Re: Screen Capture Program
Frank,
Actually, the name is Brian. But that's not why I'm replying.
I stand by what I said about Snagit Scrolling Capture... Where I was wrong was the archive.org site. The archive.org site employs an embedded scrolling function -- which is not the same as your browser scrolling features.
I tested Snagit on the page you were looking at. Snagit did indeed scroll the web page, but as you learned, Snagit did not scroll the content using the embedded page controls.
The second option I suggested was stitching screen shots.
FWIW, I prefer Photoshop Elements over the Flip Pal bundled software (which I also use) simply for the difference in quality of the final image. To Bob White's point, price is a valid tool selection criteria. My criteria is quality.
For grins and giggles, I snagged/grabbed 8 overlapping screen shots of page 1128 and stitched them together for you. I uploaded that document (~5.5MB):
archive.org stream polkscrockerlang1944dire page 1128.jpg
- Brian
Originally posted by Frank Zwolinski
View Post
Actually, the name is Brian. But that's not why I'm replying.
I stand by what I said about Snagit Scrolling Capture... Where I was wrong was the archive.org site. The archive.org site employs an embedded scrolling function -- which is not the same as your browser scrolling features.
I tested Snagit on the page you were looking at. Snagit did indeed scroll the web page, but as you learned, Snagit did not scroll the content using the embedded page controls.
The second option I suggested was stitching screen shots.
FWIW, I prefer Photoshop Elements over the Flip Pal bundled software (which I also use) simply for the difference in quality of the final image. To Bob White's point, price is a valid tool selection criteria. My criteria is quality.
For grins and giggles, I snagged/grabbed 8 overlapping screen shots of page 1128 and stitched them together for you. I uploaded that document (~5.5MB):
archive.org stream polkscrockerlang1944dire page 1128.jpg
- Brian
Comment