The biggest fucking image (almost) that I have ever encountered
is located here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg
It measures 30,000 X 17,000 pixels.
Holy fuck!
But on my GNU/Linux system, every image viewer that I've tried
(GIMP, xzgv, geeqie) was able to quickly load and display this
gigantic image without problem.
I have posted a very small detail here:
https://i.postimg.cc/jCVybxYG/cut.png
Yeah. It's fucking cracked. What the fuck do you expect?
It was painted on wood with oils about 600 years ago.
But I wonder how Microslop Winblows would fare. I would bet
that junk system would choke, crash, and burn. After all,
that's what it does best.
On 2/21/2025 2:50 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
The biggest fucking image (almost) that I have ever encountered
is located here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg
It measures 30,000 X 17,000 pixels.
incorrect. Your GuhNoo crapware is faulty, as usual.
I downloaded it with wget.
size on disk: 233,684,992 bytes.
width: 30000 pixels
height: 17078 pixels
unique colors: 771607 (irfanview)
Its fine in Safari Browser on MacOS. No fancy image viewer needed. Zoom in, scroll up/down and left/right.
I have, using the phenomenal GNU/Linux image tools, converted
a detail from color to grayscale using the bt709 algorithm.
Here is the result:
https://i.postimg.cc/YM2dQpDW/gray.png
Try that with that junk known as Microslop Winblows.
On 2/21/2025 5:52 PM, Lameass Larry wrote:
I have, using the phenomenal GNU/Linux image tools, converted
a detail from color to grayscale using the bt709 algorithm.
Here is the result:
https://i.postimg.cc/YM2dQpDW/gray.png
Try that with that junk known as Microslop Winblows.
Sure thing.
https://imgur.com/a/b6SgFIu
top pic : via python PIL library (3 lines of code)grayscale
middle pic: via the superior Windows-only irfanview
bottom pic: original 200% color enlargement
Big deal.
Using a simpleton bash script, you converted a color image to
- alert the media! Why none of your "extraordinary" C programming?
Year after year you do something very trivial and ignorantly /
dishonestly claim it can't be done on Windows.
wtf lameass? Get a new schtick.
Linux, loneliness and testosterone really is a bad mix.
No brains.
On 2/21/2025 2:50 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
The biggest fucking image (almost) that I have ever encountered
is located here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/
The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg
It measures 30,000 X 17,000 pixels.
incorrect. Your GuhNoo crapware is faulty, as usual.
I downloaded it with wget.
size on disk: 233,684,992 bytes.
width: 30000 pixels
height: 17078 pixels
unique colors: 771607 (irfanview)
For 'unique colors', I'd not ever thought about that metric; I'll have
to see if my existing imaging tools support it, or go get irfanview to
give it a try that way.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 07:09:05 -0500, -hh wrote:
For 'unique colors', I'd not ever thought about that metric; I'll have
to see if my existing imaging tools support it, or go get irfanview to
give it a try that way.
Irfanview?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Irfanview is another ripoff. It uses FOSS libraries exclusively
for all of its functionality. It's just another Winblows wrapper
around open source tools.
But, of course, the Winblows crowd, being the stupefied dumb fucks
that they are, could not discern yet another brazen theft from the
FOSS community.
Check out the following which concerns my fave video editor
avidemux:
http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/news.html#2020-12-24
Fucking leachers should be burned at the stake.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:11:42 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Its fine in Safari Browser on MacOS. No fancy image viewer needed. Zoom in, >> scroll up/down and left/right.
Can you cut out a piece as I have done?
The video/image/audio editing tools on Macs are
the best in the world. People are editing entire movies/TV shows on Macs.
"Huge Image!" indeed. Only "huge" to you,
Your $500 Intel-powered space heater on your shelf is nowhere near State Of The Art.
"Farley Flud" <[email protected]> wrote:
Can you cut out a piece as I have done?
Are you high or something? The video/image/audio editing tools on Macs are >the best in the world. People are editing entire movies/TV shows on Macs. If >you think this piddly little 200MB picture is going to choke a Mac, then you >ARE high.
"Huge Image!" indeed. Only "huge" to you, as your antique spinning hard drives >grind away to load it up.
Your $500 Intel-powered space heater on your shelf is nowhere near State Of >The Art. It might have been, 25 years ago. But now it is laughable.
In article <pan$752b7$6447916$89686fac
$[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 07:09:05 -0500, -hh wrote:
For 'unique colors', I'd not ever thought about that metric; I'll have
to see if my existing imaging tools support it, or go get irfanview to
give it a try that way.
Irfanview?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Irfanview is another ripoff. It uses FOSS libraries exclusively
for all of its functionality. It's just another Winblows wrapper
around open source tools.
But, of course, the Winblows crowd, being the stupefied dumb fucks
that they are, could not discern yet another brazen theft from the
FOSS community.
Check out the following which concerns my fave video editor
avidemux:
http://fixounet.free.fr/avidemux/news.html#2020-12-24
Fucking leachers should be burned at the stake.
Have you considered getting anger management treatment?
The "Huge!" part got me looking at a Kodachrome slide scan I'd done:
size: 1,208,386,573 bytes (1.21 GB on disk)
width: 11551
height: 17433
unique colors: {no idea}
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 07:09:05 -0500, -hh wrote:
The "Huge!" part got me looking at a Kodachrome slide scan I'd done:
size: 1,208,386,573 bytes (1.21 GB on disk)
width: 11551
height: 17433
unique colors: {no idea}
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You actually invoked a bloated FOSS ripoff
just to produce that paltry bit of information?
There are simple tools that can produce much better
info.
Below is the output ...
That's how the pros do it.
On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 18:28:13 +0000, Tyrone wrote:
Tyrone is a weird fuck. Physical ugliness will do that to a person.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Nope. 30K x 70K is indeed a huge image. Outside of scientific circles
such sizes are extremely uncommon.
On Feb 22, 2025 at 4:26:07 PM EST, "Farley Flud" <[email protected]> wrote:
Nope. 30K x 70K is indeed a huge image. Outside of scientific circles
such sizes are extremely uncommon.
It might have been "huge" 20 years ago. Today it is nothing. One could edit this picture on a phone today.
Which is the whole point. You claiming this pic is some sort of "test" for ANY modern computer is absurd. That your pile of shit on a shelf handles it is
proof enough.
I have easily edited this even on my 11 year old Mac mini. It has a crappy Intel i5 quad core CPU and 8GB of RAM. No problems at all. Naturally, my 8 year old Windows 10 laptop also works fine. It is an i7 hyperthreaded 4 core with 16GB RAM.
So, of COURSE this modern Mac can handle it. If this was 25 years ago and I had a Pentium 4 with 128 MB RAM and 256K of video RAM, this would be a "huge file".
Again, you are truly clueless. But at least you are consistent. You know nothing about every topic you pontificate about.
I see you totally ignored being busted about still being in COLA. You didn't even bother to add your "new group" this time. Typical kiddie behaviour.
On 2025-02-23, Tyrone <[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2025 at 4:26:07 PM EST, "Farley Flud" <[email protected]> wrote: >>
Nope. 30K x 70K is indeed a huge image. Outside of scientific circles
such sizes are extremely uncommon.
It might have been "huge" 20 years ago. Today it is nothing. One could edit
this picture on a phone today.
Which is the whole point. You claiming this pic is some sort of "test" for >> ANY modern computer is absurd. That your pile of shit on a shelf handles it is
proof enough.
I have easily edited this even on my 11 year old Mac mini. It has a crappy >> Intel i5 quad core CPU and 8GB of RAM. No problems at all. Naturally, my 8 >> year old Windows 10 laptop also works fine. It is an i7 hyperthreaded 4 core
with 16GB RAM.
So, of COURSE this modern Mac can handle it. If this was 25 years ago and I >> had a Pentium 4 with 128 MB RAM and 256K of video RAM, this would be a "huge >> file".
Again, you are truly clueless. But at least you are consistent. You know
nothing about every topic you pontificate about.
I see you totally ignored being busted about still being in COLA. You didn't >> even bother to add your "new group" this time. Typical kiddie behaviour.
It took about 3 seconds to download and display on my iPhone over 5G with 3 bars signal
strength.
What's the big deal?
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
It took about 3 seconds to download and display on my iPhone over 5G with 3 bars signal
strength.
What's the big deal?
She likes iPhone. :)
On 2025-02-23 6:40 p.m., pothead wrote:
On 2025-02-23, Tyrone <[email protected]> wrote:
On Feb 22, 2025 at 4:26:07 PM EST, "Farley Flud" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>It took about 3 seconds to download and display on my iPhone over 5G with 3 bars signal
Nope. 30K x 70K is indeed a huge image. Outside of scientific circles >>>> such sizes are extremely uncommon.
It might have been "huge" 20 years ago. Today it is nothing. One could edit
this picture on a phone today.
Which is the whole point. You claiming this pic is some sort of "test" for >>> ANY modern computer is absurd. That your pile of shit on a shelf handles it is
proof enough.
I have easily edited this even on my 11 year old Mac mini. It has a crappy >>> Intel i5 quad core CPU and 8GB of RAM. No problems at all. Naturally, my 8 >>> year old Windows 10 laptop also works fine. It is an i7 hyperthreaded 4 core
with 16GB RAM.
So, of COURSE this modern Mac can handle it. If this was 25 years ago and I
had a Pentium 4 with 128 MB RAM and 256K of video RAM, this would be a "huge
file".
Again, you are truly clueless. But at least you are consistent. You know >>> nothing about every topic you pontificate about.
I see you totally ignored being busted about still being in COLA. You didn't
even bother to add your "new group" this time. Typical kiddie behaviour. >>
strength.
What's the big deal?
Soon, he will be hailing Linux as the greatest operating system ever
because it will allow him to watch a QuickTime video.
The biggest fucking image (almost) that I have ever encountered
is located here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg
It measures 30,000 X 17,000 pixels. Holy fuck!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 28:21:04 |
| Calls: | 12,107 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,231 |
