I know this is a joke but honestly if an engineer figured out how to make a Jpeg 600 bytes it would be impressive (obviously don’t destroy the original even if all worked right.)
If you’re just doing plain black and white, no grey scale, even ignoring headers the most you can get out of that is 4800 pixels. Say maybe 120x40 or 75x64.
Add in headers to tell the machine where each pixel actually goes and you’re looking at way less.
Want greys or color in your image? Forget about it.
If you’re still thinking in pixels, then you’re already behind JPEG. There are other ways to compress visual data, such as in the form of its frequency spectrum, or with vector embeddings
Or in a tensor field consisting of billions of weighted parameters across several matrices which then get multiplied along specific embedded vectors, apparently…
To explain a bit more, most of the information in an image is actually stuff we would never notice. The very specific way a few of a pixels slightly deviate from a perfect gradient, for example.
The basic idea of a jpeg is to convert an image to a kind of frequency space, where each pixel corresponds to a specific wave-like pattern. It’s reversable, preserving the information. and fast conversion to do, thanks to FFT. Even without, it would only be quadratic time. Then, the algorithm crops it in that new space. (IIRC jpeg actually has a few extra features, as well)
I know this is a joke but honestly if an engineer figured out how to make a Jpeg 600 bytes it would be impressive (obviously don’t destroy the original even if all worked right.)
Why use many pixel when few pixel do trick?
If you zoom out really far, you can kinda see it…
something something information theory.
That seems fundamentally impossible.
If you’re just doing plain black and white, no grey scale, even ignoring headers the most you can get out of that is 4800 pixels. Say maybe 120x40 or 75x64.
Add in headers to tell the machine where each pixel actually goes and you’re looking at way less.
Want greys or color in your image? Forget about it.
If you’re still thinking in pixels, then you’re already behind JPEG. There are other ways to compress visual data, such as in the form of its frequency spectrum, or with vector embeddings
Or in a tensor field consisting of billions of weighted parameters across several matrices which then get multiplied along specific embedded vectors, apparently…
To explain a bit more, most of the information in an image is actually stuff we would never notice. The very specific way a few of a pixels slightly deviate from a perfect gradient, for example.
The basic idea of a jpeg is to convert an image to a kind of frequency space, where each pixel corresponds to a specific wave-like pattern. It’s reversable, preserving the information. and fast conversion to do, thanks to FFT. Even without, it would only be quadratic time. Then, the algorithm crops it in that new space. (IIRC jpeg actually has a few extra features, as well)