If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)
Ken Lucke wrote:
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. To say there is zero relationship between those factors certainly is wrong. But isn't that what I said? Concise, but wrong. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)
Ken Lucke wrote:
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. It is not that there IS no relationship between the factors, but that the relationship, although present, depends on other factors. In normal cases, the more pixels an image has, the larger the file that results, whether or not the file is compressed, and without regard to compression method, or subject matter, or file format. There are special cases where this relationship will not be as expected, but it exists, in the vast majority of cases, so the relationship is hardly zero, only difficult to define precisely. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)
Ken Lucke wrote:
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". In the vast majority of cases, there does exist a direct relationship to the number of pixels, and file size, and the width and height of a picture, when displayed. Other factors intervene, but I don't believe the OP was interested in special cases, or exceptions, but rather the way in which these factors affect the relationship. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)
Ron Hunter wrote:
It is not that there IS no relationship between the factors, but that the relationship, although present, depends on other factors. Which means that there is no relationship, when we only look at the original factors. You're speaking beyond the stated premise, which is a good thing - it educates and if you're lucky, you might even hit whatever the original poster wanted to know, but didn't have the knowledge to formulate. But it does not make the zero answer wrong. It might have been more forthcoming though, such as "It depends on a lot of factors, such as x, y and z". -- Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)
In article , Toke
Eskildsen wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: It is not that there IS no relationship between the factors, but that the relationship, although present, depends on other factors. Which means that there is no relationship, when we only look at the original factors. [realizing you are not actually responiding to me in this article] Which is precisely true... there are MANY things in life that have zero relationship - until you add one or more additional factors. You're speaking beyond the stated premise, which is a good thing - it educates and if you're lucky, you might even hit whatever the original poster wanted to know, but didn't have the knowledge to formulate. But it does not make the zero answer wrong. Thank you. :^) It might have been more forthcoming though, such as "It depends on a lot of factors, such as x, y and z". You are right in that respect, but my point was to attempt to make the OP actually *think* about his question and WHY that particular answer was given (and correct). -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Picture Size (Pixels & Kb) | tallmanirl | Digital Photography | 3 | January 28th 07 08:21 PM |
Picture Size (Pixels & Kb) | tallmanirl | Digital Photography | 2 | January 28th 07 08:13 PM |
mega pixels, file size, image size, and print size - Adobe Evangelists | Frank ess | Digital Photography | 0 | November 14th 06 05:08 PM |
Pixels and sensor size - a new angle.. | John Ortt | Digital Photography | 6 | September 5th 06 02:45 PM |
can one print at actual pixels size? | nobody nowhere | Digital Photography | 97 | July 6th 04 10:54 AM |