If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I Miss my Viewfinder !
On 03/06/2011 10:28, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Here's the entire sentence, and now *you* can tell us just what difference the rest of the sentence makes! "There really isn't any difference, except that signal is compressed according to an algorithm that can reversibly restore the original uncompressed signal, whereas applying that same algorithm to truly random data typically just produces more useless data." He is slightly wrong. Applying the same algorithm to truly random data fairly quickly generates an illegal decode symbol error in most codecs. That is essentially what happens on digital TV or DAB when noise in the stream crashes the decoder and it breaks up into Picasso block art and tries to burn out the tweeters with chirped ultrasonic clicks. Noise is not data and data is not noise. Although that is true. It is also true that an important characteristic of truly good random stream of bytes is that it should incompressible by any lossless algorithm (and it may even generate a larger file). What he says is also nearly true too for a JPEG stream. The encoding algorithm of JPEG specifies FF as and escape and FF,00 as a true FF in the stream and so is slightly imperfect even when Huffman optimised. There is usually a measurable bias towards symbols with 3 or more consequtive '1's in the byte with default encoding tables. Although the results are strongly data dependent you have to be encoding an image of black cat in a coal cellar or igloo in a snowstorm before the encoded data looks noticeably different to random bytes. A typical JPEG image off my camera is ~4.7MB and default Huffman tables has a bytewise entropy of 5.49 - it could be improved by optimising the tables but few cameras do. The theoretical maximum is ln(256) = 5.545 This idea that if it looks the same on an oscilloscope then it is the same is hilarious; but wrong. Unless you know the algorithm to decode it then any well encrypted or compressed data looks very much like random noise. If it didn't then you would be able to find another algorithm to make the file still smaller until you had something that was truly incompressible. Bytewise entropy isn't foolproof. It would give the same entropy to both of the following because it doesn't look at conditional symbol probabilities. One is clearly a lot more compressible than the other. AAAABBBBCCCCDDDDEEEE ABCDEBDCEAADBCAEEBCD The main utility of bytewise entropy or compressibility is that it is a good heuristic test for the validity of a JPEG stream. Basically if it will compress by more than about 5% and it is supposed to be a real JPEG photographic image (as opposed to a pathological testcase) then the file is seriously damaged. Regards, Martin Brown |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I Miss my Viewfinder !
Mxsmanic wrote:
Martin Brown writes: It will be incompressible if it is infinite in length. A finite length of random data will be compressible by some algorithm, based on the statistics of the stream. Sure, put the random data into the algorithm. probabilities. One is clearly a lot more compressible than the other. AAAABBBBCCCCDDDDEEEE ABCDEBDCEAADBCAEEBCD They should both be equally compressible, but not by the same algorithm. Provide a general algorithm then. Basically if it will compress by more than about 5% and it is supposed to be a real JPEG photographic image (as opposed to a pathological testcase) then the file is seriously damaged. That's why I always shake my head when people send me a JPEG in a ZIP file. Ditto for MP3 or most types of video. Error detection. -Wolfgang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I Miss my Viewfinder ! | Eric Stevens | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | June 4th 11 05:40 AM |
I Miss my Viewfinder ! | Wolfgang Weisselberg | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 4th 11 02:46 AM |
I Miss my Viewfinder ! | Eric Stevens | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | June 4th 11 01:45 AM |
I Miss my Viewfinder ! | Eric Stevens | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | May 27th 11 12:47 AM |