LinuxQuestions.org
LinuxAnswers - the LQ Linux tutorial section.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Mobile
User Name
Password
Linux - Mobile This forum is for the discussion of all topics relating to Mobile Linux. This includes Android, Tizen, LiMo, Maemo, MeeGo, Openmoko, Ubuntu Mobile, WebOS, Firefox OS, Open Mobile Alliance and other similar projects and products.
A reminder that LQ now has a dedicated Android sister site: AndroidQuestions.org

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-17-2013, 03:01 PM   #1
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 6,263

Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
Picture formats?


Samsung Galaxy Note on Android-4.1.2, a.k.a "Jelly bean" What an unattractive title.

What picture formats will it take? I copied on a .tif and a .png and it doesn't see one and won't open the other. .tif was pushing it, but png should surely be ok.
 
Old 08-17-2013, 03:53 PM   #2
Doc CPU
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Mint, Debian, Gentoo, Win 2k/XP
Posts: 999

Rep: Reputation: 294Reputation: 294Reputation: 294
Hi there,

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Samsung Galaxy Note on Android-4.1.2, a.k.a "Jelly bean" What an unattractive title.
yea, alright ... I agree that Jelly Bean sounds a bit awkward, has the connotation of "slick toad".

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
What picture formats will it take?
That question was a bit ambiguous. On first reading, I thought you were thinking about what image format the integrated camera would produce, but then I realized you probably tried to copy some image files to the device to see which it would display properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
I copied on a .tif and a .png and it doesn't see one and won't open the other. .tif was pushing it, but png should surely be ok.
Indeed, TIFF is a bit exotic. Even with desktop software that claims to "work with TIFF", it is a lucky game whether it will really work, because there are so many TIFF variants around. On the other hand, PNG is a very widespread standard, and I would expect any halfway recent appliance or software to display PNG images properly. If the Galaxy doesn't, did you face it with an exceptionally difficult task, like PNG with alpha-transparency or PNG in CMYK color space?

[X] Doc CPU
 
Old 08-18-2013, 08:09 AM   #3
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 6,263

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
Here, Jelly beans are cheap nasty sweets(candy in American) that are sold to children. They are loaded with sugar, and highly poisoned with poisonous colours (Azo dyes) to make kids hyperactive.

Dunno about the images. They are someone else's images with their own rgb built in.. The reason to use tiff is that you can get dot for dot whereas when you use a compressed format, dots are grouped. Looks like I'll have to go jpeg. But this is some sort of compressed tiff :-/.
 
Old 08-18-2013, 09:03 AM   #4
Doc CPU
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Mint, Debian, Gentoo, Win 2k/XP
Posts: 999

Rep: Reputation: 294Reputation: 294Reputation: 294
Hi there,

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Here, Jelly beans are cheap nasty sweets(candy in American) that are sold to children. They are loaded with sugar, and highly poisoned with poisonous colours (Azo dyes) to make kids hyperactive.
oh, I see. Like gum bears, but in different shapes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
The reason to use tiff is that you can get dot for dot whereas when you use a compressed format, dots are grouped.
Erm, yes ... why would that be a problem? I mean, image compression is okay for me as long as it still looks good.

After all, there are two different classes of image compression:

Lossless compression reduces the amount of data to be stored or transferred, but the original image data can be reconstructed precisely to the last bit from the compressed data, that is, the image data before and after compression is exactly identical. Both TIFF and PNG fall into this category. PNG achieves a compression factor of about 3..5 for photographs.

Lossy compression deliberately drops fine details to further improve the compression ratio: The more you choose to compress the data, the more quality you lose. JPEG is a typical example for that (or MPEG in video/audio). If you save an image as JPEG and then open it again, you can see that it has become blurred and/or frizzy around sharp edges, and smooth color gradients may get slightly terraced. At a decent quality, JPEG achieves a compression ratio of 10..30.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Looks like I'll have to go jpeg. But this is some sort of compressed tiff :-/.
Well, JPEG is a lossy compression (not a lousy one), TIFF uses a lossless one. Usually, photographs still look good as JPEG, if you don't push the compression ratio sky high.
If possible, I'd go for PNG.

[X] Doc CPU
 
Old 08-18-2013, 10:08 AM   #5
John VV
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 12,799

Rep: Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704
png's should not be a problem .However .tiff or .tif might
png's are what i use most often if it is NOT raw data or data that NEEDS to be in 16 bit or 32 bit
BUT some software might have a problem if the png is 16 bit/layer and not 8 bit/layer


A tif image can be a single layer 8 bit image or a 16 bit Unsigned lsb/msb or a 32 bit floating point single layer
or
a 3 layer 96 bit ( 3 32 bit layers)

mostly the tiff format is used for 32bit imaging data ( black and white images )
 
Old 08-18-2013, 01:07 PM   #6
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 6,263

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
Quote:
:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
The reason to use tiff is that you can get dot for dot whereas when you use a compressed format, dots are grouped.
Erm, yes ... why would that be a problem? I mean, image compression is okay for me as long as it still looks good.
THIS tiff definitely seems to have been subjected to lossy compression at some stage. Maybe the resolution is just poor. I spent a while in Digital Archiving, handling 500G discs full of 400-900MB images of ancient documents. I am suspicious of a tiff that should be 100MB+ but is only about 8MB. Even it's uncompressed size of 22MB is not inspiring. All this doesn't get me going.

PNG should work (usually) - Thanks for that. Mine does not.
Tiff - no.
I'll try a .gif, then mark this thread solved.
 
Old 08-18-2013, 02:16 PM   #7
John VV
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Posts: 12,799

Rep: Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704Reputation: 1704
seeing as you "copied" it
Are the file permissions correct ?

is it owned by you and in the users group ?

or


is it the newer "bigtiff" format ?
or a "GEOTiff" -- used by GIS software

or compressed using LZW , zip ,deflate, jpg, ccitffax4
stripped or tiled
single or pyramid

it might be the size of the image
slightly large images , say 25 meg + might not have thumbnails made
mind you my tiff images tend to be 4 GIG+

can you see a jpg or a windows bmp ( or the better ppm / pgm )

have you tried deleting the file extension and let the os figure out the image format
 
Old 08-18-2013, 02:21 PM   #8
Doc CPU
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Mint, Debian, Gentoo, Win 2k/XP
Posts: 999

Rep: Reputation: 294Reputation: 294Reputation: 294
Hi there,

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
I am suspicious of a tiff that should be 100MB+ but is only about 8MB. Even it's uncompressed size of 22MB is not inspiring.
then you must have huge images - huge in terms of resolution. 22MB sounds like roughly 7MPix, 24bit uncompressed; 100MB would be more than 30MPix. Okay, 15MPix at 48bit. What camera produces images like that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
I'll try a .gif, then mark this thread solved.
GIF won't satisfy you. It allows for only 256 colors or gray shades, and not more than 4096px of height and width.

[X] Doc CPU
 
Old 08-19-2013, 04:15 AM   #9
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 6,263

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
@JohnVV:
I copied it to the sdcard because bluetooth was acting up (too many suspends & no reboot) but it's cleared out now, so I can't check. I never had issues before with similar files.

I can get very little image data. Opening it in Gimp reveals basically nothing (Image/properties). No thumbnail. It has it's own rgb pallette. No specs at all. Ditto the png. File returns nothing. The best I get is with ImageMagick's 'identify' which tells me they're both 8 bit.

@Doc CPU: Modern Electronic archiving equipment uses sunlight bulbs and the most exotic camera sensors in existence. These
http://1641.tcd.ie (You can see a section of an old page in the opening screen) were imaged with older stuff, giving the 400-900MB images I mentioned. That was the project I was involved with. What you get to see on the site is jpegs. Tiffs are supplied as well as the jpegs. The tiffs are the archival copy, and jpegs are made & remade if needed from the tiffs. If the software was better, pngs would have been used. Some of the top cameras are up to (as of 5 years ago) 40k pixels on the sensor = 8000x5000, or something like that. Larger ones were coming. The pages were typically 45-60cm x 25-50cm. No such thing as A4 in 1641!

Thanks for the reminder on .gifs. that allows me to mark this solved.
 
Old 08-19-2013, 04:47 AM   #10
Doc CPU
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Distribution: Mint, Debian, Gentoo, Win 2k/XP
Posts: 999

Rep: Reputation: 294Reputation: 294Reputation: 294
Hi there,

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Modern Electronic archiving equipment uses sunlight bulbs and the most exotic camera sensors in existence. These http://1641.tcd.ie (You can see a section of an old page in the opening screen) were imaged with older stuff, ...
oh, I see, that's a very specialized thing. I was under the impression that we were talking about regular digital cameras, the kind that "everyone" has nowadays. Then I have to withdraw all I said about "huge" images, because I can't assess it due to lack of expert knowledge.

However, you could've given a hint on the kind of imaging you're dealing with in your opening post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by business_kid View Post
Some of the top cameras are up to (as of 5 years ago) 40k pixels on the sensor = 8000x5000, or something like that.
That's off by a factor of 1000. You obviously mean 40M pixels, and that's ... wow! :-)
Considering these image sizes, I second JohnVV's suggestion that it could be the sheer size (whether it's file size or number of pixels) which stops the Samsung device from displaying these images.

[X] Doc CPU
 
Old 08-19-2013, 06:13 AM   #11
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 6,263

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
I saw the sensor they use and it was bigger than a 35mm negative. Some crazy dpi. There's no point in me playing with a tif if it has been jpeg'ed at some stage. I can't get any real info on the pictures, which is annoying. Even ImageMagick's identify is very tight lipped. I have a jpg on the phone which serves my purpose, and I'll make another and put that beside it. I have a 16G external sdcard, so I can do that.

Thanks for all your help guys. I've marked this one solved. End of inquiries.

EDIT: BTW, I don't have that stuff on the phone, it's another source entirely, which it is outside forum rules to elaborate on. Not porn, either!

Last edited by business_kid; 08-19-2013 at 06:16 AM.
 
Old 08-19-2013, 10:06 AM   #12
business_kid
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 6,263

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539Reputation: 539
I created a superior png from the tif. ImageMagick even barfed on the conversion "Tags and labels are rubbish: ignoring them" but it made me something that displays, which is all that I need.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] glxgears, fgl_glxgears run, but no "picture" or "stagnant" picture almcneill Linux - Software 1 01-27-2013 12:45 AM
How do I make picture icons larger when selecting a picture file to open? Truepioneer Linux - Newbie 1 07-27-2011 09:26 AM
Which multimedia formats? jsteel Linux - General 6 01-26-2011 04:02 PM
why can't I get picture in picture on skype? radiodee1 Debian 1 05-20-2009 08:10 AM
How to with Restricted Formats leeh Ubuntu 2 01-30-2006 01:35 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:52 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration