I'm trying to load some images using Bitmap.getBitmapResource(), but it takes about 2 or 3 seconds per image to load. I'm testing on the Storm, specifically. The odd thing is, when I install OS 5.0, the loading goes in a snap, no delay at all.
Should I be looking at the format used? Or where the files are stored? I've tried both 24- and 8-bit PNGs, with transparency. The files are stored in a subdirectory in the COD, so getBitmapResource is passed a path, like "images/img1.png" instead of just "img1.png".
Is any of this making things slower?
If you're looking for the most efficient format for storing image data within your application binary, the recommendation is PNG with the 565 colorspace. The BlackBerry Theme Studio toolkit has the ability to load any PNG and export it in this format. Its the best one because its what the BlackBerry uses internally.
Try to use EncodedImage, see Is it better to use Bitmap or EncodedImage in BlackBerry?
In case you need Bitmap class, try also bmp (don't forget to turn off "convert image files to .png" option in BB project settings)
Related
You know, computer stores images as channels and pixels in those channels. And pixel values are like "00110101" which fills 8 bits at memory. I want to know truly where that bits stored at memory, and how can i make operations on them.
Thanks!
Well, the standard book is Digital Image Processing by Gonzalez and Woods.
Another book, where you can pick up the PDF for free is Image Processing in C by Dwayne Philips - PDF here.
First, you need to get a decent C compiler and development system - personally I use Mac OSX, but I guess you would want Visual Studio free edition on Windows.
Then you need to get started with some simple reading and writing of files and memory allocation. I would go with greyscale images of the NetPBM format - probably just PGM files - described here as they are the easiest. You can download the NetPBM programs and run them in a Windows Command Prompt and see how they work and try and implement them yourself in C. You can also download ImageMagick for Windows and try converting images from colour to greyscale and resizing them like this:
convert input.png -colorspace gray result.jpg
convert input.tif -resize 400x400 result.pgm
When you have got that, I would move on to colour PPM format and then maybe PNG and/or JPEG. Remember there are libraries for TIF/JPEG/PNG/BMP so don't be afraid to use them.
Finally, move on to displaying images yourself with Windows GDI etc.
Come back to StackOverflow if you get stuck - questions are free!
tl;dr wildly different with different encodings/filesystems/os'es/drivers
Well that depends on the image format. BMP is one of the easier formats, details on what these files look like can be found on for instance wiki
And to answer "where its stored", it is stored on permanent storage (hardrive/ssd), where exactly depends on the filesystem (FAT/NTFS/EXT etc).
When an image is to be displayed, its read into memory, where it can be manipulated and through some apis this data can be put into a memory region specifically meant to display the current images on you screen.
I'm building a web application (RoR) that manages images that are in raw image format. I need to create thumbnail/web versions of these images to be displayed on the site. Currently, I'm using imagemagick, which delegates to dcraw to produce the jpeg thumbnail. The problem I'm running into is that the thumbnail deviates from the look of the original; the image gets darker and the white balance is sometimes heavily shifted.
I'm assuming that the raw format default setting can't be read by dcraw, and thus it's left guessing how to parameterize the raw conversion. I can play around with customizing these setting, but it seems getting it right on one image causes others to be further off the mark.
Is there a better way to do this in order to get a result that more closely mimics the what I might see in a raw viewer like photoshop, or even Mac OSX preview? Given that Mac OS X supports a variety of digital camera raw formats, is there anyway to utilize the OS's ability to render preview images (especially considering that result is what is expected).
The raw images that I'm using are 3FRs and fffs (both from Hasselblad).
I can post samples if people are interested.
Thanks
Look at "sips" and "Resizing images using the command line" to get you started.
I opened one PNG file in Inkscape and exported it as SVG. When I opened that file with notepad I came to know that the PNG file is embedded within it. If the conversion happened then the resulting file should have only SVG related tags. It shouldn't embed the image within it. Or Am I doing anything wrong.
Note: Save as option also producing the same kind of file. I am using Inkscape version 0.48 in Windows 7 - 64 bit.
This is a bit of an old thread, but it comes up early in Google so I thought I'd contribute something.
In Inkscape, you must do a trace to change the image into SVG. Look at the Path | Trace bitmap menu item and play with the options on that screen.
After creating the trace, you can remove your source image and have a pure svg in your saved file.
I've found it helpful to create layers in Inkscape and move the source image to one layer and put the trace on another layer to let me make quick comparisons using the 'hide layer' buttons.
BTW, your source image can be anything - bmp, jpg, png, etc.
A .png file is a raster image file. In order to convert it to a vector graphic based format like .svg and have it be "native" svg rather than an included image you are going to either have to use a program that can rasterize it or in Inkscape trace the bitmap and turn it into paths. Inkscape provides information on tracing: http://inkscape.org/doc/tracing/tutorial-tracing.html
I have some raw data in a file that I would like to store in an image file (bmp, jpg, png, or even gif (eegad)). I would like this to be a two way process: I need to be able to reliably convert the image file back later and get a file that is identical to the original file.
I am not looking for a how-to on steganography; the image file will probably be one pixel wide and millions of pixels high and look like garbage. That is fine.
I looked into the Imagemagick utility convert, but am intimidated by the large number of options and terse man page. I am guessing I could just use this to convert from a 'raw' black channel to png, but would have to specify a bunch of other stuff. Any hints? I would prefer to work within Imagemagick or using Linux utilities.
If you are wondering, there's nothing black hat or cloak and dagger about my request. I simply want to automatically backup some important data to a photo-sharing site.
I'd plow into ImageMagick if that's what you'd prefer anyway.
Specific image formats support storing text data to different degrees, and ImageMagick supports all of the formats you mentioned. I'd choose the one that lets you store what you need.
I am a bit confused about what the best approach is to resize a JPEG file on disk and save the resized JPEG as a new file to disk (on Mac OS X with Cocoa). There are a number of threads about resizing, but I am wondering what approach to use. Do I need to use Core Graphics for this or is this framework "too much" for a simple operation as a resize? Any pointers are welcome as I am a bit lost.
Core Graphics isn't “too much”; it's the right way to do it.
There is a Cocoa solution:
Create an image of the desired size (the destination image).
Lock focus on it.
Draw the source image into it.
Unlock focus on it.
Export it to desired file format.
Write that data somewhere.
But that destroys metadata.
The Core Graphics solution is not a whole lot different:
Use an image source to load the image and its metadata.
Create a bitmap context of the desired size with the source image's color space. (The hard part here is making sure that the destination context matches the source image as closely as possible while still being in one of the supported pixel formats.)
Draw the source image into it.
Capture the contents of the context.
Use an image destination to write the image and metadata to a file.
And the Core Graphics solution ensures that as little information as possible is lost along the way. (You may want to adjust the DPI metadata, if present.)
Install and use ImageMagick.