Optimize එක pixel ගාණට අදාළ වෙනවද යකෝ?
ඔව් රත්තරන් පවුම ගාණෙ දුන්නා වගේම තමයි. 200 mp නම් එ්කෙ දිග පළල වැඩි කරාම මිලියන 200 ක් තියෙනවා තියෙනවා මයි. Compression අැති තමයි ඉතින් අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම. එ්කනෙ details අනුව file size වෙනස් වෙන්නෙ. Compression නැත්තම් තනි සුදු හෝ කළු 200mp එකක් වුණත් (8bit නම්) 600MB තියෙන්න ඕන. හැබැයි compress කරාම 12kb.
උඹම කියල දීපන්කො. කියල දෙන්ඩ කලින් පොඩ්ඩක් හොයල බලල හිටපන්. එතකොට තේරෙයි මම හරි, උඹ දන්නවා කියල හිතාගෙන හිටියට දන්න හුත්තක් නෑ කියල. එතකොට එ්ක කියන් නැතිව දැක්කෙ නෑ වගේ shape එකේ කැපියන්.
Let's fact-check the response to the Rubin Observatory post categorically, ignoring the tone and language. We'll assess it point by point based on available technical data.
---
Claim 1: "3200 MP is not a huge deal. 200 MP images are already available in flagship phones."
Verdict: True, but doesn't appreciate the scientific breakthrough.
Explanation:
Yes, flagship phones like the Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra have 200 MP sensors.
However, sensor size, pixel quality, optics, dynamic range, and noise performance make a huge difference.
The Rubin Observatory's LSST camera has a gigantic custom-built sensor array spanning 64 cm wide with 189 CCDs, each of professional scientific quality.
It's not just about megapixels; it's about astronomical imaging quality and scientific calibration. The leap in data quality and purpose is significant. However the core argument about the pure mega pixel count is valid.
---
Claim 2: "3200 MP is just 16x a 200 MP image (4x4), so it's not worth that much hype."
Verdict: Mathematically correct.
Explanation:
Yes, 3200 ÷ 200 = 16, which is a 4×4 grid.
But again, scientific imaging ≠ consumer photography.
The LSST camera captures extremely low-light, wide-field, deep-sky images over massive angular distances with extreme stability, precision timing, and calibration. Again, however, this argument is Mathematically correct.
---
Claim 3: "Any display can show the image by zooming in/out, so 400 4K TVs isn’t meaningful."
Verdict: Technically true, but perhaps misses the point.
Explanation:
Yes, you can zoom in and out on any display.
But the "400 4K TVs" analogy was to illustrate the total pixel count:
4K UHD = 3840×2160 = 8.3 MP
3200 MP ÷ 8.3 MP ≈ 386 screens → close to 400.
This is not about practicality, but visualizing scale.
---
Claim 4: "If you JPEG-compress it at 95%, the file will be around 800 MB for 3200 MP (e.g., 50,000 × 64,000)"
Verdict: Reasonable estimate.
Explanation:
50,000 × 64,000 = 3.2 billion pixels (3.2 GP or MP)
A 95%-quality JPEG at that size and with sky/space content (mostly dark, low-entropy) could be hundreds of MB.
Estimates vary, but 800 MB uncompressed or ~200 MB compressed is plausible, depending on image content and compression efficiency.
---
Claim 5: "If it’s just the sky, it should compress well to under 200MB."
Verdict: Likely true.
Explanation:
Sky imagery, with large dark areas and smooth gradients, is highly compressible.
JPEG or even PNG (with lossless compression) would likely bring the size well below 200 MB for practical uses (like previews).
---
Claim 6: "This isn't magic for any mid-high-end PC."
Verdict: Mostly true.
Explanation:
Any modern desktop with 16GB+ RAM and SSD storage can view, manipulate, or scroll through 3200 MP images, especially when tiled or zoomed.
However, real-time panning at native resolution, scientific processing, and dataset management at Rubin scale still requires dedicated systems and high-performance storage, especially at the rate of 20 TB/day.
---
What's omitted or misunderstood:
The scientific purpose of Rubin's data—identifying transient events, asteroids, dark matter mapping, etc.—requires far more than image viewing.
The 3200 MP sensor is cooled, highly sensitive, and calibrated for astronomical data fidelity, not photography.
---
Summary Judgment
Claim Verdict Notes
3200 MP not a big deal
Technically true Ignores context and sensor quality
16× more than 200 MP
True But oversimplifies technical difference
400 TVs is useless analogy
Mathematically true but misinterprets purpose Meant to illustrate pixel scale
800 MB for compressed JPEG
Reasonable Ballpark figure for high-res compressed image
<200MB if mostly sky
Very likely Sky scenes compress well
Mid-end PC can handle it
Technically true For viewing, not processing pipeline
---
Final Comment: The response has valid technical points about image resolution and compression, but it fails to appreciate the scientific, engineering, and data significance of the Rubin Observatory. The comparison to consumer tech is accurate, but it arguably misrepresents scale, complexity, and purpose.
------
Post added on Jun 28, 2025 at 12:35 PM
