On 12/1/2011 8:06 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Interesting. As I expected, it doesn't actually produce a very
> convincing effect; it merely wraps the image, and then does some
> cross-fading. The result is a very visible transition. (Still, at least
> they made it circular, eh?)

Then fix up the seams manually, it's not that difficult.  I've attached 
an example that I whipped up GIMP to illustrate that it is totally 
possible (and not very hard) to do this sort of thing.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'pentland-pebbles_tileable.png' (469 KB)

Preview of image 'pentland-pebbles_tileable.png'

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:33:45 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> On 01/12/2011 04:26 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 01.12.2011 15:24, schrieb Invisible:
>>
>>> $8,000 is more money than I have ever owned at any time in my entire
>>> life. (I just changed the exchange rate. On 8 Nov 2007, that would
>>> have been £3795.07 - and that's the lowest it's been in the last 10
>>> years.)
>>
>> I'm still waiting for an explanation where you got that $8,000 figure
>> from.
> 
> Photography is expensive. That's why only huge publishing corporations
> can afford to do it.
> 
>> I bought a license for this photograph to put on both my website and my
>> business card when I was a freelancing embedded software developer:
>>
>> http://de.fotolia.com/id/4337839
> 
> I'm quite impressed that you can buy a good quality image like that for
> less than a thousand dollars. Presumably the range of available images
> is highly limited, however...

Andy, if you make me hit my head on my desk so hard I shatter the glass, 
you're going to owe me a new desk. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:06:12 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>> is this more challenging than writing a Haskell monad?
> 
> What's so hard about that?

I sure as hell couldn't do it, wouldn't even know where to start.  Of 
course, Haskell is one of the many things that I suck at.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:32:03 +0000, Invisible wrote:

>> it's a smooth transition that is barely noticeable in the large scheme
>> of things. Once it's mapped on a 3D floor, you simply don't notice the
>> faded edges on the tiled floor.
> 
> Maybe. But I'm talking about a 2D website background. It's pretty
> noticeable when half a pebble cross-fades into a different pebble.

And the example that posted was "here's a very simple way to do it".  Now 
add someone with time, experience, and expertise.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Photography is expensive. That's why only huge publishing corporations
>> can afford to do it.
>
> Photography created specifically according to your specifications /can/
> be expensive, yes. Depends on your motif though: Studio photography is
> pretty affordable actually. After all, the equipment is all there
> already, and all you need to pay is the working time of the
> photographer. With digital cameras, there's also virtually no material
> expense involved.
>
> For example, a professional photo shooting (including makeup and all)
> for a photograph of yourself might come at around 50 €. Probably worth
> it when applying for a new job.

Actually, I've been thinking about getting some photos of me done at 
some point... The main reason I haven't is that I probably can't afford it.

> It's when lighting equipment needs to be deployed to some site, the site
> closed down for the shooting, or special props be available, that things
> start getting costly.

Yeah, I don't even want to think about what I would have to pay to get a 
photograph of the steaming jungles of Borneo...

>> I'm quite impressed that you can buy a good quality image like that for
>> less than a thousand dollars. Presumably the range of available images
>> is highly limited, however...
>
> *facepalm*
>
> You have the website there. Why /presume/, when you can take a look
> around to /see/ for yourself?

As an exercise, I tried looking for photographs of a specific thing. I 
found lots of very nice photos, but nothing approximating what I really 
wanted. Basically, to be able to provide the right sort of images for 
every need imaginable, you would need an absurdly vast catelogue...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 01/12/2011 08:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:32:03 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>>> it's a smooth transition that is barely noticeable in the large scheme
>>> of things. Once it's mapped on a 3D floor, you simply don't notice the
>>> faded edges on the tiled floor.
>>
>> Maybe. But I'm talking about a 2D website background. It's pretty
>> noticeable when half a pebble cross-fades into a different pebble.
>
> And the example that posted was "here's a very simple way to do it".  Now
> add someone with time, experience, and expertise.

Oh, hey, I'm sure somebody at ILM could do it. What I'm saying is that I 
don't see how you can just push a button and have it magically tile any 
image and also look good.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 01/12/2011 08:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:06:12 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>>> is this more challenging than writing a Haskell monad?
>>
>> What's so hard about that?
>
> I sure as hell couldn't do it, wouldn't even know where to start.  Of
> course, Haskell is one of the many things that I suck at.

And I wouldn't know how to bake fairy cakes. That doesn't mean it's 
hard. (Hell, I've *done* it... I just don't remember how, that's all.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> On 01/12/2011 08:43 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:32:03 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>>> it's a smooth transition that is barely noticeable in the large scheme
>>>> of things. Once it's mapped on a 3D floor, you simply don't notice the
>>>> faded edges on the tiled floor.
>>>
>>> Maybe. But I'm talking about a 2D website background. It's pretty
>>> noticeable when half a pebble cross-fades into a different pebble.
>>
>> And the example that posted was "here's a very simple way to do it".  Now
>> add someone with time, experience, and expertise.
> 
> Oh, hey, I'm sure somebody at ILM could do it.

Kevin Wampler who just provided an example below does not work at ILM, 
nor do I.  It's not the case of being a notable expert, just following 
the steps for a technique.  Careful selection of borders you want is 
simple enough since the selection tool allows to do it point by point.

The point is:  instead of calling it impossible just to look like a 
dumbass, try to use the software for a while to get the hang of it.

> What I'm saying is that I 
> don't see how you can just push a button and have it magically tile any 
> image and also look good.

the pebbles image was a bad idea, but if details of the texture are 
sufficiently small, like sand or soil, even that button does the job 
just fine.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh, hey, I'm sure somebody at ILM could do it.
>
> Kevin Wampler who just provided an example below does not work at ILM,
> nor do I. It's not the case of being a notable expert, just following
> the steps for a technique. Careful selection of borders you want is
> simple enough since the selection tool allows to do it point by point.
>
> The point is: instead of calling it impossible just to look like a
> dumbass, try to use the software for a while to get the hang of it.

The point is: I said it's not possible for a piece of software to 
magically tile any possible image seemlessly. If you're saying that a 
piece of software with an expert to work it can sometimes do a good job, 
that's a different statement. I can see how that might be quite 
possible. (Though it still sounds pretty difficult...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Am 01.12.2011 23:11, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> The point is: I said it's not possible for a piece of software to
> magically tile any possible image seemlessly.

No. You only said that it wasn't possible for a normal mortal to tile 
images seamlessly with the help of software. You didn't mention that you 
expected software to do the job alone.

Post a reply to this message