I don't understand :
if we considerate the value 00001111 (15) is a byte and a RGB pixel (220,180,155) it's 3 bytes whatever the values of the pixel.
so why when i reduce the values of my pixels (with bitshift operation or whatever) the size of
my image is not = pixel numbers x 3. when i say "pixel numbers" i mean "pixel numbers bigger than fully black".
how the mechanism works ? is it counted in bits and then divided by eight as an average ?
if i have a 3MB picture and i do a bitshift (factor 2 on each 3 RGB channel) i found a 300 KB picture.
Don't tell me 90% of my pixels turned fully black.
Thanks.
If you shift all the pixel values right by 2 places, you will have around 1/4 as many shades of red as before, and around 1/4 as many greens and likewise for blues. That means overall you will have vastly fewer colours. That means your image may well have fewer than 256 colours which means it can be palettised. It also means it is likely to compress better because there will be more repetition of fewer unique sequences.
You can check if your image is palettised in several ways:
open it with PIL and check if image.mode contains a P
run exiftool on it and check if Colour Type is Palette
run ImageMagick on it with magick identify -verbose YOURIMAGE
You can count the number of unique colours in your image with ImageMagick using:
magick identify -format %k YOURIMAGE
Or you can do it in Python with the last part (entitled "Update") of this answer.
I have an image with grayscale background and 2 thin lines (1 pixel wide) drawn in color. I'm trying to use various JPEG compression table (luminance and chrominance) to get the best possible result while staying under a certain file size.
The grayscale background compresses well and looks decent. The thin vertical and horizontal color lines get mutilated / smeared. The current JPEG algorithm uses 2x2 sub-sampling on the Cb and Cr channels and the chrominance compression table is fairly aggressive (high compression).
Is there any way to embed a "BMP" type data into JPEG image. Basically specify a color for specific pixels to be applied after the JPEG is de-compressed?
Any other ways clean up how thin color lines get encoded / decoded in JPEG without increasing the overall file size by a lot.
P.S. I'm testing all this stuff in Matlab.
As can be seen in this example, each channel (R, G, B) in a BMP file takes an input. A 24-bit BMP image has 8 bit for-R , 8-bit for G, and 8 bit for B. I saved an image in MS-paint as monochrome(black and white). Its property says the image's depth is 1-bit. The question is who gets this 1 bit: R , G or B? Is it not mandatory that all the three channels must get certain value? I am not able to understand how MS-Paint has drawn this BMP image using 1 bit.
Thanks in advance for your replies.
There's multiple ways to store a bitmap. In this case, the important distinction is RGB versus indexed.
In an RGB bitmap, every pixel is associated with three separate values, one for red, another for green, and another for blue. Depending on the "bitness" (bit depth) and the specific pixel format, the different colour channels can have different amount of bits allocated for them - the simplest case is the typical true-color with 8 bits for each of the channels, and another 8 bits (optional) for the alpha channel. However, some pixel formats allocate a bit differently - the idea is that the human eye has different sensitivity to each of those channels, and you can save up on space and improve visual quality by allocating the bits in a smarter way. For example, one of the more popular pixel formats is BGR-565 - that is, 16 bits total, 5 bits for blue, 6 bits for green and 5 bits for red.
In an indexed bitmap, the value stored with each of the pixels is an index (hence "indexed bitmap") into a palette (a colour table). The palette is usually a simple table of colours, using RGB "pixel" formats to assign each index with some specific colour. For example, index 0 might mean black, 1 might mean turqouise etc.
In this case, the bit-depth doesn't exactly map into colour quality - you're not trying to map the whole colour space, you're focusing on some subset of the possible colours instead. For example, if you have 256 shades of grey (say, from black to white), a true-colour bitmap would need at least three bytes per pixel (and each of those three bytes would have the same value), while you could use an indexed bitmap with a pallete of all the grey colours, requiring only one byte per pixel (plus the cost of the pallete - 256 * 3 bytes). There's a lot of benefits to using indexed bitmaps, and a lot of tricks to improve the visual quality further without using more bits-per-pixel, but that would be way beyond the scope of this question.
This also means that you only need as many possible values as you want to show. If you only need 16 different colours, you only need four bits per pixel. If you only need a monochromatic bitmap (that is, either a pixel is "on", or it's "off"), you only need one bit per pixel - and that's exactly your case. If you have the amount of distinct colours you need, you can easily get the required bit depth by taking a base-2 logarithm (e.g. log 256 = 8).
So let's say you have an image that only uses two colours - black and white. You'll build a pallete with two colours, black and white. And for each of the pixels in the bitmap, you either save 0 if it's black, or 1 if it's white.
Now, when you want to draw a bitmap like this, you simply read the palette (0 -> RGB(0, 0, 0), 1 -> RGB(1, 1, 1) in this case), and then you read one pixel after another. If the bit is zero, paint a black pixel. If it's one, paint a white pixel. Done :)
No, it depends on the type of data you chose to save as. Because you chose to save as monochrome, the RGB mapping is not used here, and the used mapping would go as a one byte per pixel, ranging from white to black.
Each type has its own mapping ways, saving as 24-bit will give you RGB mapping, saving as 256 will map a byte for each pixel, each value represents a color( you can find the table on the internet), as for monochrome, you'll have the same as a 256 bitmap, but the color table will only have white and black colors.
Sorry for the mistake, the way I explained for monochrome is actually used by Gray Scale, the monochrome uses one bit to indicate if the pixel is black or white, depending on the value of each bit, no mapping table is used.
I'd like to convert a VGA color (256 colors; 8 bit) to a RGB color on iOS.
Is it possible to compute this or do I have to use color tables (using CGColorSpaceCreateIndexed).
UIColor does not support 256 Colors.
Thanks :)
Somewhere, the title you're porting should have set the palette. On the VGA, the 256 colours are mapped through a table that the programmer has previously set to convert them into 18 bit RGB colour (at a uniform 6 bits per channel). If you're running the original title through emulation then watch for writes to ports 0x3c6, 0x3c8 and 0x3c9 or calls to the BIOS via int 10h, with ax = 0x1010 (to set a single colour) or 0x1012 (to set a range). If you have the original code, obviously look for the source of the palette table.
In drawing terms, you can keep the palette yourself, for example as a C-style array of 256 CGColorRefs, or use CGColorSpaceCreateIndexed as you suggest (ignore Apple's slight documentation error; the colour table can contain up to 256 entries, not up to 255) probably with a bitmap context to just pass your buffer off to CoreGraphics and forget about it.
I expect the remapping will be performed on the CPU, so if that gets a bit too costly then consider using GL ES 2.x and writing a suitable pixel shader — you'd upload your actual image as, say, a luminance (ie, single channel) texture, plus a 256x1 texture where the colour at each spot is a palette entry, then write a shader that reads from the first texture for the current texture coordinates and uses that value to index the second.
I 'd like to prepare my PNGs for the best optimization, so I can get the best image quality (lossless if possible) and the smallest size.
From what I understand, I should use: PNG, 72 dpi, RGB, but what else?
Here is what we find in the iPhone HIG:
Note:*The standard bit depth for icons and images is 24 bits (8 bits each for red, green, and blue), plus an 8-bit alpha channel. The PNG format is recommended, because it preserves color depth and supports an embedded alpha channel.
I guess this mean we should save the image as PNG 24 and create them in 8 bits mode? But I also read about 32 bits for best quality ?
The interlacing scheme (witch add to the file size) allows for the PNGs to display faster. Does this applies to the iPhone?
Thanks.
I suggest using ImageAlpha (lossy) on as many images as you can, because it greatly reduces their size.
Optimize all images with ImageOptim — it will remove all invisible junk and re-compress the data.
Disable Xcode conversion, because it undoes other optimisations and can make images much slower to load.
24 bit is red, green and blue with 8 bits each. 32 bits is RGB plus an 8-bit alpha channel. So if you need (semi-)transparent images, you should go for 32bit PNG, otherwise 24bit.
You don't have to compress/crush the PNGs yourself, Xcode's build steps will automatically use pngcrush and re-order the color channels for the iPhone's BGR memory alignment.
For my background app I am using JPEG (Export for web in photoshop) with quality 70.
Last day I heard about pngcrunch, tried it but file size is the same...
http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/
Take a look at this previous post :
Understanding 24 bit PNG generated with Photoshop