Too many pixels in Histogram of selection

GA
Posted By
George_Austin
Jan 4, 2004
Views
502
Replies
13
Status
Closed
In a 4×4-pixel selection made with the unfeathered marquee tool, the histogram shows 32 pixels instead of 16. Why?

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

PH
Photo_Help
Jan 4, 2004
Are you sue it is 4×4 (Marquee tool set to "Fixed Size")?

Works fine for me in PS7.
GA
George_Austin
Jan 4, 2004
Photo Help,

Yes, I confirm marquee is set to 4×4 pixels fixed size in PS 7, but it is helpful to find that you get 16 pixels with that setting.
PH
Photo_Help
Jan 4, 2004
George,

"it is helpful to find that you get 16 pixels with that setting."

It is? 🙂

I just don’t get it! The units are too small to me a pixels vs. inches problem. I have tried different image modes, blending modes, multiple layers with sets in case they were being added somehow. Alpha Channels, layer masks. No matter what I do I get 16, I just can’t make it break! 🙂

Is this happening with all files or just one in particular?

I assume you have tried resetting your preferences and rebooted your system?
GA
George_Austin
Jan 5, 2004
Photo Help

I exited PS and came back in, made a 4×4 selection and it checked out at 16 pixels in the histogram.

What I didn’t tell you and you couldn’t have known was that originally, after making the selection I had filled the left half with black, the right with white. Then I centered the blur tool in the square with hard brush diameter less than the square side and held the mouse button down for maybe 10 seconds. In all of that, peripheral pixels must have gotten partly selected. The partial selection must have been less than 50%, explaining why the marching ants still appeared on the 4×4 periphery.

Sorry to under-describe the scenario (I was examining the blur tool’s action)and thanks for taking a shot.

George
PH
Photo_Help
Jan 5, 2004
George,

You described the problem fine. Even that wouldn’t do what you described. Using a fixed size Rectangular Marquee you should have 16 pixels no matter what. It would be a different story if you were using the magic wand. I think there was a glitch and a reset was in order. At least it is working now. 🙂
GA
George_Austin
Jan 5, 2004
Photo Help

How about if I deselected the 4×4 square when I blurred within its then imaginary boundary and followed by re-selecting. I’m not sure if I did that, but I may have. What sticks in my mind is that the marching ants appear at the 50% selected boundary. You can have partially selected pixels outside the marching ants and if so I figure they must be included in the histogram’s pixel count. If I weren’t pressed for time, I would right now try blurring after deselecting and then reselecting and checking the pixel count. Oh well, as you say, it’s working OK now. The rest is idle curiosity. 🙂

George
PH
Photo_Help
Jan 5, 2004
George,

Before post #3 I had already tried gradients, blurs and various opacity settings thinking that if the pixels were translucent that the histogram might also count the pixels on the layer below for some strange reason even though it should be based only on the area of the selection.

The layer settings should have noting to do with the pixel count. Each pixel can only be one color and you can’t select partial pixels either.

I would say it was just a software glitch were a variable got mixed up before the calculations were taking place.

It would have been interesting to have tested different sized selections to see if it always just doubled the number of pixels. There is also the possibility that there was somehow another selection somewhere else on the canvas (Perhaps from a stuck shift key).

Oh well, like you said it is working now and it is doubtful that it will ever happen again.
GA
George_Austin
Jan 5, 2004
Photo Help

"…There is also the possibility that there was somehow another selection somewhere else on the canvas…"

By george, I think you got it !!

I do remember (vaguely) creating a selection and hitting the magnifier to 1600 only to have my selection off screen. Instead of finding it, I just created a new one in a portion of the image that WAS visible at 1600 magnification without scrolling around trying to find the first one. The selection mode was probably on "add to selection" rather than "create new selection". So then I would have had TWO identical but widely separated 4X4 squares, with one of them out of sight—and out of mind. I am sure that’s it. Good thinking.

George
PH
Photo_Help
Jan 5, 2004
Cool, At least it wasn’t a system glitch. Gotta love those PEBCAK errors 🙂
GA
George_Austin
Jan 5, 2004
PEBACK = ?????
PH
Photo_Help
Jan 5, 2004

P.E.B.C.A.K.

Problem
Exists
Between
Chair
And
Keyboard

🙂
GA
George_Austin
Jan 5, 2004
Well, yeah, my crowded desk IS a problem ! 🙂
PH
Photo_Help
Jan 6, 2004
George,

Yeah… Um… Crowded desk… Suuure. 🙂

<Cough> User error </Cough>

Don’t let that desktop clutter take over!

Later.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections