![webtrees edit raw family webtrees edit raw family](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2399/1771/files/7_e0bba720-8467-4f8e-a1b8-95f298eb75dc_320x.png)
and certainly does fit your needs:Ī descriptive word or phrase used to further classify the parent event or attribute tag. The TYPE sub-tag is well described in the GEDCOM spec. In which case the 2 TYPE you refer to is the correct solution. What you are looking for is simply a qualifier to the BIRTh event. Your PEDI, if used at all, should still be “birth”, but then needs a further classification to “illegitimate”. Certainly using PEDI in this case, as kiwitrees currently uses it would not designate anything useful for you. However, the key in the designation of PEDI is in the word “navigation” which is different to your purpose, I believe. To be fair though “rada” was added to webtrees for use in some (one?) culture. The only options GEDCOM lists for that are adopted | birth | foster | sealing.
#WEBTREES EDIT RAW FAMILY CODE#
There is the PEDI tag that can be included with birth, but the purpose of that is well defined in GEDCOM as “ A code used to indicate the child to family relationship for pedigree navigation purposes.“. But I can see why in your cases you might want some additional specificity.
![webtrees edit raw family webtrees edit raw family](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6Gd9LzmTCpw/maxresdefault.jpg)
The “normal” method is to add the father (King) and mother with the child as a family unit, but with a _NMR (not married) tag and leave the “illegitimacy” as assumed. From the lesson received herein it looks like "Progressive Mode" should be used for those files.An interesting issue. Recognizing that those files which I'm putting onto a web site, run under webtrees, don't need such high resolution, I have been scaling them down to lower resolution. tif) of directly into GIMP (e.g., a feature I find very desirable). I'll do some experimenting.Īlso, with respect to my overall objective there is a consideration where. At the same time this might be a good opportunity to learn a bit about ImageMagic. In that, jpg to jpg conversion is something I've been trying to avoid. With respect to conversion, while bulk/batch mode could be helpful, I think a problem this likely presents is a reduction in quality from success/iterative use of the lossy compression. I suppose that is good news but until cameras adopt this mode, I'm inclined to want what they support.
#WEBTREES EDIT RAW FAMILY TV#
A pretty new TV could display the "Progressive Mode" files without any indication of a difference.
![webtrees edit raw family webtrees edit raw family](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/a-L-xhpd6Z8/maxresdefault.jpg)
This leads me to a more obvious question which is why would GIMP choose to make Progressive Mode the default? Isn't what I've discovered, we've discussed herein, a good reason that GIMP should caution users and make sure they know the possible consequences of choosing Progressive Mode? Wouldn't it be proper for naive GIMP users, like myself, to expect that their jpg exports are compatible with their cameras?Īnother finding! My Thanksgiving holiday has me visiting with family who have more modern electronics than mine. If camera makers see Progressive Mode as at best unnecessary and for all I know undesirable, why should I want Progressive Mode? I'm inclined to think that I should like what they like. This is a entry level DSLR capable of providing files in the raw format but from what I can see does have quite a bit of processing power. My new, Canon Rebel T6, camera was purchased earlier this year. Might this have been equivalent to saying they did not support Progressive Mode? In that, maybe the TV makers new what they were talking about when saying they supported jpg files produced by cameras. So far it looks like none of them know anything about Progressive Mode. With the help of XnViewMP, I've now examined jpg files produced by some of my cameras which range in age from very new to around 20 years old.