.
ahem. number two image, the larger pic that was linked instead of incorporated in the post. i should have paused and rewritten to make that clearer, but at least I knew what i meant

------

and um... er... not to criticise harshly or anything, but.. uh..., er..., Rob, that first image displayed directly in the post is large enough to break our rule about taking it easy on the dial-up users puny bandwidth. although these images are bloody well worth the time [ i say this as a dial-upper ]. i mention it because i have specifically criticised other members for doing the same thing, and it would not be fair if i did not point this out, even to our serverpayerfor.
of course i share your high enthusiasm for this great rendering and would probably have been tempted to show it directly muhself. and speaking of high resolution images, is there anyway we can get that 2 meg one? it would be worth the download time even to this persnickety dialupper
.
.