As requested, here is my 2/300 Austramax stamped with D^D on the collar. I have spoken to veterans of RAAF (inc my father) and army who served in '60s and '70s who cannot recall ever seeing them (even when deployed). They believe the lanterns would have been kept as backups for power outages on base etc and maybe some off-base duties in some operations. I would love to know why the army wanted 300 pressure lanterns for the operation in East Timor. Austramax lost the contract to Coleman for this. The Age. Austramax Company Article I forgot to remove bail for photos. It is actually from a Coleman 242. A near perfect match to the original.
Thaks for posting the pictures. Now I have to add another lantern to my wish list. I have most of the other variations of the D^D models, but not a 2/300. From thos I have spoken to, I have only heard mention of the 60s/70s models. Even then it was more a case of "I think I saw something like that once" etc. and not a definite description of actual use.
Yes these were definitely used by the Australian Army. I have the parts manual for them. See attached photographs. Personally I never used them whilst in forces.
Interesting Pics Tillio. Is it possible you could post better quality pics. Particularly of the parts diagram list page. Does it have the concave metal disc (for underneath hood) on the parts list? I have Austramax lanterns with and without it. Does your manual have a date by any chance?
Scans are now to be seen in the reference library here. Still very hard to read I'm afraid, but better than the photos above.
This neatly illustrates what I (and possibly a few others) are missing about the whole business of scanning, resolution and so on. Perhaps someone could take the time to explain - in simple, jargon-free language please. As I see it:- 1. Those scans are, physically, too small. 2. My 'puter/IrfanView tells me they've been scanned at 600dpi i.e. way beyond whatever my monitor is capable of displaying. 3. Simply enlarging them to, say, 'best fit to desktop' gives a physically larger, but still indistinct image. So is 600dpi not a measure of resolution? Should they have been scanned at even more dpi. Or what? Somebody please help a befuddled old man i.e. me, who's slowly losing the plot...
600dpi is a measure of resolution, but only applicable for printing in this case. To scan with higher dpi wouldn't do anything for the visibility here. And to lower it wouldn't do anything worse either as long as it's not lower than a monitors native resolution. They should be scanned in larger pixel size, atleast 800 pixels in height, because that's what matters for a monitor and the visibility. In order to get the file size down, the resolution settings doesn't do anything for an image of a certain physical size (pixel size). Bringing down file size can be done by choice of quality, i.e. compression, and trying to not have to much dark in the image if you can choose. Best way is generally to use the option "Save for web" on photo editors since that function peel off much unnecessary informatin for pictures meant only for viewing on a computer screen. Those mentioned scans physical size are about 460x650 pixels, and that's how they will show on your computer screen no matter if the chosen resolution is e.g. 72dpi, 96dpi or 600dpi. It actually doesn't matter which resolution you choose when an image only shall be viewed on a monitor. Pixel size is all that matters for a monitor, i.e. the width and the height in pixels. And the byte size will also be the same as long as you keep that very same width and height (and quality) when saving, regardless what resolution you tell the program to use. Below are three examples. All three images are saved with the image size 640x427 pixels, and that's how they will show on your monitor (if it's set to 100% (native resolution for the monitor), i.e. not zoomed in or out). If your monitor should have been so poor that it only was exactly those low figures, the photos would of course have filled it up completely. The resolution I choose when saving these photos were 72dpi, 400dpi and extreme 2dpi! (Below shown with 400 first and 2 last.) They are all exactly the same when viewed on a monitor! Also in file size. But if you choose to print them, you will find that the resolution finally cares. Without changing anything, the 2dpi photo will ask for a paper as large as 320 inch in width! Logical, right, since the resolution is 2dpi and the pictures physical size is 640 pixels. The high resolution of 400dpi will only try to print a picture that's 1.6 inch since the size still is 640 pixels in width. I guess that's also why the resolution still is in dots per inch rather than pixels per inch. It's all about printing. Anyway, check the data on these three images for yourself. They are all the same in size both on a monitor and regarding their file size despite the difference in resolution, but that's just logical when you think about it since all the resolution figure does, is to tell a printer how many dots it shall use for each inch of paper. *Edit: I attach a screenshot with the information on each file for you to see so you don't have to download them yourself in order to be able to check the data. It's in Swedish, but I guess it's not so hard to guess that the resolution is "Vågrät upplösning" and "lodrät upplösning" since you got the dpi´s just after those texts:
Thanks, Christer - that makes sense. So, in essence, when scanning documents for display here, a large size, in terms of pixels, needs to be chosen otherwise the text will be illegible...
Pretty much so David. Oh well, in reality not when scanning. There you often don't choose the pixel width and height at all. Only the resolution, and then from those figures, the document automatically gets the pixel size in relation to the paper documents actual size in inch/cm So when scanning it's probably better to choose a high resolution since you never know how the document or photo will be used in the future, and to have a good file to work with in the photo editor. (I do assume all scans will be finished up in an editor afterwards, and not presented directly.) Then, in the editor, the main thing for presentation on the web will be width x height in pixels plus compression/quality. By the way, do IrfanView have the option "Save for web" I mentioned above? If so do you use it? In Photoshop it often halves the file size compared to when just choosing "save as" for the same file type and appeared viewing quality.
I can't say I've noticed a 'Save for Web' option - or if I have, not realised what it was. I've a catalogue I need to scan so I'll have a closer look when I get around to doing that. Anyhow, thanks for your input...
If you scan a catlogue then you need to do it at 300ppi or more. That will give you a good quality image and at the original paper size. Sometimes if a catalogue is a small one I will scan at 600ppi and then corect it to 300ppi and twice the original size. This ensures that all the text will be readable and the detail will be good on any images. More importantly the image will print and give a good quality A4 size hard copy. For images on a monitor the resolution may not matter but because some stuff gets added to a book designed for hard copy printing any images have to be at 300ppi and only corrected for physical size. As I have a considerable amount of paper scanned the original images are saved to a pair of extenal hard drives and only a PDF of the catalogue is retained in the pc. For publication on the web these origial images must then be reduced to suit the web site. ::Neil::
Exactly. If you are saving a file on your own computer, large pixel size and high resolution goes without saying. For printing- resolution matters, for showing on the web- it doesn't. And it doesn't help either to have a high resolution on a file that's shown on e.g. CPL even if you want to print it. All it will do is to trying to produce a much smaller sized print on the paper (as long as you don't have the program or printer set to e.g. "Fit to paper").
