|
Thanks Christian Graus,
But i need the implementation in C# or the algorithm to implement this compression techniques.
Thanks,
Darmi
|
|
|
|
|
I see. Well, I want a Ferrarri. Doesn't mean I can have one. Like I said, there are no C# implimentations for JPEG lossless that I know of. JPEG 2000, there are definately no free implimentations. The cheapest I found was Atalasoft, it's about $2000 plus the cost of their core library. It's very good, I use it.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
|
|
|
|
|
Image image;
...
Bitmap bmp = new Bitmap(image);
ImageCodecInfo[] codecs = ImageCodecInfo.GetImageEncoders();
ImageCodecInfo ici = null;
foreach(ImageCodecInfo codec in codecs) {
if(codec.MimeType == "image/jpeg")
ici = codec;
}
EncoderParameters ep = new EncoderParameters();
long quality = (long)100; // 0-lossy ... 100-loseless
ep.Param[0] = new EncoderParameter(Encoder.Quality, quality);
bmp.Save(fileName, ici, ep);
life is study!!!
|
|
|
|
|
No, you are totally wrong. Even at 100, a JPEG is lossy. It's just less so. And, as I said in my answer, there are many JPEG formats, including lossless ones. They are not supported by .NET, only the common lossy JPEG format is.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
"I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Graus wrote: No, you are totally wrong
not totally I guess..
Christian Graus wrote: Even at 100, a JPEG is lossy
maybe, but a lot less lossy than Image.Save()
life is study!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Hai Seishin,
I have tried this method. But i read some documents indicating two different algorithms for implementing lossy and losseless - huffman algorithm.. something like this. If we can implement lossy and loseless in the above method, then why its said that there are two different algorithms for each. Morover, i came to know that JPEG is lossy itself, but loseless have different format other than .jpg. Am i correct? Please help me.
Darmi
|
|
|
|
|
This has been bugging me for a long time. Does anyone know how to, in an MSI, quit a process before running the installation? All I want to do is quit my application so it can be properly installed over rather than give an error to the user.
|
|
|
|
|
If any of the files that are in an MSI package are in use by any application, the Windows Installer automatically displays the Files In Use dialog box. This is automatically done in InstallValidate action:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa369546.aspx[^]
Are you are not observing this behavior?
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I certainly am, however I want the installer to simply quit the running instance automatically, without prompting the user, or giving any kind of message.
There are a couple reasons I want this behavior: one being that in some cases, the installer will be launched by the application itself, as a self-update, and it seems rather dumb to have a self-updating application give an error to the user that the "file is in use". Secondly, the application is relaunched after install is complete anyway, and no information is lost by quitting.
I want the process to be seamless.
And quite frankly, I'm at a loss. What I originally thought was such a simple thing has turned out to be absurdly complicated, or at least I have yet to find a simple solution to it.
Perhaps I will investigate this InstallValidate action... is there any way to customize this behavior to run my own code at this step? Even if I could just launch another process to do the work...
|
|
|
|
|
Hey,
I am writing a program, and one of the functions of this program is to simulate holding down of two keys on the keyboard. I am not sure how to go about this. I don't think the sendkeys function is what I am looking for, because it only sends the keystroke, not holds it down. Is there any sort of way to do this?
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried searching Google? A quick search found the answer for me. Please do more research next time before posting.
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
|
no because if you can't answer a question like this, you don't deserve to get a position writing really bad C# code.
--
You have to explain to them [VB coders] what you mean by "typed". their first response is likely to be something like, "Of course my code is typed. Do you think i magically project it onto the screen with the power of my mind?" --- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Come on dan - what was the original question? We're intrigued now...
"More functions should disregard input values and just return 12. It would make life easier." - comment posted on WTF
|
|
|
|
|
He posted a sample code fragment that he'd been presented with in an interview and asked what the problems were with the class. The impression that came across was that he was in the interview at the time and had been given an internet connection. BTW - the mistakes were glaringly obvious; they weren't tricks and I would doubt the coding ability of anyone who didn't spot them. There were only a dozen lines of code after all, and he was told that there were 3 problems.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
For starters:
It should not use a destructor to close a file stream because destruction of the object is non-deterministic. It will hold onto the open file stream until the GC decides to collect it which might not happen before the application closes. It should implement IDispose instead.
|
|
|
|
|
If you can't answer this then you don't deserve a career doing this.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious as to what the question was 
I get all the news I need from the weather report - Paul Simon (from "The Only Living Boy in New York")
|
|
|
|
|
I wondered that myself when I cruised through this forum earlier.
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Me too! I wished they wouldn't do that...
"More functions should disregard input values and just return 12. It would make life easier." - comment posted on WTF
|
|
|
|
|
I wished they couldn't do that as soon as there is some reply present.
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm Smart wrote: Me too! I wished they wouldn't do that...
I guess the poster felt shamed into deleting their message after being told twice that they don't deserve a career as a programmer. Must have been a helluvah post to get that kind of response.
Personally, I wouldn't take on the responsibility of telling someone that regardless of how lamebrained I found their question to be.
|
|
|
|
|
I rather suspect that the OP was in the interview at the time. See my explanation further up the thread as to what the question was that prompted the vitriol.
As to why it was suggested that they weren't suited to a career in programming; they couldn't see obvious deficiencies in a 12 line piece of code. It was a basic test and they just didn't have a clue - would you really want to work with somebody like this. I wouldn't expect to become a plumber with my level of knowledge in plumbing and I don't see why we should put up with people wanting to become programmers when they don't have the basics down.
Now, if the poster goes away and comes back with improved coding skills then I would be delighted.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
They immediately get nominated for a Darwin award.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
themself?
, bored and sleepless 
,