?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Who else is love? pseudomonas me scripsit… - Sally's Journal
January 4th, 2006
09:24 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Share Next Entry




Who else is love?
pseudomonas me scripsit anno 2005



Sadly, this rather cute script works better on people with user icons of abstract art and scenes of natural beauty than on people with user icons of the Eye of Sauron and a man rectalling a cow. There may not be a technological solution to this problem...

(30 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments
 
[User Picture]
From:badasstronaut
Date:January 4th, 2006 09:40 am (UTC)
(Link)
cool!
[User Picture]
From:aldabra
Date:January 4th, 2006 09:59 am (UTC)
(Link)
Hmmm, works fine for me here but if I try to post it in my own journal it can't find my icons. Wonder why that would be.
[User Picture]
From:pseudomonas
Date:January 4th, 2006 10:14 am (UTC)
(Link)
It'll fail at the "preview" stage, but it ought to be OK once it's posted properly.
[User Picture]
From:aldabra
Date:January 4th, 2006 10:17 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ah, OK. Thanks.
[User Picture]
From:pseudomonas
Date:January 4th, 2006 10:24 am (UTC)
(Link)
I've changed its behaviour now so it doesn't think 'www' is a username.
[User Picture]
From:aldabra
Date:January 4th, 2006 11:20 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm getting reports that when viewed on friends pages it uses the icons of the viewer, but when viewed on the "reply" page it uses my icons. IRMFI.
[User Picture]
From:emperor
Date:January 4th, 2006 07:19 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think that's expected behaviour.
[User Picture]
From:megaleena
Date:January 4th, 2006 10:54 am (UTC)
(Link)
Aw, that's cute!
[User Picture]
From:simont
Date:January 4th, 2006 10:59 am (UTC)
(Link)
Right. I'm finally sick of all these "$randomthing is love" colour bars. Most of the things and people so described have either nothing at all to do with love, or no more than any other randomly selected thing or person. The original "marriage is love" at least made sense, even if it was pretty twee. So, without further ado, I present what I hope will be the colour bar to end all colour bars, or at the very least usher in a new era of having the things actually express a meaningful statement:


humanity is lunch

I hope that settles the matter. :-)

[User Picture]
From:atreic
Date:January 4th, 2006 11:04 am (UTC)
(Link)
:-)

I think my pedantic side is easilly overwridden by my "wow, soppy things! Rainbow coloured things!" side. I'm 13 at heart, really...
[User Picture]
From:pseudomonas
Date:January 4th, 2006 11:23 am (UTC)
(Link)
C[th]ool!

The thing above wasn't meant to be a pastiche on the original but on the way it had been adopted all over LJ.
[User Picture]
From:simont
Date:January 4th, 2006 11:30 am (UTC)
(Link)
Indeed, I'm not particularly criticising you there. I just decided I'd seen "$noun is love" one too many times and it was time to strike back in general :-)

JOOI, how did you do the colour tinting in your script? That is, not "what software and Perl modules helped you" but "what is the mapping that converts an untinted r,g,b triple to a tinted one"? That seems to me to be the hardest thing to get right in generating one of these. I'm quite pleased with how well the off-the-top-of-my-head function I used for the above worked, and now I'm interested to know how other implementations do it...
[User Picture]
From:pseudomonas
Date:January 4th, 2006 11:34 am (UTC)
(Link)
I'm afraid I don't know the workings of ImageMagick enough to give you a good answer. I used Quantize(colorspace=>'gray') followed by Tint(fill=>$colour) if that helps you find out.
[User Picture]
From:simont
Date:January 4th, 2006 12:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks, yes, it does; given that, I was able to look through the ImageMagick source until I figured it out. So you're first flattening the image into black and white, and then applying a transformation in which mid-grey maps to the tint colour, black and white map to themselves, and all other shades of grey are interpolated as appropriate.

Mine is significantly more sophisticated, it turns out. After I noticed that whatever transform you were using provided black, white and the tint colour as possible outputs, I reasoned (wrongly) that you were probably working in a two-dimensional colour space. So what I do is to extract two properties from the input pixel colour: its saturation (the minimum of the r,g,b values) and its intensity in the tint hue itself (the dot product of the input pixel and the tint). Then I scale the latter so that its entire possible range runs from 0 to 1, and construct my output pixel as that multiple of the tint colour, squashed up towards 1 by the saturation. Thus, mine is a two-dimensional colour space, and will also give qualitatively different outputs for the same input image given different tint colours; and I think you can see the difference.

Can I persuade you to try your script on the seven source images at http://www.tartarus.org/~simon/20060104-ccb-sources and see how different it comes out?

(atreic, if any of this gets too tedious for you and you want it taken away from your journal, do shout :-)
[User Picture]
From:king_of_wrong
Date:January 4th, 2006 11:58 am (UTC)
(Link)
Presumably:
Y = 0.212671 * R + 0.715160 * G + 0.072169 * B
(or Y = 0.299*R + 0.587*G + 0.114*B for fans of 1950s TV equipment) to get luminance/greyscale and then multiplying this value by the R/G/B components of the tint colour...
[User Picture]
From:simont
Date:January 4th, 2006 12:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That was the first thing I tried, and it's certainly not right: it can only produce as output a continuum between black and the tint colour, and can never produce white. Whereas both my method and pseudomonas's can produce both black and white in addition to the tint colour.
[User Picture]
From:king_of_wrong
Date:January 4th, 2006 12:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Ah, true. Hadn't been paying much attention to the images...
[User Picture]
From:deborah_c
Date:January 4th, 2006 02:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*giggles*
[User Picture]
From:naath
Date:January 4th, 2006 04:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I *love* it.
[User Picture]
From:dreamfracture
Date:January 4th, 2006 11:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
PLEASE can I steal this?
[User Picture]
From:simont
Date:January 4th, 2006 11:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
As long as you credit me :-)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:king_of_wrong
Date:January 4th, 2006 11:35 am (UTC)
(Link)
It also works rather well on people with just one usericon, such as calaedros or myself...

Vaguely reminiscent of Warhol's portraits of Marilyn Monroe ^_^;
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:ceb
Date:January 4th, 2006 06:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, I don't know. Cute purple zombies!
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:ceb
Date:January 4th, 2006 09:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yeth Mathter.
[User Picture]
From:pseudomonas
Date:January 5th, 2006 12:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
I've not met the adjective "rectal" as a verb before, and I now can't get the phrase out my head.
From:lxvxjxnkie
Date:January 5th, 2006 11:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
related story. in a crim law class i took, a student went on a rant about police 'verballing' (recording a false confession) suspects. he had a bit of an accent and to this day i hear that word as 'furballing' and giggle.
[User Picture]
From:pseudomonas
Date:January 5th, 2006 11:43 pm (UTC)

Verbing weirds language

(Link)
Cute!
Powered by LiveJournal.com