this is a test:
This is a 768x1024 image:
Now, here's an interesting point, please just consider this stock.
This image is 768x1024 (3MB)
-rw-r--r-- 1 aland aland 2.9M Oct 17 17:47 img_4295.jpg
The resolution of this one is 3024x4032 per my image viewer, but notice it's actually half the size of the previous image.
-rw-r--r-- 1 aland aland 1.5M Oct 17 17:47 img_4296.jpg
This one is 3024x4032 and is 3MB
-rw-r--r-- 1 aland aland 2.9M Oct 17 17:47 img_4297.jpg
This one is 3042x4032 and is half the size.
-rw-r--r-- 1 aland aland 1.5M Oct 17 17:47 img_4298.jpg
The point here is just to show that all images are not created equal, there are a lot of factors as to why the images end up the size they do.
On top of that you previously had the size set to 720x960 and that could have contributed to some of the issues as it really uses a 768x1024 resolution.
Programmers spend massive amounts of man hours to try and figure this stuff out. If it was easy they wouldn't pay people like me what they do.
I only resized the one image, isn't it interesting that even though it is 768x1024 it is twice as big as 2 of the standard images off my phone. I have it set for max resolution, 3024x4032/4032x3024 (portrait vs. landscape). Everything needs to be tested and checked, IOW, portrait vs. landscape, that will bite you. I hope this makes sense, but the bottom line is that all images are not created equal.
I'm gonna try and stick weld that press back together today. I'm thinking a thin bead of cellulose (6010 or 6011) to blast through the paint and a cap with 7018.
