 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.12.2011 10:41, schrieb Invisible:
> 1. Everybody has a mental model of how the world works, and based on
> that model, everybody has a mostly clear idea of what is and is not
> possible. If you stopped to seriously consider every single outlandish
> claim hurled at you, you'd spend a long time considering utter nonsense.
> Thus if somebody tells me they've solved the halting problem, that they
> can remove objects from a photograph, or that they can see through
> walls, I'm going to have to say that that's impossible. It's not that I
> can't think of a way to do it, it's that there are strong theoretical
> reasons for why it should /not/ be possible, ever.
As for the removal of objects from a photograph, see the sovjet russian
tradition. They were pretty good at that actually.
Not trusting anything people tell you is an important thing. But you
also need the ability to not trust your mental model of the world
either, which is a skill you don't really show in your postings.
> 2. If you read my original post, I mostly said that certain things "defy
> comprehension". I didn't say it was "impossible". Clearly these web
> designs exist - I just cannot understand *how* they can exist. I don't
> see how it's possible. I was hoping that maybe somebody would be able to
> explain it. Instead, everybody just said "it's all trivial, you're just
> too stupid to understand that".
If you want explanations, ask for them. Don't expect male people to read
that request between the lines of your posts.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-12-01 11:32, Invisible a écrit :
>>> 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?)
>>
>> 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.
>
>>> As an aside, I'd never noticed the Filter menu before. There's quite a
>>> lot of stuff in there...
>>
>> o_0
>>
>> It's just the bread and butter of bitmap editors...
>
> Well, it's the bread and butter of image processors. It won't help you
> if you're trying to (for example) remove an object from an image...
No, automatic filters can't decide what to remove on their own*. One
has to use the clone stamp tool for that (see attached).
It may come as a shock to you, but GIMP does come with tutorials and
documentation!
*Despite what they say about Photoshop CS5's or Gimp's smart removal
filter.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'clonestamp.jpg' (149 KB)
Preview of image 'clonestamp.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It may come as a shock to you, but GIMP does come with tutorials and
> documentation!
I spent about a week reading Grokking the GIMP. I still can't get much
more than the most basic tasks done with it. The GUI seems to have been
designed with the explicit goal of making everything maximally difficult
to understand...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-12-01 20:11, Darren New a écrit :
> 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.
>
Floating elephants? May I suggest laying off the bottle a bit?
;)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/2/2011 8:16 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> No, automatic filters can't decide what to remove on their own*. One has
> to use the clone stamp tool for that (see attached).
>
> *Despite what they say about Photoshop CS5's or Gimp's smart removal
> filter.
While you are certainly correct in general, I bet Adobe's content aware
fill would have handled your example image about as well as you did
manually (which is quite well). I didn't try it though, so there's a
chance I'm wrong.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-12-02 11:19, Invisible a écrit :
>> It may come as a shock to you, but GIMP does come with tutorials and
>> documentation!
>
> I spent about a week reading Grokking the GIMP. I still can't get much
> more than the most basic tasks done with it. The GUI seems to have been
> designed with the explicit goal of making everything maximally difficult
> to understand...
Yet, you have no problem reading mathematical proofs...
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/12/2011 04:42 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2011-12-02 11:19, Invisible a écrit :
>>> It may come as a shock to you, but GIMP does come with tutorials and
>>> documentation!
>>
>> I spent about a week reading Grokking the GIMP. I still can't get much
>> more than the most basic tasks done with it. The GUI seems to have been
>> designed with the explicit goal of making everything maximally difficult
>> to understand...
>
> Yet, you have no problem reading mathematical proofs...
Depends. A lot of *proofs* seem to be written in the most complicated
manner too. :-P But discussions involving mathematics? Yeah, I can
usually deal with that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-12-01 09:36, Invisible a écrit :
>>> POV-Ray makes nice stone textures (unless you're a geologist) and wood
>>> textures (unless you're a dendrologist). Last time I checked, there's no
>>> way of making a canvas texture or a wet paper texture or a spilled paint
>>> texture or...
>>
>> By playing with gradient and checker textures, I'm sure you could come
>> up with a decent canvas texture in less than half an hour.
>
> Off you go then. :-)
>
Challenge accepted. I have a few hours ahead of me saturday as I baby
sit an Oracle upgrade.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/2/2011 8:19, Invisible wrote:
> I spent about a week reading Grokking the GIMP. I still can't get much more
> than the most basic tasks done with it.
I found the GIMP UI to be about on par with the Blender UI. Both suck.
Paint programs for some reason seem to have awful UIs. I haven't tried
photoshop, but even something like Paint Shop Pro has a UI that's pretty
opaque at time. Hey, I want to draw a circle with a blue border full of
red... OK, time to go figure out why it won't do it in the obvious way.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/2/2011 1:22, Invisible wrote:
> that a guy sitting in their bedroom cannot possibly hope to compete with or
> even approach this level of perfection in a finished design.
Meh. It just takes a lot longer. Buying better paint programs just makes it
faster. A $100 paint program gets you 80% of the way there if you don't need
fancy filters like to do content-aware fill or unblur a photo.
>> Sure. Clone brush.
> That doesn't work.
> No, wait, I rephrase: I have never yet seen it work. Is that better?
You have. Did you look at the links to the album on amazon I posted. That's
how I did it - all manually.
> God only knows how you hire the good guys...
Find a web site you like. Read the credits. :-)
> Yeah, probably. Few people apparently realise that being good at something
> is not the same as being good at teaching it...
Indeed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
