I've just returned from an afternoon ski trip to Mohawk Mtn ski area in Cornwall Connecticut. For anyone not familiar with this area, it is a small family oriented ski area in the northwest corner of the state. The mountain contains 23 trails with a 640' vertical drop. This might not sound like an interesting place, but there is quite alot of variety in the terrain such as short crusing runs and some narrow classic New England type trails. <BR> <BR>I started skiing at 1:00 pm and did non-stop laps on the mountain until 4:00pm. The snow conditions were loose granular with some spring conditions lower on the mountain. Crowds on the slopes and at lift areas were very light for a holiday week, and there was absolutly no natural snow in the surrounding area. Cover on the trails was adequate considering that they have not been able to make snow for the last week or so and endured several boughts of rainy weather. Lift tickets were $31 for a half day 12:30-6:00pm, I think a good value for the money. We drove up to Mohawk via I-684 and route 22 through Patterson New York. This is were Thunder Ridge ski area is located, for anyone interested the slopes were just about all the way back down to grass and a very distubing sight for January 1st!! This weather is really hurting the skiing in southern New York/ New England for this crucial holiday period. <BR> <BR><IMG SRC="http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/messages/8/3171.jpg" ALT="kevin at Mohawk Mtn">
Mohawk Mtn CT 1/1/04
- Thread starter Kevin
- Start date
Here is another picture of the mountain taken from the access road. <BR> <BR><IMG SRC="http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/messages/8/3172.jpg" ALT="mohawk Mtn"> <BR> <BR>The snowcover that they have should be enough to carry them through until they can make snow again early next week.
It's all in the JPEG compression. <BR> <BR>JPEG is a compressed image format. Kind of like a .zip file, the image is compressed to fit a smaller space. Of course, the greater the compression, the lesser the file quality along with the reduced file size. <BR> <BR>My guess is that you're leaving the compression at 0% (i.e., quality=100%) when you're sizing the picture down. Even a modest increase in compression results in a drastically reduced file size. My recommendation: go with a 40% compression (i.e. 60% quality) when saving an image for a copy to use on the web. Depending upon which image editing software you're using, it's probably behind an "options" button when the "Save as..." dialog box comes up. <BR> <BR>You'll be amazed...you could even fit a 640x480 image sometimes under 40 Kb at this compression rate, and most certainly something on the order of 320x240, which would be just about perfect for use here.
Dear Mark: <BR> <BR>Thanks for the technical info, my camera software has 3 compression settings, low, medium and high. <BR>The picture of Hunter West is with the low setting and seems to be the largest pic that I can manage right now and stay below 40kb. This will come in handy for my trip to Sugarloaf on the 11-16th. I don't have a laptop so posting will have to come after I return. Unfortunatly I deleted the pics of Mohawk from my camera after posting so I cannot share some larger images, sorry.