I understand the "limitations" of QSL cards (bandwidth, etc.) on eQSL. However, wouldn't it be a nice feature if eQSL allowed members to "link" to a high quality (QSL Card) image located "outside" eQSL? In otherwords, their would be a option (say Style 5) to display your card (located on a non-eQSL server) in the same spot (in place of) that eQSL currently displays your "low resolution" card. It wouldn't bog down eQSL nor increase its bandwidth since it is stored outside of eQSL. Just a thought...

---

KE3W Nevins "Frank" Frankel
Temporary QTH: Centralia, Pennsylvania (USA)

A good thought, I'll vote for that.

---

2M0CDD John D'Hunt

Thanks!

---

KE3W Nevins "Frank" Frankel
Temporary QTH: Centralia, Pennsylvania (USA)
http://www.ke3w.com
Edited by KE3W N A 'Frank' Frankel on Feb 28, 2011 at 05:03 AM

Neither server load nor storage is a realistic issue with regard to photo-resolution (i.e. 200 dpi or better, 300 dpi preferred) QSL pictures. Storage is cheap, and a picture doesn't really load the server. Presently, eQSLs are effectively stored at 96 dpi, well below the level needed to make a photo-quality print.

The issue, as best I have been able to tell, is that the eQSL mandarins do not wish to field the hail of abuse from people who still operate on dial-up internet and would find larger pictures take longer to load.

So, if you like photo-quality, you basically have 3 choices at the moment:

1. only display them online
2. download the images into a electronic picture frame
3. print the images a 1.75" x 2.75" which will make a nice, barely-photo-quality print, but you'll need a magnifying glass to read it.

I like the idea of a type 5 that links to a high-def version of the card. Alternately, if eQSL generates the thing on the fly anyway, there's no super obvious reason not to be able to upload a big image and have it thumbnailed for low-res users when they look at the card (*that* might increase server load though).

---

VE3OIJ P. Darin Cowan

Actually, they might be talking about "band width" usage. Unfortunately, web hosts do limit the amount of data (band width) used. So, if you have a bunch of high resolution QSL cards - you will use more data and possibly exceed the allocated "band width" which might bump you up into a higher fee. However, if they would let us store our QSL cards on another server outside eQSL - it would have absolutely no affect on their "band width" allocation fees.

---

KE3W Nevins "Frank" Frankel
Temporary QTH: Centralia, Pennsylvania (USA)
http://www.ke3w.com

That's certainly possible.

---

VE3OIJ P. Darin Cowan

I think its a shame that eQSL isn't really addressing the image quality issue. It would be better to set a maximum file size to upload, and drop the server-side processing which causes all the problems. That would actually relieve workload and bandwidth consumption, and so easy to do. The idea and experience of electronically sending qsl cards is being spoilt, and quite frankly I have to consider setting up outside of eQSL. If someone prints my cards, at the very least, I want them to have the best, justify their ink, paper and time.

---

2M0CDD John D'Hunt

Hopefully John - eQSL is reading our concerns. Or, those at eQSL that can make our suggestion happen - don't really care about getting QSL Cards. It kind of reminds me of stopping off for coffee in the morning. I have found that their is always fresh coffee IF the store person drinks coffee. If the store person doesn't drink coffee - you are lucky to find any coffee let alone fresh coffee!

I guess what I am trying to say is if the person(s) responsible for QSL Cards at eQSL actually collected them - we would no doubt have a high resolution option. If the person(s) responsible for QSL Cards doesn't collect them - we have what we have now.

---

KE3W Nevins "Frank" Frankel
Temporary QTH: Centralia, Pennsylvania (USA)
http://www.ke3w.com

Edited by KE3W N A 'Frank' Frankel on Jul 24, 2011 at 05:28 AM

We are actually working on some improvements that will allow us to increase the resolution. Right now we have occasional system crashes because the version of graphics software we are forced to use has got some kind of Java heap problems, and graphics of more than about 1000 x 1000 pixels do bad things to the heap.

I am in the process of moving everything over to a much bigger server that will be running 64-bit OS, but it requires rewriting every single graphic routine, and then testing things that have been running trouble-free for over a decade, so it is taking a little time. But I think August will be the month, and that will free us up to increase the resolution.

---

Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong!

73,
Dave Morris, N5UP

Thanks for the update Dave. I have found that Windows 64-bit (hardware and software) is a big time headache. Just about all the "old time" software and hardware just doesn't play very well together in that environment so you have your hands full right now.

Thanks again for the update.

---

KE3W Nevins "Frank" Frankel
Temporary QTH: Centralia, Pennsylvania (USA)
http://www.ke3w.com

Dave great to hear that improvements are on the way. But why are you playing around with re-sampling software? 1000 px is barely halfway there. To print a 6x4 qsl card the dimensions need to be 1800px x 1200px at 300dpi. Why not look at my suggestion of putting a file size limit and leave the processing to to up-loader, thumbnail the card with a link to the full res download. Or just link to the full res image, which is what you currently have. But, 1000 x 1000 is only halfway there. If you just limit file size, it will save an awfull lot of headaches, AND relieve stress on your servers. Trust me.

73

John

---

2M0CDD John D'Hunt

Frank,

If your are having issues with old software on 64 bit OS, try running your old 32 bit OS as a virtual machine using VirtualBox from Oracle, or, Vmware. Your cpu will need to support virtualisation, you need fast HDs, preferably SSDs and RAID 0, if you can, oh, and heaps of ram. This is not the same as running a dual boot computer, your existing 64 bit OS is running all of the time, and you run one or more 'virtual' sessions of alternative operating systems on top.

I run WIN 7 64 bit, on top of that, I run XP 32 bit and hook that to a laptop via remote desktop. It gives me network wide access to win XP and run my old 32bit software. It also means that I can maintain all systems from the same computer and network machines can be modest in the hardware stakes. The host machine is doing all of the work.

Vmware and virtualbox are freeware.

John

---

2M0CDD John D'Hunt

Maybe its time to dump this site. No engagement from the owner, quality of e- cards are not good.

---

2M0CDD John D'Hunt

Quite the contrary. The owner is engaged every single day in moving the entire system over to a new 64-bit server. What you guys are forgetting is that every single solitary eQSL is generated by the software at the time the recipient displays it. The QSO details have to be superimposed onto the static graphic. So even if you hosted the static graphic somewhere else, now I'd have to spend bandwidth getting the graphic, then server horsepower doing the graphic manipulation, and then bandwidth to send it to the recipient. When you have 25 people bulk-downloading their entire 10,000 entry InBox in Europe, that kills everything, processor, disk, network, everything. So the graphic resolution is a compromise. And I print thousands thousands of cards here for people around the world, and I can tell you that if the graphic is a good one, it comes out looking good on the printed card too.

---

Of course, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong!

73,
Dave Morris, N5UP

Sorry dave but the pixel dimensions do not allow good print quality. No point in me arguing the case any more. I've made my last qso ever.

---

2M0CDD John D'Hunt