Mt. Waterman Jan. 3/09

S

ski-the-face

New member
ICE. the face was not skiable til around 12 and only wallbanger was worth it, but jacks run wasnt too bad. anything on robyns side an ice sheet. thank god for the new grooming equipment because two and three had great conditions if you stayed where it was groomed. nothing really great since half the face was ice. this is a good base though and you can bet i will be up there next significant snowfall, which in socal is anything over 4 in. it could take a while though since there are near record temperatures forcasted for mammoth (60s) which is bad news for socal resorts and next snowfall not for a few weeks. we will see how watermans north facing slopes do in the heat wave
 

Attachments

  • n633272561_1253392_2028.jpg
    n633272561_1253392_2028.jpg
    100.5 KB · Views: 2,705
  • n633272561_1253360_5814.jpg
    n633272561_1253360_5814.jpg
    86.3 KB · Views: 2,700
Size the pics down to 640x480. Windows Picture Manager (and I'm sure many other software options) will let you do this to a batch of pics. Occasionally you may have to reduce further for the 110KB limit (is that still there?). Along with the "place inline" feature loading pics to FTO is much less of a PITA than it used to be.

Report sounds as I expected. I will once again hope to find a time later in the season with more attractive conditions, but I will not likely ski local anywhere until mid-February.
 
I've been uploading some very large pics lately. I assumed that everyone could, but I just logged in via a test account that doesn't possess administrative rights and found that restrictions are in place for non-administrative users. That isn't very fair.

As a result, I've increased the image size restrictions to no larger than 1024 pixels on any one side (1024x768 is as large as most folks have for a screen resolution, anyway) and file size restriction is now increased to 200 KB. Getting a JPEG image of those dimensions under 200 KB is all about compression. I just did a sample file, and found by using 15% compression (or the corollary figure of 85% "quality," as some image editors call it) and I easily got a 1024x768 JPEG well under 200 KB with no appreciable loss in quality.

For image resizing and JPEG compression, I highly recommend the free FastStone Image Viewer software, available for download at http://www.faststone.org/ . That's what I used in the example above, and it created this:

IMG_9588.JPG


Click on the image above to see it full size. If you have browser image resizing enabled you'll need to click it again to see it in its original size.

Any large image will have a 640x480 "thumbnail" automatically created by the forums, to keep everything looking tidy here. Users can click on this 640x480 image to see the full-size image displayed in its resplendent glory.
 
increased the image size restrictions to..... 1024 pixels ....... and file size restriction is now increased to 200 KB.
Click to expand...

Yahoo! \:D/ I'll prob stick to 640x480 for now but no longer compress.

For image resizing and JPEG compression, I highly recommend the free FastStone Image Viewer software
Click to expand...

I second that. Takes a few minutes to find and play with it the first time or two, but super fast & efficient once you know where/what you want to do.
 
EMSC":2ggarbbt said:
For image resizing and JPEG compression, I highly recommend the free FastStone Image Viewer software
Click to expand...

I second that. Takes a few minutes to find and play with it the first time or two, but super fast & efficient once you know where/what you want to do.
Click to expand...


Does it work on macs?
 
It appears to be only for 32-bit and 64-bit flavors of Windows. However, a Mac's forté is image manipulation, so I'm confident that there's something native to a Mac that's perfect for the task. Not being a Mac owner, however, I don't know what that is. Perhaps a Mac user can offer advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top