Rob Brigham wrote:
Yeah, but jpg doesn't record pixels like that. What you suggest could work with a bitmap, but a jpg is different. Don't ask me the techie details, but I think of it as recording a start position, colour value, then the number of adjacent pixels of that colour. So building up a picture means it is necessary to decode the whole file. Progressive jpgs obviously work a bit differently - perhaps recrding 2 images with alternate rows in each image, then interlacing them?
Anyways, what you say is not easy or perhaps even possible for a standard jpg...
-----Original Message-----
From: vr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 02 April 2004 11:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
John Francis wrote:
not to display some of the pixels if they were available,and there's
no reasonable way to get some of the pixels from an image without getting all of them (except, as noted, if it were aprogressive JPEG).
how is that? you can give an order to address and read every 4th pixel from file..
what do you think modern databases work like where ypou can get desired bits from huge file in seconds if the file is indexed??
though to be faster or more reasonable compared to readin everything the gap should not be every 4th pixel, but much wider..
i guess
viljar
