but they're so beautifully crisp and tiny (when used right)what are you viewing with, what can't read them?
JPG version here for you: www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/46786/1190038494/WheatChaffJPG.jpg
(JPG version here for you: www2.b3ta.com/host/creative/46786/1190038494/WheatChaffJPG.jpg
HappyToast Groat froth,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:15,
archived)
Because JPEGs are more heavily compressed than other image formats, their information is more volatile and likely to expand at high speed through an unchecked buffer, poorly allocated resource or any other available system space. I'd guess you're probably losing image data through one of these means.
You see, when you load a JPEG into memory, the EXtra colour Information Format (EXIF) header is loaded into RAM in order to prepare the video prebuffer for the incoming high-speed flow of colour information from the uncorked JPEG. If your bus isn't ready for this information, the rapidly decompressing file information can flow through other parts of your system.
Ordinarily this isn't a problem: as a matter of fact, JPEG was designed for this sort of thing. Older computers couldn't handle the explosive power behind the fledgeling image decompression algorithm, so rather than fight it, image experts invented the Jampacked Picture Extraction and Gathering (JPEG) protocol. They cleverly decided to allow the image data to spray wherever it would, knowing that after the extraction phase would send raw data all over the inside of the computer, the gathering phase would locate it all and reassemble it into an image. With the advent of faster computers the delay between spray and collection is so small as to be unnoticeable, while newer and bigger video cards are more capable of withstanding the onslaught of colours.
Still, the primary weakness of this algorithm is the haphazard placement of decompressed data. There's just too much of it to channel through normal means, so any loss of data containment results in corrupted images. In your case, it would appear that you're losing image data through the empty hole where your goddamned shift key should be.
(,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:17,
archived)
You see, when you load a JPEG into memory, the EXtra colour Information Format (EXIF) header is loaded into RAM in order to prepare the video prebuffer for the incoming high-speed flow of colour information from the uncorked JPEG. If your bus isn't ready for this information, the rapidly decompressing file information can flow through other parts of your system.
Ordinarily this isn't a problem: as a matter of fact, JPEG was designed for this sort of thing. Older computers couldn't handle the explosive power behind the fledgeling image decompression algorithm, so rather than fight it, image experts invented the Jampacked Picture Extraction and Gathering (JPEG) protocol. They cleverly decided to allow the image data to spray wherever it would, knowing that after the extraction phase would send raw data all over the inside of the computer, the gathering phase would locate it all and reassemble it into an image. With the advent of faster computers the delay between spray and collection is so small as to be unnoticeable, while newer and bigger video cards are more capable of withstanding the onslaught of colours.
Still, the primary weakness of this algorithm is the haphazard placement of decompressed data. There's just too much of it to channel through normal means, so any loss of data containment results in corrupted images. In your case, it would appear that you're losing image data through the empty hole where your goddamned shift key should be.
Aaaaargh!Words!!! One eleventy!
*eyes glaze over*
*goes to sleep*
(*eyes glaze over*
*goes to sleep*
b3th Not shit. Not mod.,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:18,
archived)
critted by wall of text
DLT's Musical Bonanza is totting up the p,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:19,
archived)
I lolled!shift key.
( Heffrey wants to show you his wood at SmileMoon.etsy.com,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:23,
archived)
indeedIt's better to read it from the bottom up
(
Your watch is BACK,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:24,
archived)
so basicallyjpg = good
png = bad
(png = bad
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:25,
archived)
Png should be used for my car pictures only
davew27 hevosen kuva!,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:45,
archived)
Dave?Oh, it IS Dave. Carry on...
( Heffrey wants to show you his wood at SmileMoon.etsy.com,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:54,
archived)
ha, nice work Fanjwhereabouts in Texas are you?
(
Wasp Box like a nervous random stranger at a glory hole,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:29,
archived)
the real poop?JPEG Joint Photographic Experts Group. The international consortium of hardware, software, and publishing interests that, under the auspices of the ISO, has defined a universal standard for digital compression and decompression of still images for use in computer systems. JPEG compresses at about a 20:1 ratio before visible image degradation occurs. It is lossy data compression standard that was originally designed for still images but can also compress real-time video (30 frames per second) and animation. Lossy compression permanently discards unnecessary data, resulting in some loss of precision.
(
tubaman,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 16:24,
archived)
Viewing through work's webfiltersand most online image editors don't seem to be able to handle png files.
I can see them if the host isn't blocked. But the b3ta hosting is blocked.
(I can see them if the host isn't blocked. But the b3ta hosting is blocked.
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Mon 17 Sep 2007, 15:24,
archived)