Enjoyed this article?
Take part in the discussion
Related blog/content
Caveman style ABM is pissing off everyone’s best prospects
I don’t want to hear about spear-fishing ever again. I’m Charlie, the head of ABM at Velocity. And I have a bone to pick with tired ABM metaphors. Good…
Charlie Langley | 28. 03. 2024
AI and SGE are a long-overdue wakeup call for B2B SEO
Even before AI and Google SGE came gunning for everyone’s search traffic, B2B was struggling with SEO. Despite endless effort, lots of pages languish in…
Joe Strugs | 13. 03. 2024
Why teamwork solves the B2B SEO malaise
What’s the secret of B2B SEO? Some say volume. Others say clusters. We say it’s collaboration. Find out why we’re right.
Stan Woods | 05. 03. 2024
Comments
David Ash June 6th, 2010
I just had to say…the MindMap graphic itself is worth just over 50,132 words :P. Yes there is an Internet Kiosk in this soft-walled room.
Dash
Doug Kessler June 7th, 2010
After a tortured night at the chalk board, Dash has issued this update to his calculations:
“I noticed just now that there is a technical flaw my calculations, regarding the ‘deeper colour depth’ extrapolations. The 8-bit calcs are fine. I promise I didn’t do this on purpose!
The flaw is quite subtle, and maybe it’s better to leave it in the blog just to see if anyone else out there is interested enough to comment on it. In any case, I am neurotic enough to describe the flaw below for your records!
An image is comprised of a given number of bits/bytes as you note. It’s the picture’s byte-size that matters, not the X and Y dimensions. So, a 200 x 200 pixel picture at 8-bit colour would occupy 40,000 bytes, but if you convert that same picture to 16-bit colour, it would become 80,000 bytes. This is because the number of pixels is not changing.
The subtlety is that increasing the colour depth would make the byte-size bigger but the picture’s XY dimensions would remain the same (200 x 200). Relating to the blog, once the reader visualises an 11.9K picture in their mind and then imagines it at different colour depths, they are misled in a way because they would likely believe that the same picture is becoming ‘worth more words’ just based on colour depth, without necessarily realising that the picture’s size is actually changing. This makes the extrapolations invalid from certain purist contexts.
I never liked purists anyway.”
Yeah, us too, Dash…