Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tallmanirl, Jan 27, 2007.

  1. tallmanirl

    tallmanirl Guest

    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.
     
    tallmanirl, Jan 27, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tallmanirl

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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.
    >

    Well, a lot goes into that kind of relationship. First, and most
    significant, is the method of compression. Most formats used on the
    internet are compressed by one method or another. The most common are
    ..jpg and .gif. Both handle color well, but each has its limits, and
    good and bad points. Generally, whatever method is used, pictures are
    larger the more pixels they contain. By using .jpg compression, it is
    possible to compress the image to a small fraction of its original size
    while still retaining a satisfactory image.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.

    The relationship between the dimensions in pixels and the number of
    "megapixels" the image has. If you multiply the dimensions (Width x
    Height) you will get the number of pixels in the image. But the number
    will be rounded to achieve a mp number. Also the precise number of pixels
    in each mp is somewhat variable. In true binary terms megapixel would
    refer to a number that is a power of 2. This number would be not a simple
    power of 10 (such as 1000). So a true mp would be 1,048,576 pixels. But
    manufacturers who were more marketers than programmers tended to round it
    to a multiple of 1,000,000 pixels. So they would count anything from
    1,000,000 to 1,999,999 to be 1 mp. This isn't too much trouble at 1mp, but
    at some of the higher mp numbers you may have a binary number would be one
    mp in binary terms while the marketers would be rounding to the nearest
    millions place and placing a value one mp larger than true.

    Now as to the relationship between the number of pixels and the storage
    space needed is MUCH more complicated. When an image is stored it has not
    only the data from the individual pixels but also data that is (mostly)
    invisible to the person viewing the image. Then depending on the type of
    storage format as to how small the image data can be stored. Some (like
    RAW formats) can be very precise in storing an image in nearly the same
    space as any other image. But most formats try to do some form of
    compression to reduce the file size. Some are better than others and some
    are more precise than others. So different formats will store the same
    image in a different sized file. Then to complicate things some images
    compress differently with each file type and so which format will compress
    an image smallest may vary from image to image. For example, lets say that
    I am going to save an image but instead of saving the 3 color values for
    each pixel I instead save a table that as a color is encountered saves the
    3 values and referrences that combination to a single digit. So I have an
    image that is only black and white (no grey or color), I could have an
    entire image with each pixel being referrenced by a 1 (black) or a 2
    (white). If each pixel can be called 1 or 2 instead of 255,255,255 or
    0,0,0 this would save a large number of storage space. On the other hand
    if I use this same program to save an image that each and every pixel is a
    different color, you not only wouldn't save any space but the reference
    table would be as large as the original image data on top of the actual
    image data. roughly doubling the storage space. One other way an image
    could be compressed is if everytime there is a block of pixels is the same
    color, it could be stored as the color followed by how many repetes. So an
    image with many large areas of the same color could be stored very
    compactly (255,255,255 x 1268 takes up much less room than 255,255,255
    stored 1268 times). Of course none of the image formats currently in wide
    use are really this simple. Each one has very complex math in use to
    reduce the raw image data to a smaller space. But the two simple example
    will show how it is nearly impossible to predict the exact storage space
    needed for all images. Even knowing the format may not give you anything
    more than a general range of space requirements for the majority of
    images.

    If you want to see this at work, take your digital camera and take one
    photo, outside of a very busy scene with lots of different colors. Then
    take one with the same camera, with the same settings with the lens cap
    on, giving you an image that is all one color (black). If you use RAW
    format the two images should roughly be equal in size, but if you use
    almost any other format (such as JPG) the two image will have vastly
    different storage space requirements (the all black one will likely be
    TINY).

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
     
    Randy Berbaum, Jan 28, 2007
    #3
  4. 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.


    Take the pixel dimensions for each side, divide by 72, and that will be
    the image size on a typical computer monitor. This size will usually be
    too large to fit on a monitor, so some resizing will be in order. The
    key dimension when you do resize will be the number of pixels on each
    side. This should be lower than the number of pixels making up the
    monitor screen resolution - such as 1024 x 768.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Jan 28, 2007
    #4
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PeterH

    Pixels v Jpeg File Size v Print Size??

    PeterH, Jan 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    14,881
    Don Stauffer
    Jan 18, 2004
  2. News

    Image resolution and picture size (in pixels)

    News, Jun 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    414
  3. tallmanirl

    Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)

    tallmanirl, Jan 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,973
    Gary Eickmeier
    Jan 28, 2007
  4. tallmanirl

    Picture Size (Pixels & Kb)

    tallmanirl, Jan 27, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    937
    Ken Lucke
    Jan 29, 2007
  5. stu7

    pixels / pixel size / sensor size

    stu7, Apr 25, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    610
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Apr 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page