1/32nd, or less) of the area?

Solius . . . I think you must be trying to communicate something here, but I don't understand what it is. Can you re-state your point using digital photography terms and giving a practical example for us forum posters?

Keep in mind that the Internet accommodates only 72ppi so this is the ceiling on resolution for posted images. As I understand it, using the full capacity of an 8 megapixel camera is useful under two circumstances:

1. You want to make poster-size prints.

2. You want to crop most of the image file to produce a "close-up" of some portion of the file.

So, tell us what you're thinking, Solius.

------Harry Pristis

[Xiphactinus]

Solius . . . I think you must be trying to communicate something here, but I don't understand what it is. Can you re-state your point using digital photography terms and giving a practical example for us forum posters?

Keep in mind that the Internet accommodates only 72ppi so this is the ceiling on resolution for posted images. As I understand it, using the full capacity of an 8 megapixel camera is useful under two circumstances:

1. You want to make poster-size prints.

2. You want to crop most of the image file to produce a "close-up" of some portion of the file.

So, tell us what you're thinking, Solius.

------Harry Pristis

Solius is exactly correct. Capture your image with the highest possible resolution. Then make copies for individual uses. I capture huge files of all my images, then size them down to 35% of the original then save them as a medium resultion jpeg file for this forum. I still have my hi-res files for other uses.

[Harry Pristis]

Solius is exactly correct. Capture your image with the highest possible resolution. Then make copies for individual uses. I capture huge files of all my images, then size them down to 35% of the original then save them as a medium resultion jpeg file for this forum. I still have my hi-res files for other uses.

I don't think we're talking "correct" here, are we? This is about practices -- what and how and why we do what we do with digital images.

So, thanks for insight into your thinking, Xiphactinus. But, you've raised a question: WHY do you save the original, huge image files? What do you do with them?

I ask because I don't save anything but the edited, Internet-friendly image; and, I am wondering if I'm making a mistake. So, what use do you anticipate for these big files?