Yep I agree it's a cracking album. Reminds me of the Black Album/Strawberries era. I love it.coffeepotman wrote: ↑13 Apr 2018, 8:16pmThe new Damned album is complete brilliance! At this stage in their careers/lives that they can still put out such quality music just makes me so happy.
What Are you Listening to Right Now?
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 58881
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
"Without the common people you're nothing"
Nos Sumus Una Familia
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 58881
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
My weapon of choice to beat Medulla with when he steps out of line.
- Attachments
-
- Wire - D&E 79-80.jpg (718.89 KiB) Viewed 1902 times
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
"Without the common people you're nothing"
Nos Sumus Una Familia
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
I'd love to have a poster of the basis for the D & E album.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- Wolter
- Half Foghorn Leghorn, Half Albert Brooks
- Posts: 55432
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 7:59pm
- Location: ¡HOLIDAY RO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-OAD!
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
New Damned AND New Manics? This is my Christmas!
”INDER LOCK THE THE KISS THREAD IVE REALISED IM A PRZE IDOOT” - Thomas Jefferson
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
"But the gorilla thinks otherwise!"
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 58881
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
Yep I prefer it.
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
"Without the common people you're nothing"
Nos Sumus Una Familia
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
There is a higher resolution scan here: http://stereosociety.com/20/wirNotreDame.shtml
Given that it's all grey-scale anyway, I wonder whether I could get a print shop to run off a decent 17x24 poster from it. Kory or any other graphic designers, how feasible is that?
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
- 101Walterton
- The Best
- Posts: 21973
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
- Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
My Police And Thieves playlist on Spotify!!
1st and 2nd wave Ska tracks plus Junior Murvin of course.
1st and 2nd wave Ska tracks plus Junior Murvin of course.
- Marky Dread
- Messiah of the Milk Bar
- Posts: 58881
- Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 11:26am
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
Cheers for the link Doc.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 10:23amThere is a higher resolution scan here: http://stereosociety.com/20/wirNotreDame.shtml
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
"Without the common people you're nothing"
Nos Sumus Una Familia
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
It might look decent from a distance, but they are certainly lying about it being hi-res. It's only 144 ppi, which is only double the usual 72 ppi that you use for online pics. A true hi-res image would be 300 ppi. Given that, and the original dimensions (less than half of what you want the poster to be), I'd say don't hold your breath. You might be able to contact them and get them to rescan at 300 though.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑14 Apr 2018, 10:23amThere is a higher resolution scan here: http://stereosociety.com/20/wirNotreDame.shtml
Given that it's all grey-scale anyway, I wonder whether I could get a print shop to run off a decent 17x24 poster from it. Kory or any other graphic designers, how feasible is that?
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
Just double-checking that you dl'd the hi-res (allegedly) version from the link, not the graphic displayed. Preview is showing it as 1180 x 1667.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:14pmIt might look decent from a distance, but they are certainly lying about it being hi-res. It's only 144 ppi, which is only double the usual 72 ppi that you use for online pics. A true hi-res image would be 300 ppi. Given that, and the original dimensions (less than half of what you want the poster to be), I'd say don't hold your breath. You might be able to contact them and get them to rescan at 300 though.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
Yeah but that doesn't translate to much in inches, I'm afraid, especially given the resolution of the image. The issue is that expanding it is going to magnify the lo-res pixels. Any sort of blowing up from a smaller size is going to have this problem but it gets worse the more you need to blow it up. It's worth a shot since the image is mostly halftone and might look decent from a distance, but it won't be very high quality. You'd have better luck, I think, going with 11x17 or 12x18 at the most.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:46pmJust double-checking that you dl'd the hi-res (allegedly) version from the link, not the graphic displayed. Preview is showing it as 1180 x 1667.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:14pmIt might look decent from a distance, but they are certainly lying about it being hi-res. It's only 144 ppi, which is only double the usual 72 ppi that you use for online pics. A true hi-res image would be 300 ppi. Given that, and the original dimensions (less than half of what you want the poster to be), I'd say don't hold your breath. You might be able to contact them and get them to rescan at 300 though.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
I was thinking of going with a smallish size anyway, 11 x 16. I've got a few small gig posters like that. Given that the original graphic isn't especially hi-res anyway, I wondered if that would minimize the visual effect of the lost resolution. Anyway, one place said it'd be $20 for the printing, so I can take a chance on that.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 3:05pmYeah but that doesn't translate to much in inches, I'm afraid, especially given the resolution of the image. The issue is that expanding it is going to magnify the lo-res pixels. Any sort of blowing up from a smaller size is going to have this problem but it gets worse the more you need to blow it up. It's worth a shot since the image is mostly halftone and might look decent from a distance, but it won't be very high quality. You'd have better luck, I think, going with 11x17 or 12x18 at the most.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:46pmJust double-checking that you dl'd the hi-res (allegedly) version from the link, not the graphic displayed. Preview is showing it as 1180 x 1667.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:14pmIt might look decent from a distance, but they are certainly lying about it being hi-res. It's only 144 ppi, which is only double the usual 72 ppi that you use for online pics. A true hi-res image would be 300 ppi. Given that, and the original dimensions (less than half of what you want the poster to be), I'd say don't hold your breath. You might be able to contact them and get them to rescan at 300 though.
edit: Yup, $20 on poster-quality paper. If it doesn't turn out, no big deal.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
Yeah I think that will work ok. There will likely be some pixelation, but not nearly as bad as the 17x24 you were thinking about earlier.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 3:16pmI was thinking of going with a smallish size anyway, 11 x 16. I've got a few small gig posters like that. Given that the original graphic isn't especially hi-res anyway, I wondered if that would minimize the visual effect of the lost resolution. Anyway, one place said it'd be $20 for the printing, so I can take a chance on that.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 3:05pmYeah but that doesn't translate to much in inches, I'm afraid, especially given the resolution of the image. The issue is that expanding it is going to magnify the lo-res pixels. Any sort of blowing up from a smaller size is going to have this problem but it gets worse the more you need to blow it up. It's worth a shot since the image is mostly halftone and might look decent from a distance, but it won't be very high quality. You'd have better luck, I think, going with 11x17 or 12x18 at the most.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:46pmJust double-checking that you dl'd the hi-res (allegedly) version from the link, not the graphic displayed. Preview is showing it as 1180 x 1667.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:14pmIt might look decent from a distance, but they are certainly lying about it being hi-res. It's only 144 ppi, which is only double the usual 72 ppi that you use for online pics. A true hi-res image would be 300 ppi. Given that, and the original dimensions (less than half of what you want the poster to be), I'd say don't hold your breath. You might be able to contact them and get them to rescan at 300 though.
edit: Yup, $20 on poster-quality paper. If it doesn't turn out, no big deal.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc
- Dr. Medulla
- Atheistic Epileptic
- Posts: 115983
- Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
- Location: Straight Banana, Idaho
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
However it turns out, I'll post a pic when I get it back later this week.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 6:36pmYeah I think that will work ok. There will likely be some pixelation, but not nearly as bad as the 17x24 you were thinking about earlier.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 3:16pmI was thinking of going with a smallish size anyway, 11 x 16. I've got a few small gig posters like that. Given that the original graphic isn't especially hi-res anyway, I wondered if that would minimize the visual effect of the lost resolution. Anyway, one place said it'd be $20 for the printing, so I can take a chance on that.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 3:05pmYeah but that doesn't translate to much in inches, I'm afraid, especially given the resolution of the image. The issue is that expanding it is going to magnify the lo-res pixels. Any sort of blowing up from a smaller size is going to have this problem but it gets worse the more you need to blow it up. It's worth a shot since the image is mostly halftone and might look decent from a distance, but it won't be very high quality. You'd have better luck, I think, going with 11x17 or 12x18 at the most.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:46pmJust double-checking that you dl'd the hi-res (allegedly) version from the link, not the graphic displayed. Preview is showing it as 1180 x 1667.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:14pmIt might look decent from a distance, but they are certainly lying about it being hi-res. It's only 144 ppi, which is only double the usual 72 ppi that you use for online pics. A true hi-res image would be 300 ppi. Given that, and the original dimensions (less than half of what you want the poster to be), I'd say don't hold your breath. You might be able to contact them and get them to rescan at 300 though.
edit: Yup, $20 on poster-quality paper. If it doesn't turn out, no big deal.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
Re: What Are you Listening to Right Now?
Yeah, I'm curious to see the quality. I'll keep an eye out.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 6:50pmHowever it turns out, I'll post a pic when I get it back later this week.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 6:36pmYeah I think that will work ok. There will likely be some pixelation, but not nearly as bad as the 17x24 you were thinking about earlier.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 3:16pmI was thinking of going with a smallish size anyway, 11 x 16. I've got a few small gig posters like that. Given that the original graphic isn't especially hi-res anyway, I wondered if that would minimize the visual effect of the lost resolution. Anyway, one place said it'd be $20 for the printing, so I can take a chance on that.Kory wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 3:05pmYeah but that doesn't translate to much in inches, I'm afraid, especially given the resolution of the image. The issue is that expanding it is going to magnify the lo-res pixels. Any sort of blowing up from a smaller size is going to have this problem but it gets worse the more you need to blow it up. It's worth a shot since the image is mostly halftone and might look decent from a distance, but it won't be very high quality. You'd have better luck, I think, going with 11x17 or 12x18 at the most.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 2:46pm
Just double-checking that you dl'd the hi-res (allegedly) version from the link, not the graphic displayed. Preview is showing it as 1180 x 1667.
edit: Yup, $20 on poster-quality paper. If it doesn't turn out, no big deal.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc