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...
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 09:59 am (UTC)|| |
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.
It'll fail at the "preview" stage, but it ought to be OK once it's posted properly.
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 10:17 am (UTC)|| |
Ah, OK. Thanks.
I've changed its behaviour now so it doesn't think 'www' is a username.
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 11:20 am (UTC)|| |
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.
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 07:19 pm (UTC)|| |
I think that's expected behaviour.
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 10:59 am (UTC)|| |
Right. I'm finally sick of all these "$randomthing is love" colour bars. Most of the things and people so described have either nothing at all to do with love, or no more than any other randomly selected thing or person. The original "marriage is love" at least made sense
, even if it was pretty twee. So, without further ado, I present what I hope will be the colour bar to end all colour bars, or at the very least usher in a new era of having the things actually express a meaningful statement:
humanity is lunch
I hope that settles the matter. :-)
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 11:04 am (UTC)|| |
I think my pedantic side is easilly overwridden by my "wow, soppy things! Rainbow coloured things!" side. I'm 13 at heart, really...
The thing above wasn't meant to be a pastiche on the original but on the way it had been adopted all over LJ.
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 11:30 am (UTC)|| |
Indeed, I'm not particularly criticising you there. I just decided I'd seen "$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...
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.
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 12:11 pm (UTC)|| |
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?
, if any of this gets too tedious for you and you want it taken away from your journal, do shout :-)
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...
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 12:12 pm (UTC)|| |
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.
Ah, true. Hadn't been paying much attention to the images...
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 04:56 pm (UTC)|| |
I *love* it.
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 11:59 pm (UTC)|| |
As long as you credit me :-)
It also works rather well on people with just one usericon, such as calaedros
Vaguely reminiscent of Warhol's portraits of Marilyn Monroe ^_^;
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 06:12 pm (UTC)|| |
Oh, I don't know. Cute purple zombies!
|Date:||January 4th, 2006 09:53 pm (UTC)|| |
I've not met the adjective "rectal" as a verb before, and I now can't get the phrase out my head.
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.
Verbing weirds language