Ticket Information - ID: #647
| ID: | Category: | Severity | Reproducibility | Date Submitted | Updated By: |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000647 | Feature Request | normal | N/A | 11/07/12 05:25PM | DCB15 |
|
|
| Summary: | Size search(overall) |
| Description: | As of right now, it's only possible to search for pictures of a certain size like so: height:<=500 width:<=500,etc. I think it might improve searching if one was to add a metatag that allows users to search for an image by its overall size, not its height and width seperately. Why? Say I want to find an image that is, all in all, 1000 in size. If I was to use height:<=500 width:<=500, the search would exclude images that were 600x400, but if there was a size function(IE "size:<=1000"), it'd be possible to include more images in the search. |
| Additional Info: |
Jerl replied at 2012-11-07 18:29:40  |
| That's not how overall size works...you multiply both dimensions together, not add them. An image 1000 in size would be ~100x10 or 10x100 pixels. The overall size of an image 600x400 is 240,000 square pixels. The overall size of an image 500x500 is 250,000 square pixels, about 4% larger than 600x400. The overall size of an image 999x1 is 999 square pixels, which is much, smaller than 500x500. An overall size search would have to be implemented in this way, since it only makes sense to implement it in a way that actually accurately represents the size of an image. This would result in the overall size not quite working out the way you're proposing. And, because of the quadratic growth, the numbers would start ending up extremely large. Because of this, it's most likely that this would be implemented as a megapixel size search. For example, to find images that are larger than 1000x1000 pixels, the search may be "mpx:1", and would also find images that are 2000x500 pixels. |
DCB15 replied at 2012-11-08 09:31:31 |
| Thanks Jerl, was way too tired when I wrote that. |