In PowerPoint 2016 I have two histograms: one at 52% and the other at 48%. The last one is displayed half the size of the other one, but I want them both to display the correct size (i.e. one of them 52% of the total height and the other 48% of the total height).
Related
I did some reasearch and it says it's just wXhXbpp.My bit per pixel is 1. so it should be just height x width.
Also I tried to view the image data using HxD, the total data I ahve is 20D that is 256. Header is 62 bytes, so the number of pixel data is 464.Even if I add padding to make it divisible by 4 the image size should be different for both images.
I am a newbie, please let me know what am I missing.
53x55; image size: 526bytes
44x58; image size 526bytes
I have an image in a WordPress site that is positioned (absolute) to layer over a background video and under a text block (also position absolute). When a user scrolls down the page, I need the image to scale to 0 down to the bottom left corner. At the same time, a similar image appears in my navigation bar which is anchored to the bottom of the browser window and appears upon scroll. That effect currently works properly. The site is done in Divi and the image in question is a full-width image module. Everything I've tried within Divi's Scroll Effects has not yielded the proper effect. You can preview here: https://modusai.wpengine.com
To accomplish the desired effect in Divi - I started with a Fullwidth Header section. In the Fullwidth Header module, I uploaded and added a video for the background. In the same section (yes, you can add more than one module to a Fullwidth section), I added a Fullwidth image and another Fullwidth Header. Both of those two modules are set to Absolute position (bottom left and center, respectively), with z-indexes of 299 and 499 respectively, to achieve the layered effect I needed.
Then, in the Fullwidth Image module, I enabled the Vertical Motion, Horizontal Motion, and Scaling Up and Down effects. Those settings are:
Vertical Motion: 18% / 48% / 78% and 0 / 7 / 15
Horizontal Motion: 18% / 48% / 78% and 0 / -7 / -15
Scaling: 18% / 48% / 78% and 100% / 50% / 0%
All three have the Motion Effect Trigger set to "Bottom of Element"
The sample is currently at https://modusai.wpengine.com/ If you have any questions, ping me!
I currently display 115 (!) different sponsor icons at the bottom of many web pages on my website. They're lazy-loaded, but even so, that's quite a lot.
At present, these icons are loaded separately, and are sized 75x50 (or x2 or x3, depending on the screen of the device).
I'm toying with the idea of making them all into one sprite, rather than 115 separate files. That would mean, instead of lots of tiny little files, I'd have one large PNG or WEBP file instead. The way I'm considering doing it would mean the smallest file would be 8,625 pixels across; and the x3 version would be 25,875 pixels across, which seems like a really very large image (albeit only 225 px high).
Will an image of this pixel size cause a browser to choke?
Is a sprite the right way to achieve a faster-loading page here, or is there something else I should be considering?
115 icons with 75 pixel wide sure will calculate to very wide 8625 pixels image, which is only 50px heigh...
but you don't have to use a low height (50 pixel) very wide (8625 pixel) image.
you can make a suitable rectangular smart size image with grid of icons... say, 12 rows of 10 icons per line...
115 x 10 = 1150 + 50 pixel (5 pixel space between 10 icons) total 1200 pixel wide approx.
50 x 12 = 600 + 120 pixel (5 pixel space between 12 icons) total 720 pixel tall approx.
I am displaying bitmaps with the function SetDIBitsToDevice. This function knows about the total image size via a LPBITMAPINFO structure that has Width and Height fields. It also knows about the region of interest to be drawn via the arguments XDest, YDest, Width, Height. All these are specified in pixels.
So far so good when the image is stored as a canonical one, i.e. with a row pitch (number of bytes between a pixel and the one immediately below) that matches the image width in bytes, with padding (if necessary) to reach the next multiple of four bytes.
For technical reasons, I have images with a larger pitch (but still a multiple of four). For instance, width=1000 but pitch=1024. For a grayscale image (1 byte per pixel), I can trick the function by declaring a width of 1024 in LPBITMAPINFO and a width of 1000 when passed to SetDIBitsToDevice.
But for a 3 bytes per pixels image (RGB), I am stuck because 1024 bytes do not correspond to an integer number of pixels, and I see no way to specify that pitch.
Do you see a workaround or something I missed in the documentation ? (I don't think that the field SizeImage can be of any use.)
May I know what are the ways to calculate the length of 1 pixel in centimeters? The images that I have are 640x480. I would like to compare 2 pixels at different places on the image and find the difference in distance. Thus I would need to find out what's the length of the pixel in centimeters.
Thank you.
A pixel is a relative unit of measure, it does not have an absolute size.
Edit. With regard to your edit: again, you can only calculate the distance between two pixels in an image in pixels, not in centimeters. As a simple example, think video projectors: if you project, say, a 3×3px image onto a wall, the distance between the leftmost and the rightmost pixels could be anything from a few millimeters to several meters. If you moved the projector closer to the wall or farther away from it, the pixel size would change, and whatever distance you had calculated earlier would become wrong.
Same goes for computer monitors and other devices (as Johannes Rössel has explained in his answer). There, the pixel size in centimeters depends on factors such as the physical resolution of the screen, the resolution of the graphical interface, and the zooming factor at which the image is displayed.
A pixel does not have a fixed physical size, by definition. It is simply the smallest addressable unit of picture, however large or small.
This is fully dependent on the screen resolution and screen size:
pixel width = width of monitor viewable area / number of horizontal pixels
pixel height = height of monitor viewable area / number of vertical pixels
Actually, the answer depends on where exactly your real-world units are.
It comes down to dpi (dots per inch) which is the number of image pixels along a length of 2.54 cm. That's the resolution of an image or a target device (printer, screen, &c.).
Image files usually have a resolution embedded within them which specifies their real-world size. It doesn't alter their pixel dimensions, it just says how large they are if printed or how large a “100 %” view on a display would be.
Then there is the resolution of your screen, as others have mentioned, as well as the specified resolution your graphical interface uses (usually 96 dpi, sometimes 120)—and then it's all a matter of whether programs actually honor that setting ...
The OS will assume some dpi (usually 96 dpi on windows) however the screens real dpi will depend on the physical size of the display and the resolution
e.g a 15" monitor should have a 12" width so depending on the horizontal resolution you will get a different horizontal dpi, assuming a 1152 pixel screen width you will genuinely get 96 dpi