Compression

my screen shot of  my table 

Image compression Compression is a process used in most digital information storage. It takes the original file and it finds any consistencies, then it replaces these consistencies with a singular representation, if its smaller than the data its compressing as well as the space it requires for a key, the compression only is proceeded if this particular piece of data is repeated more than once. After compression ( to a particular level) there will be no large consistencies within the data and the data will not be usable in most ways. For the data to be used once again maybe in a different place, it will need to be decompressed; this replaces all of the singular  representation assigned with the keys, back to the original key it is representing. Comparing Image consistencies As in the table, I took results from two black and white phtots; The consistent one was a grid of squares that were duplicated from each other, the inconsistent image, was the same as the first one but it has black scribling on it so the photo from a viewing prospective was far less consistent. I did this to see if visable consistencies, has a connection to the images code representaions, therefore the affectiveness of compression. Looking at my table we see that there is a massive difference between the original file sizes of ((61-6)/61)*100= 90%. The only explanation within my knowledge for why this would be, is because the original image format PNG already compresses the image, if so, this means that the visual consistency does affect the effectiveness of compression. But the original of these images once compressed gave an unexpected result; the compressing enlarged both of the files with all quality settings. From this I can conclude that compressing a png made in paint, (with a resonable amount of use of the copy tool) isn't any better compressed as a jpeg; as the image quality doesn't seem to change much between all of the compression settings. This suggests that the png format accounts for the use of the copying automatically compressing in it's own way, but this would have to have no need for decompressing, or, popular programs would need integrated support for png image use. I still have the feeling that the consistency has an affect on compressing into jpeg s; as the bits per pixel goes from a difference of (7.36-3.17)=4.19 at the lowest amount of compression to (2.94-2.45)=0.42 at the highest compression. This tells us that the consistency doesn't matter at the lowest quality but it does at the highest, this could be because a distinct mile stone in compressing, where an amount of detail is lost, so the larger consistencies don't matter anymore. I suspect this is also the case with the colourfull image as it was created in paint, the detail about the colours may use a system that becomes irrelevent at the lowest jpeg compression setting. Photo (slightly distorted)  This image is a more suited to comparing the affects of compression, without the unexpected complications of a Microsoft paint, constructed image. The original photo this time is reduced by 90% with the lowest quality setting and 41% with the highest, this is satisfactory; with multiple similar images this would save a lot of speed and space. But with the difference in the pixel per bits of 5.46 there comes a sacrifice, quality. Below are the two examples of the variation of the compression and there is a noticeable difference looking closer. The first image is the high quality so it is about the same as the original but using 41% less space.The second photo is compressed to a higher level; this shows through in the sharpness of the image rather that the detail in the colour.

Photo I took with the tablet
HQ

Photo I took with the tablet

LQ