Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)

On Jan 27, 6:40 pm, Ken Lucke wrote:
In article m, Justin

C wrote:
On 2007-01-27, Ken Lucke wrote:
In article . com,
tallmanirl wrote:

Hello everyone,
what is the relationship between the no. of pixels a picture has, it's
width and height and the Kb it takes up, esp. pix on the Web.

Zero.

Gotta say, Ken, you're, at least, concise!Well, it IS the correct answer for the question asked. There is NO
relationship between those things without many other factors being
specified.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

There IS a relationship if a file format with NO compression is used.
Many of the native file formats used by image editors do not
compress. Also, bmp does not use compression, so there is such a
relationship here. Basically, with no compression, there are three
words per pixel (depending on your definition of "word"- does a word
equal a byte? i.e., how many bits per word), plus a certain number of
words for the format header. I do not know how many words in a bmp
header (or for any of the editor native formats) but it is small
compared to the number of megabytes for the actual image data.

Toke Eskildsen wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
Well, it IS the correct answer for the question asked. There is
NO relationship between those things without many other factors
being specified.

So I can have a gigabyte pixel image on the web with zero bytes
size?

You're making a formal mistake here. While there might be no
relationship, you'll still have to obey the limitations of the chosen
image format.

Unless we get into the whole semi-philosophical debate about the empty
group satisfying any rules (sorry about the bad translation, english is
my second language), then all image formats takes up some bytes.


So your gigapixel image can be compressed to a single colored square,
specified as having the right dimensions and taking up a few bytes,
or it could be stored uncompress and taking up gigabytes. This would
satisfy the NO relationship clause.

Not too realistic, is it?

The problem is that it really _is_ realistic, if you only look at
megapixels. A single-colored square at gigapixel size would likely be
compressed down to a few KB using PNG (or TIFF LZW or GIF or...).

So we can't say anything, unless we have an idea of the nature of the
original image and the expected quality.

For a post about about which we can't say anything, an awful lot of
posters are making the attempt. Why do have to go on and on with posts
of this type. A simple one thread reply of insufficient parameters
specified would have sufficed.
Dave Cohen

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:00:47 -0800, Ken Lucke
wrote:

In article . com,
tallmanirl wrote:

Hello everyone,
what is the relationship between the no. of pixels a picture has, it's
width and height and the Kb it takes up, esp. pix on the Web.

Thanks,

Fergal.


Zero.

WOW so verbose a response and so helpful for the poster too

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Justin C wrote:
On 2007-01-27, Ken Lucke wrote:
In article . com,
tallmanirl wrote:

Hello everyone,
what is the relationship between the no. of pixels a picture has, it's
width and height and the Kb it takes up, esp. pix on the Web.
Zero.

Gotta say, Ken, you're, at least, concise!

Justin.

but concisely wrong...

Really?

Then can you tell me what the relationship is between how many pixels a
picture has and its height & width, with simply that question asked,
without information on aspect ratio and dpi/ppi?

How about how many KB it takes up from its number of pixels, given the
information in the original question doesn't tell you what kind of file
format, what compression level setting, or the actual picture
information (which is highly critical in the amount of compression that
can be achieved at various "compression settings")?

How about the relationship between the height & width and the number of
KB it takes up, given the information offered lacks any other reference
points?


Oh. sorry, then I must have been wrong in saying that there was zero
relationship between those things.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article m, Justin
C wrote:

On 2007-01-27, Ken Lucke wrote:
In article . com,
tallmanirl wrote:

Hello everyone,
what is the relationship between the no. of pixels a picture has, it's
width and height and the Kb it takes up, esp. pix on the Web.
Zero.
Gotta say, Ken, you're, at least, concise!



Well, it IS the correct answer for the question asked. There is NO
relationship between those things without many other factors being
specified.

So I can have a gigabyte pixel image on the web with zero bytes size?
Not too realistic, is it?

No, but you can't have a relationship described without all the factors
necessary for that relationship being known. The OP asked a question
that had no more possibility of being accurately ansered than the
question "how much blue do I need?" - which is zero posibibility.
Hence the annswer "zero".

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article A14vh.1335$li4.1050@trndny08, Dave Cohen
wrote:

Toke Eskildsen wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
Well, it IS the correct answer for the question asked. There is
NO relationship between those things without many other factors
being specified.

So I can have a gigabyte pixel image on the web with zero bytes
size?

You're making a formal mistake here. While there might be no
relationship, you'll still have to obey the limitations of the chosen
image format.

Unless we get into the whole semi-philosophical debate about the empty
group satisfying any rules (sorry about the bad translation, english is
my second language), then all image formats takes up some bytes.


So your gigapixel image can be compressed to a single colored square,
specified as having the right dimensions and taking up a few bytes,
or it could be stored uncompress and taking up gigabytes. This would
satisfy the NO relationship clause.

Not too realistic, is it?

The problem is that it really _is_ realistic, if you only look at
megapixels. A single-colored square at gigapixel size would likely be
compressed down to a few KB using PNG (or TIFF LZW or GIF or...).

So we can't say anything, unless we have an idea of the nature of the
original image and the expected quality.

For a post about about which we can't say anything, an awful lot of
posters are making the attempt. Why do have to go on and on with posts
of this type. A simple one thread reply of insufficient parameters
specified would have sufficed.
Dave Cohen

Which was what my original "zero" response did - it indicated that
there was no way of establishing any relationship between those things
without further data. Others have blown out the context and tried to
make it some sort of an issue - it's not. It is simply impossible to
answer the original, badly phrased and horribly under-data'd question
as it stood.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article , Toke
Eskildsen wrote:

Justin C wrote:

Gotta say, Ken, you're, at least, concise!

And right...

174MP, 523MB: http://ekot.dk/misc/filesize/174MP.tif (photo)
174MP, 136MB: http://ekot.dk/misc/filesize/174MP.png (same photo)
174MP, 20MB: http://ekot.dk/misc/filesize/174MP.jpg (same photo)
174MP, 1MB: http://ekot.dk/misc/filesize/174MP_Q1.jpg (same photo)
174MP, 21KB: http://ekot.dk/misc/filesize/174MP_blank.png (blank)

Exactly my point, despite others' digression from the actual question
asked.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article . com, Don
Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:

On Jan 27, 6:40 pm, Ken Lucke wrote:
In article m, Justin

C wrote:
On 2007-01-27, Ken Lucke wrote:
In article . com,
tallmanirl wrote:

Hello everyone,
what is the relationship between the no. of pixels a picture has, it's
width and height and the Kb it takes up, esp. pix on the Web.

Zero.

Gotta say, Ken, you're, at least, concise!Well, it IS the correct answer
for the question asked. There is NO
relationship between those things without many other factors being
specified.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

There IS a relationship if a file format with NO compression is used.
Many of the native file formats used by image editors do not
compress.

Can you tell the relationship of height to width from that, as asked in
the original question? Especially in the absence of dpi/ppi data?

Also, bmp does not use compression, so there is such a
relationship here. Basically, with no compression, there are three
words per pixel (depending on your definition of "word"- does a word
equal a byte? i.e., how many bits per word), plus a certain number of
words for the format header. I do not know how many words in a bmp
header (or for any of the editor native formats) but it is small
compared to the number of megabytes for the actual image data.

Which still does nothing to actually answer the original question
without needing further data.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

In article , Ken Lucke
wrote:
Can you tell the relationship of height to width from that, as asked in
the original question? Especially in the absence of dpi/ppi data?


Er, that should read "Can you tell the height & width from that..."

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

On Jan 28, 3:21 am, Ron Hunter wrote:
So I can have a gigabyte pixel image on the web with zero bytes size?

Only on PBase.