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

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:53:07 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 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.)

It's not hard to people who know how to do it.  That's kinda the point.

You're kinda missing my point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:50:28 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 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.

Oh FFS, Andy....

http://www.portraitplace.co.uk/promotions

Took me about 5 seconds to find that with Google Maps, and it's local to 
*you*.  I'm halfway around the frikin' world and I found a place there 
that will do portraits for a portrait sitting that costs < US$10 and 
includes a 12x10 print.

Photos are *not* expensive.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12/1/2011 12:50, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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...

It depends on the quality, too. Get someone who lives in Borneo to 
photograph it for you.

The expensive photos are the ones you can only use once, like the photo you 
take for a package cover (like, the contents of the frozen dinner), 
especially if it takes a lot of set up (like arranging each grain of rice 
before taking the photo).

You want a picture of an elephant in Africa? We have lots of those floating 
around.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/1/2011 2:02, Invisible wrote:
> And you're saying stuff like that actually exists in the real world, and
> some of it is actually good quality?

I've seen multiple news reports of people being PO'ed because their "free" 
photography wound up advertising something on the side of a bus. Perfectly 
legal, the way they had released it.

So, yeah.

>>> I can't figure out how it's even possible in theory.
>>
>> I had to google around for about 15 minutes before I found an actual
>> explanation, rather than someone just saying "use the photoshop filter".
>
> Because, of course, everybody can afford Photoshop(r)... Oh, wait...

Well, because everyone who professionally manipulates photos for video games 
can afford photoshop or some similar package.

> I still don't see how you can "fix" the seems. It's not like you can move
> individual blades of grass around.

Sure. Clone brush.

> I mean most of the pictures I looked at have fairly obvious rough edges
> where the seems don't line up.

It needs to be something that's homogenous. You'll have trouble making a 
repeating image of people or buildings or something. Grass? Bricks? Sure.

> Somebody somewhere must actually /teach/ graphic design skills...

Yeah. It's called "college". :-)

> Then again, I spent 6 months at drawing classes, and I still can't draw. So
> maybe it's just that only a tiny fraction of the population will ever be
> good at graphic design?

Or maybe the people trying to teach you to draw were better artists than 
teachers?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/1/2011 8:32, Invisible wrote:
> Maybe. But I'm talking about a 2D website background. It's pretty noticeable
> when half a pebble cross-fades into a different pebble.

Look at some of the stone walls I posted. Yes, I really did duplicate bits 
of some stones over on other stones. It took a couple hours.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/12/2011 01:11 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:50:28 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Oh FFS, Andy....
>
> http://www.portraitplace.co.uk/promotions
>
> Took me about 5 seconds to find that with Google Maps, and it's local to
> *you*.  I'm halfway around the frikin' world and I found a place there
> that will do portraits for a portrait sitting that costs<  US$10 and
> includes a 12x10 print.
>
> Photos are *not* expensive.

Interesting. Last time my parents had me and my sister photographed and 
framed, it ended up costing several hundred pounds. Obviously, I do not 
have that kind of money just laying around.

(I did try using Google to find the place where we had it done, but it 
doesn't seem to exist any more... Some shop called Olan Mills. Wikipedia 
says something about the UK group being liquidated...)

Post a reply to this message

On 02/12/2011 01:04 AM, Darren New wrote:
> 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?

That I've seen people try to do it, but I've never seen anyone succeed.

Post a reply to this message