I usually go with something like the implementation given in Josh Bloch's *fabulous* Effective Java. It's fast and creates a pretty good hash which is unlikely to cause collisions. Pick two different prime numbers, e.g. 17 and 23, and do:

```
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked // Overflow is fine, just wrap
{
int hash = 17;
// Suitable nullity checks etc, of course :)
hash = hash * 23 + field1.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * 23 + field2.GetHashCode();
hash = hash * 23 + field3.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
```

As noted in comments, you may find it's better to pick a large prime to multiply by instead. Apparently 486187739 is good... and although most examples I've seen with small numbers tend to use primes, there are at least similar algorithms where non-prime numbers are often used. In the not-quite-FNV example later, for example, I've used numbers which apparently work well - but the initial value isn't a prime. (The multiplication constant *is* prime though. I don't know quite how important that is.)

This is better than the common practice of `XOR`

ing hashcodes for two main reasons. Suppose we have a type with two `int`

fields:

```
XorHash(x, x) == XorHash(y, y) == 0 for all x, y
XorHash(x, y) == XorHash(y, x) for all x, y
```

By the way, the earlier algorithm is the one currently used by the C# compiler for anonymous types.

This page gives quite a few options. I think for most cases the above is "good enough" and it's incredibly easy to remember and get right. The FNV alternative is similarly simple, but uses different constants and `XOR`

instead of `ADD`

as a combining operation. It looks *something* like the code below, but the normal FNV algorithm operates on individual bytes, so this would require modifying to perform one iteration per byte, instead of per 32-bit hash value. FNV is also designed for variable lengths of data, whereas the way we're using it here is always for the same number of field values. Comments on this answer suggest that the code here doesn't actually work as well (in the sample case tested) as the addition approach above.

```
// Note: Not quite FNV!
public override int GetHashCode()
{
unchecked // Overflow is fine, just wrap
{
int hash = (int) 2166136261;
// Suitable nullity checks etc, of course :)
hash = (hash * 16777619) ^ field1.GetHashCode();
hash = (hash * 16777619) ^ field2.GetHashCode();
hash = (hash * 16777619) ^ field3.GetHashCode();
return hash;
}
}
```

Note that one thing to be aware of is that ideally you should prevent your equality-sensitive (and thus hashcode-sensitive) state from changing after adding it to a collection that depends on the hash code.

As per the documentation:

You can override GetHashCode for immutable reference types. In general, for mutable reference types, you should override GetHashCode only if:

- You can compute the hash code from fields that are not mutable; or
- You can ensure that the hash code of a mutable object does not change while the object is contained in a collection that relies on its hash code.

The link to the FNV article is broken but here is a copy in the Internet Archive: Eternally Confuzzled - The Art of Hashing

Do not apply an explicit width or height to the image tag. Instead, give it:

```
max-width:100%;
max-height:100%;
```

Also, `height: auto;`

if you want to specify a width only.

Example: http://jsfiddle.net/xwrvxser/1/

```
img {
max-width: 100%;
max-height: 100%;
}
.portrait {
height: 80px;
width: 30px;
}
.landscape {
height: 30px;
width: 80px;
}
.square {
height: 75px;
width: 75px;
}
```

```
Portrait Div
<div class="portrait">
<img src="http://i.stack.imgur.com/xkF9Q.jpg">
</div>
Landscape Div
<div class="landscape">
<img src="http://i.stack.imgur.com/xkF9Q.jpg">
</div>
Square Div
<div class="square">
<img src="http://i.stack.imgur.com/xkF9Q.jpg">
</div>
```

## Best Solution

Below are three approaches to solving this problem (and there are many others).

The first is a standard approach in computer vision, keypoint matching. This may require some background knowledge to implement, and can be slow.

The second method uses only elementary image processing, and is potentially faster than the first approach, and is straightforward to implement. However, what it gains in understandability, it lacks in robustness -- matching fails on scaled, rotated, or discolored images.

The third method is both fast and robust, but is potentially the hardest to implement.

Keypoint MatchingBetter than picking 100 random points is picking 100

importantpoints. Certain parts of an image have more information than others (particularly at edges and corners), and these are the ones you'll want to use for smart image matching. Google "keypoint extraction" and "keypoint matching" and you'll find quite a few academic papers on the subject. These days, SIFT keypoints are arguably the most popular, since they can match images under different scales, rotations, and lighting. Some SIFT implementations can be found here.One downside to keypoint matching is the running time of a naive implementation: O(n^2m), where n is the number of keypoints in each image, and m is the number of images in the database. Some clever algorithms might find the closest match faster, like quadtrees or binary space partitioning.

Alternative solution: Histogram methodAnother less robust but potentially faster solution is to build feature histograms for each image, and choose the image with the histogram closest to the input image's histogram. I implemented this as an undergrad, and we used 3 color histograms (red, green, and blue), and two texture histograms, direction and scale. I'll give the details below, but I should note that this only worked well for matching images VERY similar to the database images. Re-scaled, rotated, or discolored images can fail with this method, but small changes like cropping won't break the algorithm

Computing the color histograms is straightforward -- just pick the range for your histogram buckets, and for each range, tally the number of pixels with a color in that range. For example, consider the "green" histogram, and suppose we choose 4 buckets for our histogram: 0-63, 64-127, 128-191, and 192-255. Then for each pixel, we look at the green value, and add a tally to the appropriate bucket. When we're done tallying, we divide each bucket total by the number of pixels in the entire image to get a normalized histogram for the green channel.

For the texture direction histogram, we started by performing edge detection on the image. Each edge point has a normal vector pointing in the direction perpendicular to the edge. We quantized the normal vector's angle into one of 6 buckets between 0 and PI (since edges have 180-degree symmetry, we converted angles between -PI and 0 to be between 0 and PI). After tallying up the number of edge points in each direction, we have an un-normalized histogram representing texture direction, which we normalized by dividing each bucket by the total number of edge points in the image.

To compute the texture scale histogram, for each edge point, we measured the distance to the next-closest edge point with the same direction. For example, if edge point A has a direction of 45 degrees, the algorithm walks in that direction until it finds another edge point with a direction of 45 degrees (or within a reasonable deviation). After computing this distance for each edge point, we dump those values into a histogram and normalize it by dividing by the total number of edge points.

Now you have 5 histograms for each image. To compare two images, you take the absolute value of the difference between each histogram bucket, and then sum these values. For example, to compare images A and B, we would compute

for each bucket in the green histogram, and repeat for the other histograms, and then sum up all the results. The smaller the result, the better the match. Repeat for all images in the database, and the match with the smallest result wins. You'd probably want to have a threshold, above which the algorithm concludes that no match was found.

Third Choice - Keypoints + Decision TreesA third approach that is probably much faster than the other two is using semantic texton forests (PDF). This involves extracting simple keypoints and using a collection decision trees to classify the image. This is faster than simple SIFT keypoint matching, because it avoids the costly matching process, and keypoints are much simpler than SIFT, so keypoint extraction is much faster. However, it preserves the SIFT method's invariance to rotation, scale, and lighting, an important feature that the histogram method lacked.

Update:My mistake -- the Semantic Texton Forests paper isn't specifically about image matching, but rather region labeling. The original paper that does matching is this one: Keypoint Recognition using Randomized Trees. Also, the papers below continue to develop the ideas and represent the state of the art (c. 2010):

~~BRIEF: Binary Robust Independent Elementary Features~~- less robust but very fast -- I think the goal here is real-time matching on smart phones and other handhelds