Huge Image! GNU/Linux Passes. Microslop???

[Farley Flud]

The biggest fucking image (almost) that I have ever encountered
is located here:

Loading Image...

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:

Loading Image...

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.

Brother, if you ain't using GNU/Linux then please check your
head for cracks.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[DFS]

Post by Farley Flud
The biggest fucking image (almost) that I have ever encountered
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)

Post by Farley Flud
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.
https://i.postimg.cc/jCVybxYG/cut.png

https://imgur.com/a/JivlDTT

Zoomed 0%, 200% and 800% with Photos

This porcupine is in the middle pane, 1/2 way up, 1/3 from the left

Post by Farley Flud
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.

It looks GREAT on Windows Photos, MS Office Picture Mgr, and irfanview

[Tyrone]

Post by DFS

Post by Farley Flud
The biggest fucking image (almost) that I have ever encountered
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)

Oh look! Feeb has just discovered The Garden Of Earthly Delights.

Its fine in Safari Browser on MacOS. No fancy image viewer needed. Zoom in,
scroll up/down and left/right.

This image has been available for many years. But Feeb is SO proud that his
pile of junk hardware on a shelf can display it.

Grow up, Feeb. You are always rushing in here with some trivial info that you
feel is SO important. As if Linux is the only system that can do these
"amazing" things.

Also - as expected - you did not leave COLA.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Tyrone
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?

Answer: No.

Can you edit the file or transform it in many ways?

Answer: No.

Only in GNU/Linux is this possible.

No brains. Head of bone. It must be Tyrone.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

[vallor]

Post by Farley Flud
No brains.

Cool sig, bro.

Unless someone can come up with a reason to read them, I'm setting
my scorefile to kill articles crossposted to "comp.os.linux.hardawe".

It's just Furled "No brains" Fart's new troll.

[Joel]

Post by vallor

Post by Farley Flud
No brains.

Cool sig, bro.
Unless someone can come up with a reason to read them, I'm setting
my scorefile to kill articles crossposted to "comp.os.linux.hardawe".
It's just Furled "No brains" Fart's new troll.

Nice.
--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[Tyrone]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by Tyrone
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?

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.

BTW why are you still in COLA? You loudly boasted that you were "leaving". I
see you keep adding your "new group" when you reply to me, but I am not
posting there.

Farley Feeb Fucktard, BUSTED once again.

[Farley Flud]

Post by Tyrone
The video/image/audio editing tools on Macs are
the best in the world. People are editing entire movies/TV shows on Macs.

It's the same on GNU/Linux (if you only knew) so shut the fuck up.

Post by Tyrone
"Huge Image!" indeed. Only "huge" to you,

Nope. 30K x 70K is indeed a huge image. Outside of scientific circles
such sizes are extremely uncommon.

If you disagree the give examples. But you can't and you won't.

Post by Tyrone
Your $500 Intel-powered space heater on your shelf is nowhere near State Of
The Art.

Yes, it is. In competent hands, like mine, it will mop the floor with
all comers.

But the fact that you even bothered to respond to my post only proves beyond
all doubt that you are a fucking loser idiot.

You cannot give any proof. You cannot provide any refutation whatsoever.
Yet you take time from fucking your ugly wife/girlfriend/boyfriend just
to respond to a post that you find to be frivolous. What a weird fuck!

You'd better court MAGA followers. There's nobody here that gullible.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

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!

[DFS]

Post by Farley Flud
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!

"With a face like that you got nothing to laugh about"

- Rod Stewart to Feeb

[Tyrone]

Post by Farley Flud
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.

[Physfitfreak]

Post by Tyrone

Post by Farley Flud
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.

But hh said all that. So what's your point repeating them here.

You're a sorry ass, aren't you. A "true Sorry Ass!", put in the style of
that "true American" idiot.

[pothead]

Post by Tyrone

Post by Farley Flud
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?

[Joel]

Post by pothead
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. :)
--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

[chrisv]

Post by Tyrone

Post by Farley Flud
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.

Hahahaha.

Post by Tyrone
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.

Good flame.

[-hh]

Post by Farley Flud
The biggest fucking image (almost) that I have ever encountered
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)

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}

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.

FYI, reason for my file's size is that its at 16 bits/channel ... from
way back when it was scanned in 2004. Didn't turn out to be necessary,
IMO, but it shows what COTS imaging capabilities existed 20 years ago.


-hh

[Farley Flud]

Post by -hh
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.

[Q]

In article <pan$752b7$6447916$89686fac

Post by Farley Flud

Post by -hh
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
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?

[-hh]

Post by Q
In article <pan$752b7$6447916$89686fac

Post by Farley Flud

Post by -hh
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
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?

Nah, Feeb opted for the frontal lobotomy treatment instead.

In any event, he tried to rail about one tool which happened to have
been mentioned for generating a metric that I've never really ever been
particularly interested in, so that's pretty much an "I don't care".

OTOH, Feeb did snip my post's portion which had an equally large image:

[quote]
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
[/quote]

Which when combined with what it went on to also say:

[quote]
FYI, reason for my file's size is that its at 16 bits/channel ... from
way back when it was scanned in 2004. Didn't turn out to be necessary,
IMO, but it shows what COTS imaging capabilities existed 20 years ago.
[/quote]

Which showed that he's ~20 years behind technologically.


Plus there's an earlier post of mine which he knew better than to touch
shows us that he's way out of his depth on the topic too:

[quote]
Was thinking the same thing...

<https://photo-hh.com/usenet/no_one_answer.jpg>
...
Plus when it comes to artistic understanding of images, as John Shaw
illustrated in his books, there is no one "correct" interpretation.
As such, even derivatives are free to take on their own tangents, which
is what I chose to illustrate.

Plus if one wants to emphasize the gnarly crinkled texture, simply crank
up the contrast, sharpen, or use an unsharp mask (BTDT).

Plus all have been very available as GUI tools with preview functions
such that one can tweak to one's heart content prior to committing the
CPU (& human) time to rendering the full image, which results in a more
productive workflow than Feeb's scripting from a more immediate artist
feedback loop.
[/quote]

TL;DR: just YA lame Feeb troll attempt, but at least in a modestly less
boring subject than his "I finally got my PC to boot this month" bit.


-hh

[Farley Flud]

Post by -hh
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 of ImageMagick's "identify"
command on the huge image that I posted.

That's how the pros do it.


identify -verbose The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg

Image:
Filename: The_Garden_of_Earthly_Delights_by_Bosch_High_Resolution.jpg
Permissions: rw-r--r--
Format: JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group JFIF format)
Mime type: image/jpeg
Class: DirectClass
Geometry: 30000x17078+0+0
Resolution: 72x72
Print size: 416.667x237.194
Units: PixelsPerInch
Colorspace: sRGB
Type: TrueColor
Base type: Undefined
Endianness: Undefined
Depth: 8-bit
Channels: 3.0
Channel depth:
Red: 8-bit
Green: 8-bit
Blue: 8-bit
Channel statistics:
Pixels: 512340000
Red:
min: 0 (0)
max: 255 (1)
mean: 98.1783 (0.385013)
median: 103 (0.403922)
standard deviation: 60.8309 (0.238553)
kurtosis: -1.07625
skewness: -0.0550643
entropy: 0.947631
Green:
min: 0 (0)
max: 255 (1)
mean: 94.1487 (0.369211)
median: 97 (0.380392)
standard deviation: 58.4949 (0.229392)
kurtosis: -1.04318
skewness: -0.000257597
entropy: 0.942807
Blue:
min: 0 (0)
max: 255 (1)
mean: 62.9299 (0.246784)
median: 50 (0.196078)
standard deviation: 54.5112 (0.213769)
kurtosis: -0.688566
skewness: 0.660472
entropy: 0.896163
Image statistics:
Overall:
min: 0 (0)
max: 255 (1)
mean: 85.0856 (0.333669)
median: 83.3333 (0.326797)
standard deviation: 57.9457 (0.227238)
kurtosis: -0.935999
skewness: 0.201717
entropy: 0.928867
Rendering intent: Perceptual
Gamma: 0.454545
Chromaticity:
red primary: (0.64,0.33,0.03)
green primary: (0.3,0.6,0.1)
blue primary: (0.15,0.06,0.79)
white point: (0.3127,0.329,0.3583)
Matte color: grey74
Background color: white
Border color: srgb(223,223,223)
Transparent color: black
Interlace: None
Intensity: Undefined
Compose: Over
Page geometry: 30000x17078+0+0
Dispose: Undefined
Iterations: 0
Compression: JPEG
Quality: 94
Orientation: TopLeft
Profiles:
Profile-8bim: 9806 bytes
Profile-exif: 8122 bytes
Profile-xmp: 3506 bytes
Properties:
date:create: 2025-02-21T19:29:59+00:00
date:modify: 2025-02-21T19:29:59+00:00
date:timestamp: 2025-02-23T11:04:01+00:00
exif:BitsPerSample: 8, 8, 8
exif:ColorSpace: 65535
exif:Compression: 32946
exif:DateTime: 2012:11:09 03:25:39
exif:ExifOffset: 256
exif:ImageLength: 22279
exif:ImageWidth: 39136
exif:PhotometricInterpretation: 2
exif:PixelXDimension: 30000
exif:PixelYDimension: 17078
exif:PlanarConfiguration: 1
exif:SamplesPerPixel: 3
exif:Software: Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
exif:thumbnail:Compression: 6
exif:thumbnail:JPEGInterchangeFormat: 394
exif:thumbnail:JPEGInterchangeFormatLength: 7722
exif:thumbnail:ResolutionUnit: 2
exif:thumbnail:XResolution: 72/1
exif:thumbnail:YResolution: 72/1
jpeg:colorspace: 2
jpeg:sampling-factor: 1x1,1x1,1x1
mime:type: image/jpeg
signature: 2018a5112ed12658ed4080829e5f46d69393c7cc56dccf17a4f6a99f6c33bb50
Artifacts:
verbose: true
Tainted: False
Filesize: 222.857MiB
Number pixels: 512.34M
Pixel cache type: Memory
Pixels per second: 90.0144MP
User time: 5.690u
Elapsed time: 0:06.691
Version: ImageMagick 7.1.1-44 Q16-HDRI x86_64 22688 https://imagemagick.org

[-hh]

Post by Farley Flud

Post by -hh
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?

Nope. I just copied a few attributes from the OS's file explorer app.

Post by Farley Flud
There are simple tools that can produce much better
info.

Of course there are.

Post by Farley Flud
Below is the output ...

Okay, now explain how each of those outputs are germane & necessary to
what you posted about a conversion from color to grayscale, instead of
just being a spam of 99% garbage you don't understand.

Post by Farley Flud
That's how the pros do it.

You're clearly no pro, for you failed to filter out the garbage.

-hh

[Farley Flud]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:50:49 +0000, Farley Flud 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:

Loading Image...

Try that with that junk known as Microslop Winblows.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

GNU/Linux: Empowering the powerful.

Microslop: Enslaving the slaves.

[DFS]

Post by Farley Flud
I have, using the phenomenal GNU/Linux image tools, converted
a detail from color to grayscale using the bt709 algorithm.
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)
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 grayscale
- 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.

[-hh]

Post by DFS

Post by Farley Flud
I have, using the phenomenal GNU/Linux image tools, converted
a detail from color to grayscale using the bt709 algorithm.
https://i.postimg.cc/YM2dQpDW/gray.png
Try that with that junk known as Microslop Winblows.

Sure thing.
https://imgur.com/a/b6SgFIu

Was thinking the same thing...

<Loading Image...>

Post by DFS
top pic   : via python PIL library (3 lines of code)
middle pic: via the superior Windows-only irfanview
bottom pic: original 200% color enlargement
Big deal.

Post by Farley Flud
Using a simpleton bash script, you converted a color image to grayscale

- 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.

Plus when it comes to artistic understanding of images, as John Shaw
illustrated in his books, there is no one "correct" interpretation.
As such, even derivatives are free to take on their own tangents, which
is what I chose to illustrate.

Plus if one wants to emphasize the gnarly crinkled texture, simply crank
up the contrast, sharpen, or use an unsharp mask (BTDT).

Plus all have been very available as GUI tools with preview functions
such that one can tweak to one's heart content prior to committing the
CPU (& human) time to rendering the full image, which results in a more
productive workflow than Feeb's scripting from a more immediate artist
feedback loop.


-hh