[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-Jan-03 AT 08:58 PM (EST)]>When you refer to "800 x resolution", are you refering to
>the size in pixels?, or the resolution output?

Don't know if I can do better than Kai did with his explanation. Oh, what the heck, I've got a bunch of letters crawling out of my keyboard so I might as well let 'em out so they can run around on the screen.

For our purposes, resolution is the width and height of an image in PIXELS. That's not the "official" definition but it suits our needs for this discussion.

The concept of output resolution is pure evil - it's primary purpose is to confuse folks trying to use their scanner software or camera. If you can - ignore it. If you're software insists you use it - set the output resolution to a high value. You may have to play around with settings like "good", "normal", "best", "high", "low", "screen", "printer", "web", etc. to find what produces the highest resolution (most pixels) in the initial captured image.

The ideal thing to do is to set you scanner software or camera to acquire the maximum number of pixels of information when you first acquire the image. Once you have the original, high-resolution, digital image stored in a file (.jpg, .bmp, .tif, etc.), use a software package to change the number of pixels in the image, change the contrast/brightness, add text, and whatever else you want. Remember, you can always reduce the number of pixels and save a smaller copy in a separate file but it's VERY hard to increase the number of pixels in an original image without it looking like garbage. Sorta like you can always cut a frame shorter - but it's a bear to cut it longer, right John?

I capture images at 2,400 x 2,160 pixel resolution with my camera. I use it both for truck shots and repros of printed literature. That resolution produces very big files (15.5 MB) and images too big to post. I use Photoshop software to reduce the number of image pixels from 2,400 wide x 2,160 high to 800 wide x 720 wide so I can post them on FTE. I ALWAYS keep the high-res original for future use and save the reduced resolution images in separate files for posting. The maximum width you can post here on FTE is 800 pixels which displays at around 1/2 to 1 screen width depending on the user's video resolution. There are many other image manipulation packages besides Photoshop out there and some are free and quite good.

George

BTW - I've got some brochure pics of F-100, F-250, and F-350 stake-beds but they aren't as good as Kenny's. Even with the highest res I can get they are still kinda fuzzy.

Truck restoration - does the fun ever start?
See my 1956 F-250 in progress at www.clubfte.com/users/earl/index.html

 

Okay,
Hopefully this will work now. Thanks for both your patience, and your help!

https://www.ford-trucks.com/user_gallery/sizeimage.php?&photoid=12325&.jpg

https://www.ford-trucks.com/user_gallery/sizeimage.php?&photoid=12326&.jpg

Ahh, that's better!

 

Kai

Did you notice the payload specs? Look what a huge upgrade the F250 was. Our F100s were the S-10/Ranger of the 50s

'fenders

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 09-Jan-03 AT 01:58 AM (EST)]Kenny,

... that's just what the doctor ordered. Thanx a lot. It will be of great help for me to make my own bed. :-)

'fenders,

... you should not say stuff like this. George will be all over us again.

George,

... don't you think you should rather have a F350. That must be the one for real men.

Thanx to you all !!!

 

No problem guys. I can always build a tilt/flatbed to swap with the normal bed. With the mighty payload capacity of the F-250 I can just winch your F-100s right on board when they break down so you don't have to call for a tow.

George

Truck restoration - does the fun ever start?
See my 1956 F-250 in progress at www.clubfte.com/users/earl/index.html

 

Kai,

The bed does not sit directly on the frame, nor are there any large square tubes to space the bed up off of the frame so that the wheels have clearance. What you have and can be seen in Kenny's picture are wooden (yes wood) runners under the bed that sit on top of the frame members. On my F-1, they are approximately 5" by 1 3/4" wide and sit on edge on top of the frame members. These wooden runners extend about 10" inches behond the frame in the back. The runners are held to the frame with large skinny U bolts. Where the frame kicks up, the runners are curved or cut out to accommodate the frame. In Kenny's picture you can see some U bolts. What might appear to be square tubes under the bed are triangle braces connecting the runners to the cross members of the bed. On the back end of the runners there are metal end caps that extend up and connect to the back cross member of the bed.

These are real rough measurments that I took in the dark and tried to remember (I don't always remember real good) before I got to the computer at work. I will probably be real busey and out of town for the next week or two so be patient with me if you need additional and accurate details.

Possibly, I have made some progress in helping you understand how the factory stake bed was contructed and not confused things even more.

Good luck and let me know.

 

Don and Kenny,

The explanation and bigger pics are great. Thanks for taking the time to help.

George

Truck restoration - does the fun ever start?
See my 1956 F-250 in progress at www.clubfte.com/users/earl/index.html

 

 

Kai

I was just looking through a brochure for the 48 F Series. There are differences between the stake beds for the different models F1-F3-F4 etc. Is this of interest to you? They are photos rather than illustrations and are not going to be as good as Kenny's. Like I said they are 1948. Is it of possible interest to you or too old?

'fenders

 

DonF,

... thanx a lot. That's interesting. Wood, eeh ? One might wonder why they did not use steel square tube. Guess wood also functions as shock / vibration insulation. Just a thought.

'fender,

... yeah, would be great to get a few pics even so they are a few years older. Guess there's not much of a difference. Please e-mail. Thanx a lot.

Greetings