Heavenly, Dec. 16- 18, 2012

[johnnash]

Wife Sarah and I skied Heavenly Dec 16- 18. First 2 days were stormy, with several lifts shut down (Sky, Dipper much of the time, sometimes Tamarack and Canyon), but surface conditions were superb. Even in deep mogul troughs, you never hit any left-over crud from the rain a couple of weeks ago, and runs that had a man-made base were surfaced with nice natural powder. However, off piste – and even in a few places on piste – you needed to watch where were going, as there are still some small rocks sticking out above the snow or barely under the surface. And some runs are still not open, notably Gunbarrel and other runs low on the California side. Monday they opened Mott’s Canyon. You’ll never see me in there (or if you do, please take a picture and pass it to my next of kin ), but a fellow we met was in line when it opened and was very happy with the conditions. Our last day (Tuesday), started as a bluebird day, and that’s when all the pix were taken. After lunch, another storm blew in and we had to leave early, since we were afraid we might not be able to make it on the roads if their condition deteriorated further. In the event, we almost got stuck in one place, but escaped and made it to Reno for the night. Today, home to DC.

 

[SoCal Rider]

Can we see bigger versions? That last one, especially.

 

[johnnash]

I'd be happy to upload larger images, but the original images are too big (FTOL limit is 200KB), and I've tried several times to re-size them, and this small one is the only size that seems to be under the limit. Part of the problem is that my re-sizing software (Windows Live Photo Gallery) specifies sizes as pixel dimensions, so it's only by trial and error that I see how that translates into KB. I know this problem has come up before and Admin has a fix, so maybe he can give me the thread or otherwise school me.

 

[Admin]

Faststone image viewer:

http://www.faststone.org

Easy and free.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

 

[johnnash]

Sorry this took so long, but I was tied up with other stuff after the trip. Here are the pix re-sized, if anyone is interested. Of course, in terms of seeing the conditions, these pix have been OBE, as it were, since Tahoe has gotten multiple feet since Dec. 18.


BTW, I did download and used Admin's Faststone photo re-sizer and editor, and I agree it is easy, fast, and intuitive. Have to say, though, that it still has the same issue as Windows's Photo Gallery -- when it re-sizes, you have to specify size in pixel dimensions (or % of the original pixel dimensions), whereas FTOL's limit is in file size (200 KB). So, to re-size for FTOL still requires some trial and error. My suggestion for Admin would be to re-write the FTOL error (''too large'') message, so when it tells you the max size is 200 KB, it includes some illustrative numbers indicating what that means in terms of pixel dimensions.

 

[Admin]

BTW, I did download and used Admin's Faststone photo re-sizer and editor, and I agree it is easy, fast, and intuitive. Have to say, though, that it still has the same issue as Windows's Photo Gallery -- when it re-sizes, you have to specify size in pixel dimensions (or % of the original pixel dimensions), whereas FTOL's limit is in file size (200 KB). So, to re-size for FTOL still requires some trial and error.

The FTO size limit is 1024px on its largest size *and* 200 KB. So, with Faststone, use CTRL-R to resize to 1024px and then in the "Save" dialog box use the "Option" button/slider to get it under 200 KB. Easy peasy. A few seconds per image.

These two limits are in place because:
1. For file dimensions, a larger image simply breaks the forum appearance -- you'd be scrolling left and right just to see the whole thing; and
2. For file size, unnecessarily large images simply take up too much disk space on the server.
It's just a matter of practicality.

My suggestion for Admin would be to re-write the FTOL error (''too large'') message, so when it tells you the max size is 200 KB, it includes some illustrative numbers indicating what that means in terms of pixel dimensions.

I'm not sure that you're fully grasping this, for those two properties are actually not necessarily related. You can always get the dimensions to 1024px *and* the file size under 200 KB using JPEG compression via the technique mentioned above. All JPEG images are compressed to some degree -- that's the nature of a JPEG, as opposed to other image formats like RAW. The greater the compression, the more detail and image quality you lose. How much compression you need to get the file size <200 KB, however, varies depending on the image -- a brighter or "busier" image (i.e., one with lots of trees or other detail) is always a larger file size than a darker or "less busy" image (i.e., one taken on a snowy or foggy day). For ski shots I typically find that something around 80% quality/20% compression usually gets me around 200 KB.

The ultimate solution would be to have a process run on the server to automatically resize uploaded images to below FTO's limits, but I have yet to find a plug-in for the forum software that does that dependably and effectively.

 

[Marc_C]

2. For file size, unnecessarily large images simply take up too much disk space on the server.

True, but in 2012, 200kb is unrealistically low. 3-5MB is closer to reality.
Here's $45 - go buy another terrabyte drive. :wink:

 

[Admin]

2. For file size, unnecessarily large images simply take up too much disk space on the server.

True, but in 2012, 200kb is unrealistically low. 3-5MB is closer to reality.
Here's $45 - go buy another terrabyte drive. :wink:

Well, I'm open to suggestions on file size but not dimensions. What's the community consensus on what is reasonable? It's admittedly been 200 KB for a long time.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

 

[Marc_C]

2. For file size, unnecessarily large images simply take up too much disk space on the server.

True, but in 2012, 200kb is unrealistically low. 3-5MB is closer to reality.
Here's $45 - go buy another terrabyte drive. :wink:

Well, I'm open to suggestions on file size but not dimensions. What's the community consensus on what is reasonable? It's admittedly been 200 KB for a long time.

Sent from my Samsung Slab-o-glass using Crapatalk 2

I agree about long dimension. I've seen too many fora where the sidewalls of a thread get blown out because someone posts a 2600x1980 image.

Do you have access to the forum software? All it would take is a height and width tweak in the img src html tag.

 

[Admin]

Do you have access to the forum software? All it would take is a height and width tweak in the img src html tag.

I actually have far more control over that than you would think.


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

 

[EMSC]

Well, I'm open to suggestions on file size but not dimensions. What's the community consensus on what is reasonable? It's admittedly been 200 KB for a long time.

At least 400KB, maybe even 500KB would be a good place to start. I've noted that my re-sizings before looking at the level of compression are frequently well over 300KB. And while easy to deal with, it still adds a layer of processing for each image which, over time, does get to be a bit of a PITA.

For me personally, I think 400KB would leave only a very rare or occasional image needing adjustment from doing the basic re-sizing task.

 

[johnnash]

For what it's worth, the 3 pix of Heavenly, which I took with my Blackberry, ranged from 500 - 950 KB. I suspect that if the limit could be raised to 1 MB, most pix could be posted without re-sizing. Maybe that's not feasible, but memory these days is pretty cheap....