Checking source codes of image, audio and video files

[onauc]

Hello everybody,

I am very curious to see the source codes that describe an image. I want to actually check the source-codes of gif, jpeg etc. files.

Also, I am very curious to see the source codes that describe an sound. I want to actually check the source-codes of mp3 etc. files.

I use winamp and windows media to listen to listen to audio files or view video files.
I have lots of winamp audio and video files on my computer. So, how do I check the source codes of each of these audio and video files.
Look at it this way, if we ever want to check the source codes of a webpage loaded on-to our browsers, all we have to do is right-mouse-click and click the "view source" option to see the html source codes that describe a webpage's text and lay-out (design).
So, similarly, there must be some way to check a still image file and an audio and a video file's source-code.
When I check the source codes of a webpage, if that webpage has an image file then the source codes of that image file is not shown.
What is the solution ?

eg.

pixel 1 (starting from top left corner of screen) to pixel 100 = navy blue

pixel 100 to pixel 150 = yellow

Get the picture ?
I just described which pixels are navy blue and which pixels are yellow in an image.
I guess all pixels are described like that but I want to see how they are described. I just used plain english so you understand what I am on about.
From checking the images descriptions (source codes) I will try to understand which code represents navy blue and which code represents yellow and then I will change the source code something like this :

pixel 1 (starting from top left corner of screen) to pixel 100 = yellow blue

pixel 100 to pixel 150 = navy blue

and then save the changes and then check how the image now looks like.
This time the yellow parts should look navy blue and the navy blue parts (pixels) look yellow.
Really want to learn what code (that a browser understands) describes a pixel and a colour.
I will then write codes and then check the image and see if I am able to create a beutiful image completely with "coding" and not using any image editors like paint pro.
I guess the codings would be in C.
If so, then must understand how C is describing each pixel and colour.
Frankly, I have thought of a compression algorithm that can describe an image and I just want to make sure that, this algorithm is not already in use.
Look at it this way.
Imagine that an image only has (for explanation's sake) has 3 by 4 pixels and the image's top half is navy blue and the bottom yellow.
Now, I expect the non-compressed image to be described like this (pixel by pixel):

PIXEL 1 = navy blue, PIXEL 2 = navy blue, PIXEL 3 = navy blue
PIXEL 4 = navy blue, PIXEL 5 = navy blue, PIXEL 6 = navy blue
PIXEL 7 = yellow, PIXEL 8 = yellow, PIXEL 9 = yellow,
PIXEL 10 = yellow, PIXEL 11 = yellow, PIXEL = yellow

Now, I would describe like this so less codes describe an image 3 by 4 :

PIXEL 1 - 6 = navy blue
PIXEL 7 - 12 = yellow

Now, isn't this less codes describing the same image ?
Yep. Instead of describing each pixel one by one, I just use the first pixel and the last pixel of a colour and all the in-between pixels of that same colour with the "-". This way, less codes describe the same image.
Now, you might say that, this "algorithm" of mine is nothing new because already compression algorithms exist that use the "-" to describe all the pixels that are "in-between" when describing a colour.
But, really, I have other techniques that really shorten the description and it's not just dependant on the "-".
Now, before I put my algorithm to test I must first open an image file and see what codings are used to describe an image's every pixel and it's colour.
I must know how a pixel is described and how a colour is described.
In my non-compressed example, I described a pixel like this :

PIXEL 1, PIXEL 2, PIXEL 3 and so on.
On my compressed example, I explained the pixels like this :

PIXEL 1 - 3.

But, if I open an image file and write some-thing like the above in plain english, then the browser will not understand it unless I write it in it's language that it understands.
Imagine that I found the image described like this :

p1 - p6=nb
p6 - p12 = y

I would have the common sense to understand the pixels are described with a "p" followed by the pixel number and the colours are described using the first part of the letter.
Now, to change the image, I would then write something like this :

p1 - p6=y
p6 - p12 =nb

this would change the colour of the image.
This time, the top part would be yellow and the bottom navy blue.

So, at this moment, I just want to see how each pixel is described and how each colour is described. Once, I learn that, I'll try to get a programmer to teach the gecko browser engine to describe an image according to my algorithm.

Thanx

[onauc]

Ok.
I opened a jpeg file (it's a picture of my friend) in notepad and viewed the code and then copied it and pasted.

So, if the code looked like this first :

blahblahblah
blahblahblah

now it looks like this :

blahblahblah
blahblahblah
blahblahblah
blahblahblah

This means, the image of the new version should show 2 copies of my friend but it doesn't. Instead I get amessage the "image could not be viewed".

Why don't you try it out ?
I don't understand why this is happening.
If I copy a website's source code that looks like this :

<html>
get lost
</html>

and paste it twice which looks like this :

<html>
get lost
</html>
<html>
get lost
</html>

or even this :

<html>
get lost
get lost
</html>

then it will be shown by the browser like this :

get lost
get lost

so, since I copied the image's source code twice and saved it then when I view the image it should show 2 copies of my friend just like it shows to copies of "get lost".

Mmm. What's wrong ?
Maybe, this is what is wrong.....
Maybe the gibberish code described the original image like this :

pixel 1 - 3 = blue
pixel 4 - 6 = blue
pixel 7 - 9 = yellow
pixel 9 - 12 = yellow

(each pixel described once only).

pixel 1 - 3 = blue
pixel 4 - 6 = blue
pixel 7 - 9 = yellow
pixel 9 - 12 = yellow

pixel 1 - 3 = blue
pixel 4 - 6 = blue
pixel 7 - 9 = yellow
pixel 9 - 12 = yellow

(thus describing a pixel twice).
Maybe, the computer got confused because the image file was describing each pixel twice ?
Do you think that is the case ?

Maybe also, the copy version has the opening and ending tag twice and the computer got confused ?
I mean, if I want to repeat text in an html file, I would do it like this :

<html>
get lost
get lost
</html>

and not like this :

<html>
get lost
</html>
<html>
get lost
</html>

because doing the above will mean writing the opening and ending tags twice which copuld confuse the browser.
Maybe, the image file's code has an opening and an ending tag like that ?
Maybe, when I duplicated the image's codes and saved it, I also duplicated the opening and ending tags of an image file (if such tags do exist) and that is why the computer got confused ?
What do you think is the real problem ?

Maybe, I should create an image file in one colour and then open it with notepad and then see it's colour description and then create another file with another colour and then open that to get that colour's description ?
This way, I can understand what description described a pixel's colour to a browser ?

If I drop a line to the guys who created the jpeg format to give me the codes that describe each pixel and each colour then do you reckon they would agree ?
Anyway, which companies created the bmp, gif and jpeg formats ?

[frrossk]

Google for image file formats and image processing; it'a a lot of theory to study to get where you want...