Programming Forums - View Single Post - Checking source codes of image, audio and video files

on_auc · Feb 21st, 2005, 8:02 PM

Ok, according to other people's suggestions :

I opened a jpeg file (it's a picture of my friend) in notepad and viewed the code and then copied it and pasted.

So, if the code looked like this first :

blahblahblah
blahblahblah

now it looks like this :

blahblahblah
blahblahblah
blahblahblah
blahblahblah

This means, the image of the new version should show 2 copies of my friend but it doesn't. Instead I get amessage the "image could not be viewed".

Why don't you try it out ?
I don't understand why this is happening.
If I copy a website's source code that looks like this :

<html>
get lost
</html>

and paste it twice which looks like this :

<html>
get lost
</html>
<html>
get lost
</html>

or even this :

<html>
get lost
get lost
</html>

then it will be shown by the browser like this :

get lost
get lost

so, since I copied the image's source code twice and saved it then when I view the image it should show 2 copies of my friend just like it shows to copies of "get lost".

Mmm. What's wrong ?
Maybe, this is what is wrong.....
Maybe the gibberish code described the original image like this :

pixel 1 - 3 = blue
pixel 4 - 6 = blue
pixel 7 - 9 = yellow
pixel 9 - 12 = yellow

(each pixel described once only).

pixel 1 - 3 = blue
pixel 4 - 6 = blue
pixel 7 - 9 = yellow
pixel 9 - 12 = yellow

pixel 1 - 3 = blue
pixel 4 - 6 = blue
pixel 7 - 9 = yellow
pixel 9 - 12 = yellow

(thus describing a pixel twice).
Maybe, the computer got confused because the image file was describing each pixel twice ?
Do you think that is the case ?

Maybe also, the copy version has the opening and ending tag twice and the computer got confused ?
I mean, if I want to repeat text in an html file, I would do it like this :

<html>
get lost
get lost
</html>

and not like this :

<html>
get lost
</html>
<html>
get lost
</html>

because doing the above will mean writing the opening and ending tags twice which copuld confuse the browser.
Maybe, the image file's code has an opening and an ending tag like that ?
Maybe, when I duplicated the image's codes and saved it, I also duplicated the opening and ending tags of an image file (if such tags do exist) and that is why the computer got confused ?
What do you think is the real problem ?

Maybe, I should create an image file in one colour and then open it with notepad and then see it's colour description and then create another file with another colour and then open that to get that colour's description ?
This way, I can understand what description described a pixel's colour to a browser ?

If I drop a line to the guys who created the jpeg format to give me the codes that describe each pixel and each colour then do you reckon they would agree ?
Anyway, which companies created the bmp, gif and jpeg formats ?

Feb 21st, 2005, 8:02 PM	#2
on_auc Newbie Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 24 Rep Power: 0	Ok, according to other people's suggestions : I opened a jpeg file (it's a picture of my friend) in notepad and viewed the code and then copied it and pasted. So, if the code looked like this first : blahblahblah blahblahblah now it looks like this : blahblahblah blahblahblah blahblahblah blahblahblah This means, the image of the new version should show 2 copies of my friend but it doesn't. Instead I get amessage the "image could not be viewed". Why don't you try it out ? I don't understand why this is happening. If I copy a website's source code that looks like this : <html> get lost </html> and paste it twice which looks like this : <html> get lost </html> <html> get lost </html> or even this : <html> get lost get lost </html> then it will be shown by the browser like this : get lost get lost so, since I copied the image's source code twice and saved it then when I view the image it should show 2 copies of my friend just like it shows to copies of "get lost". Mmm. What's wrong ? Maybe, this is what is wrong..... Maybe the gibberish code described the original image like this : pixel 1 - 3 = blue pixel 4 - 6 = blue pixel 7 - 9 = yellow pixel 9 - 12 = yellow (each pixel described once only). pixel 1 - 3 = blue pixel 4 - 6 = blue pixel 7 - 9 = yellow pixel 9 - 12 = yellow pixel 1 - 3 = blue pixel 4 - 6 = blue pixel 7 - 9 = yellow pixel 9 - 12 = yellow (thus describing a pixel twice). Maybe, the computer got confused because the image file was describing each pixel twice ? Do you think that is the case ? Maybe also, the copy version has the opening and ending tag twice and the computer got confused ? I mean, if I want to repeat text in an html file, I would do it like this : <html> get lost get lost </html> and not like this : <html> get lost </html> <html> get lost </html> because doing the above will mean writing the opening and ending tags twice which copuld confuse the browser. Maybe, the image file's code has an opening and an ending tag like that ? Maybe, when I duplicated the image's codes and saved it, I also duplicated the opening and ending tags of an image file (if such tags do exist) and that is why the computer got confused ? What do you think is the real problem ? Maybe, I should create an image file in one colour and then open it with notepad and then see it's colour description and then create another file with another colour and then open that to get that colour's description ? This way, I can understand what description described a pixel's colour to a browser ? If I drop a line to the guys who created the jpeg format to give me the codes that describe each pixel and each colour then do you reckon they would agree ? Anyway, which companies created the bmp, gif and jpeg formats ? __________________ I would like to come-up with my own "Compression Algorithm" and teach that to the browsers so you can now show streaming videos and lengthy animations from your website without losing an arm and a leg on your band-width.