## Archive for March, 2009

### Four candles!

2009-03-31

A hilarious blunder in my previous article about candles has me out by a factor of 10 on the calorific value of candles. In that article I said wax has about the same calorific value as butter, 3 kJ/g. It turns out that the calorific value of butter is about 30 kJ/g. Oopsie.

That means one modest candle burns at 75 W (not 7.5) and four candles burns at a whopping 300 W! So if you lit any candles then you were probably emitting more carbon than the “business as usual” scenario of having a couple of lights on.

This more or less confirms my prejudices that Earth Hour was a pointless and futile gesture so you could be seen to do something, without actually having to bother to go carbon free.

### Light a Candle

2009-03-30

When you switched off for Earth Hour and lit a candle, did you stop to think whether you were emitting more or less carbon than before? The answer turns out to depend on how many lights you switched off and how many candles you lit.

A 27g candle provides 3 hours of light. Calorific value of wax is the same as butter, right? About 3kJ/g. So burning a candle uses source fuel (wax) at the rate of 7.5W. Four candles, 30W. About the same as 1 10W CFL bulb (assuming electricity is generated from fossil fuels with about 30% efficiency). [edit 2009-03-31: massive blunder: not 3 kJ/g but 30 kJ/g, making four candles equal 10 CFL bulbs. See later correction article]

So if you switched off your dining room light and lit 4 candles for dinner, you were carbon neutral [edit: no, it’s all wrong, see later correction article]. 4 candles is a pretty romantic light level, way way less than your 10W CFL will give.

Only slightly relevant observation: candles can be made sustainably, at least in principle, from beeswax, soy, and tallow. But if you think that lighting your house with organic soy candles is somehow promoting a sustainable lifestyle, you’re way off base.

### Python module for PNG

2009-03-16

All this thinking off about PNG files is because I have been modifying Johann C. Rocholl’s png.py file to create…

png.py

but now it can cope with palettes, bit depths < 8, yadda yadda. Basically all PNG formats.

I would like to see this used for all your PNG needs in Python. So if it sucks, tell me!

PS: Dear lazyweb, where else should I announce this fine piece of hand-crafted software?

### PNG with palettes

2009-03-03

Yet another fascinating look into the world of small PNG files (an earlier article looks at scanline filtering). This is a cautionary tale about saving PNGs using OS X Preview.

Consider the following image:

It’s produced by using OS X Preview to copy a section from this image:

It’s 1334 bytes long! It’s only 8×8 pixels in size, so at 3 bytes per pixel (1 each for R, G, and B) the actual raster data should be 192 bytes. That’ll get compressed, and then there’ll be some overhead. But even so, 1334 bytes seems profligate.

So it turns out that the image has an iCCP chunk. A colour profile. Not only is that a 439 byte overhead, it’s not justified. The image is not produced using a colour managed tool chain. It’s copied from a section of an image on the web. Hmm, it turns out that the source image has a gAMA chunk (intended gamma); I wonder if that makes Preview add a colour profile? Anyway, leaving that colour profile aside…

The image is colormapped with a palette (PNG color type 3). That’s probably quite sensible for an 8×8 image. But it’s a sin to make the palette have 256 entries. That’s 768 bytes; and the PLTE chunk doesn’t get compressed. An 8×8 image can clearly have a maximum number of colours of only 64, so clearly the palette only needs 64 entries at most (in a PNG, the palette need only have as many entries as are used; this is a good feature).

It turns out that the image only uses 10 colours! So the palette need only have 10 entries. Moreover, that means a bit depth of 4 could be used instead of 8. That may or may not be an improvement. The uncompressed IDAT chunk will be smaller with a bit depth of 4, but a bit depth of 8 may compress better (also, it may filter better).

It turns out that these problems are because the source image was a PNG. Creating a BMP file of the same image and then getting OS X Preview to save that as a PNG creates a PNG file with no iCCP chunk and bit depth 4. The PLTE chunk still has 16 entries rather than 10; that’s only wasting 18 bytes in this case, but if we had a low colour image that required a bit depth of 8, 17 colours say, then it could waste 717 bytes (239 entries), and that is exactly what it does for a 17 colour image.

Argh! It turns out Preview only creates a paletted PNG from a BMP when the BMP is paletted. If I go back to my original image (the large PNG), extract the 8×8 tile using Preview and save that as a BMP it creates a truecolor BMP; and saving that BMP as a PNG creates a truecolor PNG (that is, one without a PLTE chunk).

When I saved a PNG from the original PNG the palette that gets used is the 256 entry palette from the original image. Well, except that some of the entries have been tweaked by a bit or so (I suspect it has been “colour corrected” and then saved). That strikes me as rather unintuitive, and only occasionally useful. So occasional that I would expect it either to be an option when saving or only available in a pro tool, like Photoshop.

It seems that when I’m using Preview to crop images, I may as well save in any format I like and then use Netpbm’s pnmtopng to create a PNG. pnmtopng does a good job for this image size, but sometimes it could do better.