To be more accurate, the dithering was more specific to animated gifs and not static pictures. Unless you go back really far… I remember finding porn on 5 inch floppies my dad had in his closet and even the non-animated images were black & white and dithered to hell. Though I am pretty sure he didn’t obtain those off the internet.
Depends on what you consider readable, but I got it down to 2842 bytes by downscaling it and using an absolutely atrocious quality setting:
That’s just small enough to fit inside a QR code, so I did that! (You probably can’t scan it with a typical QR reader; you need something like zbar that supports reading binary data).
You’re fun. That may sound sarcastic, but I’m being serious lol. Learned a lot in just two comments and you just seem very cheerful writing it all/messing with this.
in a different timeline where the GIF89 specification would not have been mostly ignored, it would have been possible to go even smaller.
“The GIF89 specification allows you to specify text captions to be overlayed on the following image. This feature never took off; browsers and image-processing applications such as Photoshop ignore it”
Meaning if your gif viewing client supports full GIF89 then you could just display the text over a 1x1 pixel image, shrinking the file size down to something in the range of < 100bytes.
43KiB, though obviously a chunk of that is from the colors of the jpg Professor.
EDIT: I just noticed webp messes with colors around the edges too (which would matter more if I cut the resolution in half or so). The original .png (what I actually uploaded) doesn’t at 51.6KiB.
Also obviously this would be less data in non-pixel format (well, it’d likely be eaten up by overhead for packaging, though after that it would allow tons of art for negligible data cost). Would be smaller as an svg for example (or an swf).
Excuse me, I forgot the text. Wouldn’t be fair without all that entropy. To make up for it, I turned on chroma subsampling. This one is 39 KiB.
To be more accurate, the dithering was more specific to animated gifs and not static pictures. Unless you go back really far… I remember finding porn on 5 inch floppies my dad had in his closet and even the non-animated images were black & white and dithered to hell. Though I am pretty sure he didn’t obtain those off the internet.
Dithered Street Fighter porn?
how small can u get this with the text still readable?
Depends on what you consider readable, but I got it down to 2842 bytes by downscaling it and using an absolutely atrocious quality setting:
That’s just small enough to fit inside a QR code, so I did that! (You probably can’t scan it with a typical QR reader; you need something like zbar that supports reading binary data).
You’re fun. That may sound sarcastic, but I’m being serious lol. Learned a lot in just two comments and you just seem very cheerful writing it all/messing with this.
nice :D
in a different timeline where the GIF89 specification would not have been mostly ignored, it would have been possible to go even smaller.
“The GIF89 specification allows you to specify text captions to be overlayed on the following image. This feature never took off; browsers and image-processing applications such as Photoshop ignore it”
Meaning if your gif viewing client supports full GIF89 then you could just display the text over a 1x1 pixel image, shrinking the file size down to something in the range of < 100bytes.
In that vein, I’d be interested to see if someone could Inkscape it into an SVG with embedded text.
Though I have no idea how many vectors would be needed to make the image similar enough.
The SVG send me down a rabid hole, apparently SVG embedded text is actually selectable and all, this is basically what gif tryed to do and failed lol
but sadly lemmy dosent seem to let upload .svg :/
At that point you might as well just send it as text.
But the artifacts!
could you get it small enough to fit in a data uri so phone qr scanners will read it?
Unfortunately most QR readers don’t recognize an image regardless of the data format.
but maybe they could open it in a browser which could display it
43KiB, though obviously a chunk of that is from the colors of the jpg Professor.
EDIT: I just noticed webp messes with colors around the edges too (which would matter more if I cut the resolution in half or so). The original .png (what I actually uploaded) doesn’t at 51.6KiB.
Also obviously this would be less data in non-pixel format (well, it’d likely be eaten up by overhead for packaging, though after that it would allow tons of art for negligible data cost). Would be smaller as an svg for example (or an swf).
Dithering is much older than jpeg.
They used dithering in printed media, so it was transfered to digital media as a way to save on color depth, before jpeg got invented.
_