Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 688829
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T02:16:11+00:00 2026-05-14T02:16:11+00:00

I’m working on a program that creates thumbnails of JPEG images on the fly.

  • 0

I’m working on a program that creates thumbnails of JPEG images on the fly. Now I was thinking: since a JPEG image is built from 8×8-pixel blocks (Wikipedia has a great explanation), would it be possible to skip part of the decoding?

Let’s say that my thumbnails are at least 8 times smaller than the original image. We could then map each 8×8 block in the input file to 1 pixel in the decoding output, by including only the constant term of the discrete cosine transform. Most of the image data can be discarded right away, and need not be processed. Moreover, the memory usage is reduced by a factor of 64.

I don’t want to implement this from scratch; that’ll easily take a week. Is there any code out there that can do this?

If not, is this because this approach isn’t worthwhile, or simply because nobody has thought of it yet?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T02:16:11+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 2:16 am

    I think that djpeg’s scale feature does something like this.

    It can scale an 8×8 block to any size between 1 and 16 pixels.

    “This is interesting because different spatial size output can be retrieved directly from the JPEG (DCT) data without separate full decode and spatial resample.”

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

No related questions found

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.