From 71d50c8ac41879cf1d4ee6ff16c2043938ecbf90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bastian de Byl Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:39:24 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Updated thumbnails to include sub (caption) --- content/post/aperture-study.md | 20 ++++++++++---------- content/post/headphone-fix.md | 18 +++++++++--------- 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/post/aperture-study.md b/content/post/aperture-study.md index 0c1d76a..e2d5f32 100644 --- a/content/post/aperture-study.md +++ b/content/post/aperture-study.md @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ lost at that target distance of 1 meter. The biggest difference can be seen between the *f/1.7* and *f/4.0* shots. Note the increase in clarity on the pillows fabric. -{{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f17-f40-comp.jpg" >}} +{{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f17-f40-comp.jpg" sub="f/1.7 vs. f/4.0" >}} --- @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ the increase in clarity on the pillows fabric. At *f/2.8* and above I started noticing less increase in perceived sharpness of the image, though the difference in comparison to *f/1.7* was still fairly noticeable -{{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f17-f28-comp.jpg" >}} +{{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f17-f28-comp.jpg" sub="f/1.7 vs f/2.8" >}} --- @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ difference in shutter speed, the overall difference does not seem as dramatic from *f/2.8* to *f/4.0*. Personally, I'd say that *f/2.8* is the clear winner in finding the best middle-ground between maximum aperture and image quality. -{{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f28-f40-comp.jpg" >}} +{{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f28-f40-comp.jpg" sub="f/2.8 vs. f/4.0" >}} --- @@ -65,11 +65,11 @@ Below is the entire collection of all the photos taken of the subject at increasing aperture steps. {{< thumbgallery >}} - {{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f17.jpg" >}} - {{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f20.jpg" >}} - {{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f22.jpg" >}} - {{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f25.jpg" >}} - {{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f28.jpg" >}} - {{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f32.jpg" >}} - {{< thumb "/img/aperture-study/f40.jpg" >}} + {{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f17.jpg" sub="f/1.7" >}} + {{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f20.jpg" sub="f/2.0" >}} + {{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f22.jpg" sub="f/2.2" >}} + {{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f25.jpg" sub="f/2.5" >}} + {{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f28.jpg" sub="f/2.8" >}} + {{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f32.jpg" sub="f/3.2" >}} + {{< thumb src="/img/aperture-study/f40.jpg" sub="f/4.0" >}} {{< /thumbgallery >}} diff --git a/content/post/headphone-fix.md b/content/post/headphone-fix.md index 8f6ea24..e81efd1 100644 --- a/content/post/headphone-fix.md +++ b/content/post/headphone-fix.md @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ side, I figured the only way *in* was lifting the mesh cover off. So I went at it, carefully, with a pair of tweezers. I worked my way around the edge and wedged the mesh upwards. -{{< thumb "/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7505.jpg" >}} +{{< thumb src="/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7505.jpg" >}} # Okay, Maybe Turn It On @@ -29,10 +29,10 @@ right speaker put out no sound._ I checked the known-good left speaker using my **Rigol 1074Z** oscilloscope. This may not have been entirely necessary, but I wanted to find out what to expect when troubleshooting the right channel. - -{{< thumb "/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7506.jpg" >}} - -{{< thumb "/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7511.jpg" >}} +{{< thumbgallery >}} + {{< thumb src="/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7506.jpg" sub="Left Speaker" >}} + {{< thumb src="/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7511.jpg" sub="Right Speaker" >}} +{{< /thumbgallery >}} Knowing what to expect on the oscilloscope, I hooked up the probe to the right, problematic, speaker. The result was much different, indicating either noise or @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ disconnected at this point in time to ease the troubleshooting process. Lucky for me the PCB pads were labeled -- even better `SPKL+` (_left_) and `SPKR+` (_right_) were easy to find. -{{< thumb "/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7507.jpg" >}} +{{< thumb src="/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7507.jpg" >}} Outside of the bluetooth board hidden under the piece of tape, there's not a whole lot going on in the circuit. It was my guess that the visible surface @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ which verified that to be the case. 115_) to test continuity of the circuit from the known-good and the now known-bad speaker traces back to the `OUTL` and `OUTR` outputs of the amplifier. -{{< thumb "/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7514.jpg" >}} +{{< thumb src="/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7514.jpg" >}} Removing the board from the housing required a bit of finesse. I didn't want to bother desoldering the left speaker connections to make removal easier. So, with @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Using the 3.5mm mini-jack's solder pads, I found continuity to be true from the chips left and right outputs to the conveniently accessible solder pads. _A bodge wire was in order_.. -{{< thumb "/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7515.jpg" >}} +{{< thumb src="/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7515.jpg" sub="Note the bodge wire" >}} # All's Well That Ends Well @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ pin to `SPKR+`. Lo and behold it was now closed-circuit! I was very happy to see the expected waveform from the known-good left channel now also appearing on the right channel. -{{< thumb "/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7516.jpg" >}} +{{< thumb src="/img/headphone-fix/IMG_7516.jpg" >}} At this point I quickly re-soldered the wires to the speaker and enjoyed music now coming into both ears!