[Digital Genesis]

"Picture Hacking"
- or having fun with pixels and numbers.

by Digital Genesis, (C) 2000
[email protected]


(WARNING: math/science freaks : I have not used correct scientific notation in the following, but give me a break, it all makes sense regardless. I'm trying to make it easy to understand)

Consider this statement:

There is a limit on visual creativity. There is a set amount of images that can be brought into existance.
UNDER THE GUIDELINE that the statement only applies to computer graphics under a set resolution.

And I'll prove it in the following.

Let's put down a few other guidelines and matter-of-fact statements.

With the exception of very abstract art and other extremely color dependent artwork, it is possible to reproduce in 256 color grayscale any piece of digital art, and still have it be recognizable.

24 bit color could have been used in the following, but it would have been impractical. The same principle applies whether it's 2 colors or 16 million.

For this reason, to keep numbers under control, we will only consider a 256 color palette.

Since we are dealing with digital art, we need to set the resolution we will be operating at.
Also for the sake of keeping numbers managable, we will only use 800x600 rez.

Now, very simply, in order to get the complete number of images it is possible to display on screen we do this:

256 ^ 800x600

Or

256 ^ 480 000 (256 to the 480000th power. Basically 256 times itself 480 000 times.)

That's the amount of different images in total that could ever be displayed/created within a 800x600 resolution, with a 256 color palette)

In order to view these images, all you have to do is construct a program that will plug through every single combination, ala brute force, and display the results.

If you're lucky enough, you'll hit upon as-of-yet unseen conceptual artwork or new masterpieces.
It's not that they don't exist, because they do, they just have not been revealed yet. They exist in a mathematical equation.


Obviously, even if a thousand people looked at one picture a second, for their entire lives, they'd still have to live and die many many times over.


To illustrate:

If your standard joe lives 80 years (maybe longer, but then we'll attribute the extra time to toilet visits he can view :
80 years x 365 days x 24 hours x 60 min x 60 sec = 2 522 880 000 images in his life (no leap years).

A thousand people equals 2 522 880 000 000 images total, over 80 years.

Compare to this, that 256 to the SIXTH power only, equals 281 474 976 710 656

Already 111 times the amount that a thousand people could view in their combined life spans.
And there is still ^4799994 to go on the 256.

If you thought that didn't really illustrate the point, here's another one

Even the length from here to the end of the Milkyway, measured in milimetres to compare numberwise, does not come anywhere near the amount of possible images. A mere drop in an enormous ocean.

A light year is 9460 x 10^9 kilometres and the galaxy RADIUS is about 50 000 light years.

So in milimetres it is (get ready for this

9460 x 10^9 (kilometres pr. light year)
x 50 000 (distance in lightyears)
x 1000 (one kilometre is 1000 metres)
x 100 (one metre equals 100 centimetres)
x 10 (one centimetre equals ten milimetres)

Or put a bit more legibiy:

(9460 x 10^9) x (50 x 10^9)

Or a bit easier to use, if I change a few numbers around (legally of course)

9460 x 50 = 473 000

10^9 x 10^9 = 10^18

so 473 000 x 10^18 = the distance in milimetres. Let's illustrate that for fun

473 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 milimetres.

Or put in other words, 473 000 EXA-milimetres. (Exa = 10^18)


You reach that number quite soon already in the by-now-well known 256^480000.

Actually, that's reached already AND surpassed 3 times at the 10th power of 256.
It comes out to 1 208 925 EXA-images (1 208 925 819 614 629 174 706 176, to be exact)

So you see, even if we used the DIAMETER of the Milkyway galaxy and counted that in milimetres ten or a hundred or a billion times, the resulting numbers would not even begin to come close to the number of images that are possible.

I'd do Universe comparisons, but I lack numbers

===========================

I guess in a way you can rest assured that no one can simply brute force all possible combinations and make art without lifting a finger. Whoever would die before getting anywhere relevant.

But really..... there are a few things to consider.

First of all, every image can have its palette cycled 255 notches. Basically the same image, just with a cycled palette. So for every one image in there, we can eliminate 255. That adds up.
Secondly, every image has a negative image. This one also has 255 cycles. So that's 256 images extra we can eliminate. It comes out to 511 images to be excluded and one to be kept. Add it up and it gives 512. (amazing how all of this comes together. The templars would be proud

Ok, so the final amount of pictures, with current modifications,
comes out to (256 ^ 480 000) / 512

It's a hair breadth bit more manageble, but far from easy. (add colors and see it be near impossible

====

Take into consideration also that a screen full of noise on it would not constitute imagery as we know it. So even though it is reproducable, no one would label it as art of any kind (other than noise art, if you're into looking at the tv after the channels are off for the night

Since there are so many pure noise images and even 'regular images' that would be covered in noise, but still recognizable, there is a huge amount of images that can be eliminated, in favor of pure - non noise covered - images.

So what good does it do? It's neigh impossible to find any real images in the astronomical amount we have available.

A way of distinguishing these noisy images from clean images would have have to be invented or programmed.

What if we process already known artwork, and extract its exact location in the grand equation?

(note: its exact location is simple. Grayscale the image(s) and simply read off the pixel value one by one.)

These imagery values, if analyzed by a sufficiently fast and 'intelligent' computer, could be catalogued and similarities, no matter how small, could serve as basis for exploring other pertinent value ranges.
For the sake of diversity, some of the methods could center on non-relevant areas to study these 'blank' areas.

An intelligent computer could also be instructed to recognize art that fits certain aesthetical guidelines.

I'm sure that intelligent programmers with sufficient expertise will be able to instruct intelligent computers to accomplish this. Technology in this area is developing rapidly, so it might possible in the near future.

=======

So far we've only concerned ourselves with pixels on a screen. But essentially, the same can be said for a paper surface, except of course that the number skyrockets exponentially.

You'd have to take into consideration the grain and structure of paper, the atomic variation and of course that it is not only lead that goes on paper, but that sweat, eraser leftovers, ball point pen, oil colors and so on all can come into play.
Some would say, what if I slap an elephant on there too?
But experiemental / theoretical analyses are only possible within given guidelines and environments. You'd have to pick ONE piece of specific paper, ONE kind of pencil, make assumptions on the permanency of its point and so on.
That's why it is so much easier to make these calculations about single image computer art.
There are no unforseen factors that can come into play.

You have a designated amount of pixels and they can contain only a set number of colors.
Period.

It serves to illustrate that it IS possible to put a number on the amount of different computer images that can be created.
And thus there is a limit on visual creativity, within the confines of the screen.

(Imagine a 9000x9000 rez with 32 bit color - more than what most people use, or even a one million by one million resolution. It'd be an impossibly large number, but do the calculation and it would still illustrate the very maximum # of images that could possibly be created within it)

I'm not out to offend anyone (how could I?). All I want to demonstrate is that anything you do on screen already exists in a simple mathematical equation.
It does not deter me from being an artist, it's merely another fact of life.

I hope you all enjoyed this little doctorate. If you have any positive comments or criticism, please do reply. Also, please don't rip off this article without giving me some credit, ok?
(at least thank me in your thoughts when you get that A+ on your free math assignement

I have double checked all numbers, but if I made a mistake I'm sure I'll hear about it.

DG

[Jeezus]

you're going to hell

[Optical]

"this brings to my next point kids... DON'T SMOKE CRACK"

------------------
http://www.eccentrix.com/artist/0ptical

[synj]

did anyone actually read all that? hehehe

-synj www.synj.net
Ridiculously good stuff.

[SaltyDog]

Your parents locked you in the closet with nothing but a box of crayons and a calculator when you were little, I'm sure of it.

[Stolln]

Synj: I actually read it all.

I found it quite interesting, as a matter of fact. But maybe that's because I'm exhausted.

Anyway, yeah, you have way too much time on your hands. You probably could have spent all that time painting something.

I think exploration is one of the best sciences of art, so yeah, I liked this explanation. Although I'm sure it is not COMPLETELY accurate to any degree (have you forgot about UV radiation and the atmospheric effect on colors, as well as the entire concept of color is based on the eye, and atmospheric interference, or about subspace frequencies of colors, etc? Now, yeah, I'm getting into it, and probably babbling endlessly.)

Still, a nice read.

[Trance-R]

Haha, I sure got a good laugh out of it though. Maybe you should write a book on it instead of on a forum with limited resources.

But the topic IS quite interesting.

[faustgfx]

someone gimme a 3 sentence synopsis of that, it's too long to read with my patience.



------------------
http://www.faustgfx.com
icq#35983387
the resident caustic bitch / the owls are not what they seem.

[PuckDewd]

For Faust, a three sentence summary:

It contains many mathmatical equations.

It is very confusing to those of us that work the night shift and are reading this when they get home.

The main summary would be that one person can only see/create a limited number of digital artworks in their lifetime.

I think I got it right, I'll reread it after i get some sleep to be sure though.

[faustgfx]

mkay...dur....duh...dar........guh....



------------------
http://www.faustgfx.com
icq#35983387
the resident caustic bitch / the owls are not what they seem.

[Chapel]

Yeah...what faust said.

[Ko]

Hi DG

I myself, stumbled upon this theory a few years ago during a highly psychedelic session with some unknown substance.

It really is quite a disturbing thought...
Think of all those pictures of you, revealing your most intimate moments with a pink duck and two blue oysters.... FrIGhTeNIng!...

I think I'll get a friend to make a generator-program for me... right away.
I'll probably start out with 256x256 pixels at 16/32 greyscale colours!

Let's start a kind of SETI program, only searching for pictures from the unknown digi-void.

Thanks for bringing this back on my mind...

...The above may og may not be true...

Ko

[sfr]

I remember that there was a little BeOS program some years ago that did just this, it was called "All Possible Images" or something like that - the pixel grid was very small of course, to avoid that "the galaxy is not enough" problem DG demonstrated

Saffron / Sunflower