Thread: infinite pictures.

hello everyone I've been thinking about this one for a while but I was wondering has there ever been or is it possible to make a program that makes every picture combination ever for one resolution lets say 20x20. I don't really know why i am asking this I guess its just an itching question that I've had for a while now. So yea please tell what you think, my opinion on the subject is there are a lot of pictures that are possible and a lot of them wouldn't be anything at all just specks of stuff, and the ones that were recognizable could be very amazing, and some would be disturbing. If anyone knows how many pictures would there be possible for 20x20 due to how many colors possible could you tell me. Thanks.

wow thats amazing. And I dont know why anyone would do this I just like the idea of having all of everything. The idea that you would have any 20x20 image ever past, present, or future. Every single picture ever taken or will be taken is in your possession, every thing possible or impossible would be able to be seen. The creepiness of it all too, the fact that if you have a 20x20 picture, its in there...

Originally Posted by xniinja

wow thats amazing. And I dont know why anyone would do this I just like the idea of having all of everything. The idea that you would have any 20x20 image ever past, present, or future. Every single picture ever taken or will be taken is in your possession, every thing possible or impossible would be able to be seen. The creepiness of it all too, the fact that if you have a 20x20 picture, its in there...

Art isn't just color you guys.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

Art isn't just color you guys.

Yes, we would need a complex algorithm to weed out the crappy ones.

Originally Posted by nimitzhunter

Impossible to do a comparision between a "crappy" art and "good" art. If I have a hand on that algorithm, all the Picasso would be weeeded out pretty quick.

I don't think Picasso painted in 20x20 resolution, so all the Picasso are weeded out by default.

xniinja: I don't think that many computers would scale too well. They'd all have to have half the collective computing power just to handle the epic amount of communication required to coordinate a cloud that massive.

Originally Posted by xniinja

wow thats amazing. And I dont know why anyone would do this I just like the idea of having all of everything. The idea that you would have any 20x20 image ever past, present, or future. Every single picture ever taken or will be taken is in your possession, every thing possible or impossible would be able to be seen. The creepiness of it all too, the fact that if you have a 20x20 picture, its in there...

To give you a further idea of scale... Windows 7 Icons... the fancy ones you can resize with your mouse wheel, are 256 x 256 x 16.7 million colors....

That's ~10,944,512,000,000 possible images.

I recently wrote a windows program using one of the new Icons and the Icon embedded in the program was bigger than the executable code...

Originally Posted by CommonTater

To give you a further idea of scale... Windows 7 Icons... the fancy ones you can resize with your mouse wheel, are 256 x 256 x 16.7 million colors....

That's ~10,944,512,000,000 possible images.

I recently wrote a windows program using one of the new Icons and the Icon embedded in the program was bigger than the executable code...

length*width*colors isn't right. You are finding the area, then multiplying by the total possible colors. That is the number of times when all pixels are the same color. You're leaving out all else. It would, in fact, be much larger: 16,777,215^(256*256). It's so huge, I don't even want to post it here, because of it's massiveness would span a couple pages.

Originally Posted by User Name:

length*width*colors isn't right. You are finding the area, then multiplying by the total possible colors. That is the number of times when all pixels are the same color. You're leaving out all else. It would, in fact, be much larger: 16,777,215^(256*256). It's so huge, I don't even want to post it here, because of it's massiveness would span a couple pages.

Oh come now! 256*256*log 16777215 = 473479.2414, so it's only 473480 decimal digits long. Even if we assume 160 characters a line, that's still 2960 lines. At 50 lines a "page" that's more like 60 pages.

Originally Posted by tabstop

Oh come now! 256*256*log 16777215 = 473479.2414, so it's only 473480 decimal digits long. Even if we assume 160 characters a line, that's still 2960 lines. At 50 lines a "page" that's more like 60 pages.

"Couple" is indeterminate. Point is, it would be inconsiderate to post such a monstrous glob of digits. (That, and my perl script(using GMP for BigInt) was taking a REALLY long time, and my computer was getting REALLY hot. So I killed it, and decided to leave it at that. )

I like maxorator's explaination, it's more mathy than mine.