h a l f b a k e r yThis is what happens when one confuses "random" with "profound."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Whilst working on a steganographic password system to conceal the passwords in passing steganosaurs, which seems to be going nowhere due to a profound lack of steganosaurs, I decided to try and minimise the excessive verbiage in pictures instead
As well all know, a picture says a thousand words, and
I was merely after about 27 or so. Endeavouring to cut down the number of words, I initially just a did a picture size 37-fold reduction. Unfortunately, it then just produced a much smaller photo and comments like "what the heck is that, I can hardly see it" which is, dear reader, only 10 words, so progress of a sort.
Considering that even a 37 fold reduction gave a ten word output, the relationship does seem to be non-linear.
I then thought of merely reduces the pixel resolution by 32 times. Getting comments like "Flippin' heck, what is it? Looks like modern art. Gives me eye-strain, them things " I then realised that although the word count is up to 14, the words actually bear no relationship to the content of actual original photographic image.
Currently I am working on a combination of the two effects to reduce the verbal output whilst retaining a sufficient amount of the information from the original photo to get a number of relevant words.
Something like this?
http://www.benzilla...HarmonLincoln-s.jpg
[Klaatu, Nov 24 2011]
[link]
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] no idea |
|
| |
OK, how about people use image files of stegosaurs
to hide data? |
|
| |
"A highly lossy compression system which still gets the gist of a picture across." |
|
| |
I disagree with this. A picture does not say infinite words. (Clarification--What a picture does not say is infinite words) That is the true meaning of anything. I don't care if it is a steg(an?)osaurus. I know that it is not a piece of celery and hence, due to the fact that I am a vegetarian, I can't eat it. Action is chosen based on elimination. Similarly, the meaning of a picture can only be derived through elimination. If you want to limit what can be said you must limit what can't be said. Keep your picture incredibly vague, blurred, rainbow-colored (but not to the point where you can call it rainbow-colored), shapeless, and confusing. I imagine the perfect enigma where the only thing you can say is, "it sort of looks like a steg(an)osaurus". |
|
| |
I like the halfbaked, valid but not sound, logic of this. |
|
| |
...edited due to inability to spell stegosaurus the first time around...and turning one division of NMRDyne to BigSleep's idea of cracking this one from the bottom up (if you will forgive the expression), starting off with one word and seeing what picture can be made of it, then two words, and so on. |
|
| |
Expect it in an app store this side of Xmas, with backwards compatibility for cave paintings and/or children's drawings. |
|
| |
And just having noticed Klaatu's post, some a better translator for the pic->words converter, as when I ran that picture through it, it seemed to say something like "and go ----- with your mother's goat", obviously an idiomatic meaning in pixel 24.... |
|
| |
//Black square approximately one millimetre in width and height// |
|
| |
"My god, it's full of stars"...I make that seven words |
|
| |
If your words are worth only one millipicture each, then you haven't chosen them very well. |
|
| |
^That, for example, is both of the Mona Lisa's eyebrows and several of the rocks in the background, or possibly one eighty-third of a street map of Tring. |
|
| |