 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/1/2011 2:11 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 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...)
I'm *far* from an expert in image editing, and I didn't do anything to
make that image that a pure beginner couldn't get the hand of in a few
hours, and I did it with only free softwars.
In addition, I'm not sure what point you're making. Depending on what
you mean by "seamlessly tileable" it's probably wither trivial or
*obviously* impossible to convert an image into tileable form. But
nobody here is claiming that you can tile *every* image automatically.
What people are claiming is:
1) It's not that hard to do it manually in most cases
2) For many images you can indeed tile them automatically
As an illustration of (2), I've attached a tileable image that I created
in GIMP with about two button clicks and no manual editing. Can you
spot the seams?
As a meta-comment you have a tenancy to declare things "impossible" when
you merely cannot see a way to achieve them. Given that your
assessments are not infrequently wrong in this regard, you might benefit
from being less defeatist and more curious when you don't see how
something can be done. Just my opinion though, you're obviously free to
disregard it as bunk.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'small_beach_pebbles_tileable.jpg' (511 KB)
Preview of image 'small_beach_pebbles_tileable.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/1/2011 6:24, Invisible wrote:
> Given that calligraphy is a rare skill,
And on what basis do you make that claim? That the people you never asked
never told you?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:51:54 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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.
You should watch some demos of Adobe's conference, specifically demos
with some of the stuff that's in development for Photoshop.
Pretty amazing stuff.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
