Neat pictures I've taken

[Griff]

Very cool.

[BigV]

Saw this one in Ballard a couple weeks ago. I don't really know what to make of it. Perhaps it's just simply true, it's not his faut.

WTF.

[Gravdigr]

Alls I know is, it ain't my faut.

[Gravdigr]

From a recent Photo Safari;

Thomas Freakin' Turkey:



When I uploaded that pic it took just a beat longer than usual to load. Then I thought "Aw, shit. The file is too big.", I remember seeing 200something kb. "I'll have to resize the pic."

Then it loaded. And then I remembered Undertoad upped the max file size, bless his pale underbelly.

I thank you.

[Gravdigr]

Anyone know why pictures w/green as the predominant color have larger file sizes?

Srs question.

[lumberjim]

I give up

[BigV]

the jpg compression isn't sensitive to color, but to complexity. your picture of the grass, if all blue or red or mauve would be the same size, but less complex (fewer different shades) pictures, green or otherwise would be compressed more.

there's a lot of green out there.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Playing with your picture.

[Happy Monkey]

I suspect the increase in size is when the image editor tries to preserve the JPG artifacts from the first conversion when resaving as another JPG.

As for the original question, I think humans can see more shades of green than any other color, so an image format super-optimized for the human eye might allocate more bits to green. I have no idea whether JPG does anything along those lines.

[Gravdigr]

Green is pretty much leaves, and/or grass. Do ya suppose all those textures/edges (for lack of a better word, edges of the leaves, edges of each blade of grass) make for a larger file?

[Happy Monkey]

Yes; that's what BigV was saying. I was offering an explanation for why Bruce's picture increased in size after changing the color. JPG compression artifacts add even more edges and complexity to the image, in a way that decreases the file size during the initial encoding. But when the file is loaded into an editor, all of those artifacts become data, and when saving it off as a JPG again, they are treated as real complexity, making the JPG encoding work harder. Another reason the file size increased may be differing JPG quality settings between the initial and secondary encodings.

My second note was more of an aside; I don't think JPG does it. But, much as an MP3 throws away information about sound that humans have trouble distinguishing, an advanced image format could theoretically throw away a bit of red and blue in favor of green, to match the human eye. If such a theoretical image were primarily green, it wouldn't be able to throw as much data away.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think you(and Big V) are on the right track. Saving from Photoshop as a medium or high quality look the same on my monitor. Probably because any detail lost wouldn't be noticeable in this picture. If it were a sharp finely detailed design, it would probably show.
I didn't think the variation in file size was significant except for the high quality Red & Blue, but the save quality choice is a slide bar from 0 to 12, so I might have fucked up sliding a hair further on that one.

[Gravdigr]

[Gravdigr]

Out the driver's side mirror:



That fence went on for quite a ways. It has barbed wire on the inside, to keep the critters off it, I suppose.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, without the wire they'll stick their heads through to get the grass that's greener on the other side. That fence won't take much chest pushing.