Page 436 of 2664

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:03 pm UTC
by dgbrt
COMA Dooooong
Image

Edit:
Fading out will lead to a New Fading In.
I am sure...

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:04 pm UTC
by Rick_LANL
117/255.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:05 pm UTC
by macraw83
buffygirl wrote:
macraw83 wrote:This is precisely why I don't keep an Aubronwood tab open... and am very careful whenever I do open one. I'm not sure if it's my browser or what, but if you leave it alone for a bit it has a tendency to start cycling again.

Yep, that's exactly what happened. Usually I am so so careful! I close my eyes first and hit F5 so it starts at the beginning. Oh well.

I am very sorry for your spoiler. But, it was LaPetite! A cause for much celebration! But then she was gone, and there was darkness (but less than before... literally).

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:05 pm UTC
by buffygirl
macraw83 wrote:
buffygirl wrote:For macraw83

Awesome! I shall put it on immediately. Immediately for me, anyway, sorry for making you wait (for it) for 5 Newpages first.
Such a splendid hat. A birdplane? Brilliant! And it's being worn by a cat. A cat in a birdplane hat, wearing a jacket. At least I hope I'm seeing that right, otherwise I'll feel terrible...

Indeed. With a three-penny radio antenna.

macraw83 wrote:The new one looks slightly shorter, maybe? And appears to have a slightly higher contrast, so that is nice. Thanks!

Yes, it was about the contrast (didn't really mean to crop it differently). I felt like I couldn't see the cat's head clearly enough.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:06 pm UTC
by macraw83
dgbrt wrote:COMA Dooooong
Image

HOW DID YOU DO THAT

I was coming back to post a *ONG (would have been my first ever), since I had JUST caught up for the week, and had the thought to say COMADONG, since I am now going to coma...

GET OUT OF MY HEAD

EDIT to avoid potential doublepostage:

buffygirl wrote:
macraw83 wrote:
buffygirl wrote:For macraw83

Awesome! I shall put it on immediately. Immediately for me, anyway, sorry for making you wait (for it) for 5 Newpages first.
Such a splendid hat. A birdplane? Brilliant! And it's being worn by a cat. A cat in a birdplane hat, wearing a jacket. At least I hope I'm seeing that right, otherwise I'll feel terrible...

Indeed. With a three-penny radio antenna.

macraw83 wrote:The new one looks slightly shorter, maybe? And appears to have a slightly higher contrast, so that is nice. Thanks!

Yes, it was about the contrast (didn't really mean to crop it differently). I felt like I couldn't see the cat's head clearly enough.

Ha! I'm glad I was correct. Which reminds me... I had quite forgotten to actually make the switch... :oops:

Guess that's one more thing to do before the coma.

EDIT 2: Added grayscale modifier, as I had seen to do a few Newpages back.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:09 pm UTC
by Angelastic
LaPetite will be back with a bulldozer. And maybe a new name, if BlitzGirl calls one out. :)

Here's my before avatar:
SHC-small.png
before avatar
SHC-small.png (21.64 KiB) Viewed 13717 times

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:11 pm UTC
by Earthling on Mars
Come back, LaPetite! We need you!

I think she's going to come back with some kind of shocking object (like a big hammer* or something) just before the frame goes completely white. And we'll be left wondering what she's going to do with it...perhaps for weeks...perhaps forever.

Edit: *Yeah, or a bulldozer

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:12 pm UTC
by Eliram

- I went to look at La Petite's previous images, since I was wondering if Randell may have just added her to the end white-tide as a gesture to this forum (There were plenty or requests for that when fading started).
The images look similar, but it doesn't seem like an exact match to me.
It might be interesting to check the timestamp on the second becoming of LaPetite and see if there is some kind of irregularity there.

- BuffyGirl, is there still room in your queue for a hatless spider?

- The list of forum members is awsome. Could the list be also arraged by order of first posting?

- The song compilation is amazing too. You people are seriously amazing.

- Saw BlitzGirl online. Go BlitzGirl, Go! I believe in your will power and I try not to post too much, just for you.


Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:14 pm UTC
by cellocgw
Pikrass wrote:We should start a petition, get it signed by all of the posters in this thread since the beginning, and send it to Randall. Time must not end !



"You cannot petition the Lord with prayer!"

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:17 pm UTC
by Davidy
htom wrote:Maybe she's Behind.

Did you hear about the butcher who backed into his slicer?
He got a little Behind in his work!

Did you hear about the butcher's daughter who backed into the slicer?
Disaster!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:18 pm UTC
by dgbrt
macraw83 wrote:
Spoiler:
dgbrt wrote:COMA Dooooong
Image
HOW DID YOU DO THAT

I was coming back to post a *ONG (would have been my first ever), since I had JUST caught up for the week, and had the thought to say COMADONG, since I am now going to coma...



The next *ONG is yours :wink:

Or you are now on coma? :D :D :D

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:21 pm UTC
by tman2nd
dgbrt wrote:Did Rendall ever made a Comic about this?
If not he will do... :wink:

Spoiler:
tman2nd wrote:
buffygirl wrote:
Pikrass wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
buffygirl wrote:
Pikrass wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
buffygirl wrote:
Pikrass wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
buffygirl wrote:
Pikrass wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
buffygirl wrote:
Pikrass wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
buffygirl wrote:
Pikrass wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
buffygirl wrote:
Pikrass wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
buffygirl wrote:
Pikrass wrote:
tman2nd wrote:







My 42 Cents :D :)

What is this? :?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:23 pm UTC
by AluisioASG
I see I'm not the only one whose name gets misspelled regularly.
At least the misspell is consistent. Lord Randall/Randal/Rendall/Randell doesn't have the same luck.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:24 pm UTC
by Caswallon
Just back before being consumed by the Outside again, has anyone directly compared the most recent La Petite frame with the previous ones to see if it may have been copied, or redrawn? (Probably silly because of the low effort involved.)

Off to the outside! may not be back till it has faded far more :(

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:24 pm UTC
by Exodies
lassehp wrote:I haven't contributed much I guess, but I have been thinking about a possible explanation for the gray.
Maybe we are just observing a passage of misty hazes, all alike. OK, we are feeling fogged now, but it will (be) clear. After all, we still just have to wait for it...

And a philosophical question: if nothing changes, does time pass? (Universally, I mean.)

/Lasse

Similarly (mutatis mutandis) if you can't tell the difference between two possibilities are neither of them likely?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:29 pm UTC
by htom
This grey sometimes has a purple tint (not actually there, an effect from other images on my screen) but it made me think of Nino Tempo and April Stevens, "Deep Purple". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1MWOdRUrb8

[Written in 1934 as a piano composition - lyrics added in 1939]

When the deep purple falls over sleepy garden walls
And the stars begin to twinkle in the night
In the mist of a memory you wander on back to me
Breathing my name with a sigh

In the still of the night once again I hold you tight
Though you're gone, your love lives on when moonlight beams
And as long as my heart will beat, sweet lover we'll always meet
Here in my deep purple dreams
Here in my deep purple dreams

When the deep purple falls over sleepy garden walls
And the stars begin to twinkle in the night
In the mist of a memory you wander back to me
Breathing my name with a sigh

In the still of the night once again I hold you tight
Though you're gone, your love lives on when moonlight beams
And as long as my heart will beat, sweet lover we'll always meet
Here in my deep purple dreams
And as long as my heart will beat, sweet lover we'll always meet
Here in my deep purple dreams

[Fade]

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:29 pm UTC
by mscha
I had to go Outside for a few newpix just after La Petite showed up. Couldn't wait to get back and see what she's up to.
Just got back.
Randalldammit! :evil:

Edit: a lot of people have been theorizing that we'll get a fade in to a new scene, or the old scene some time later, after the fade out is completed.
I'm afraid that the wish is father to the thought, though. Pretty much every cinematic fade-out/fade-in effect I've seen happens simultaneously – the new scene fades in while the old one fades out – and that is not the case here, we would have noticed that by now.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:32 pm UTC
by cmyk
Rick_LANL wrote:
cmyk wrote:
Tass wrote:
Spoiler:
cmyk wrote:Still on track for around frame 962/963.



Are you using chrome values? Because it is not at 50% yet.


Nuh-uh.

I'm downloading the original png from the hash, opening in Photoshop and making sure not to apply any color management (and its gamma set to 1.0 — linear).

Seems other image editors are opening the png as Index Color (with some default color lookup table), which, despite its 256 swatch values, is a bit less accurate than true 8-bit grayscale, so it rounds the value to the closest swatch.

Then, I sample the brightness level of the sand, using the HSB (Hue, Saturation, Brightness) color model, which gives me a percentage from black to white (0 - 100%) under "B".

With that, I just simply plug that percent into its appropriate frame for the graph data in Numbers, and fit an exponential curve to it.

Either way, the color values sampled are absolute, despite any "corrective" gamma function curves being applied to make it appear darker/lighter.


The .png file encodes a grayscale image, with integer values from 0 to 255 at each pixel. The value of the formerly-black pixels (all of which are identical, except near the edges where antialiasing has been applied) seems to me to be a much better measure of whiteness than converting 1-D intensity values to a 3-D colorspace model and then taking one of the three values. Right now it's 110, or about 43.14%.


Sciscitor wrote:
cmyk wrote:Nuh-uh.

I'm downloading the original png from the hash, opening in Photoshop and making sure not to apply any color management (and its gamma set to 1.0 — linear).

Seems other image editors are opening the png as Index Color (with some default color lookup table), which, despite its 256 swatch values, is a bit less accurate than true 8-bit grayscale, so it rounds the value to the closest swatch.


I am anything but an expert on colour spaces and icc profiles, but I took a look at the raw thing.
According to the output
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

\x00\x00\x03\x90ADBE\x02\x10\x00\x00prtrGRAYXYZ \x07\xcf\x00\x06\x00\x03\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00acspAPPL\x00\x00\x00\x00none\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x01\x00\x00\xf6\xd6\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\xd3-ADBE\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x05cprt\x00\x00\x00\xc0\x00\x00\x002desc\x00\x00\x00\xf4\x00\x00\x00gwtpt\x00\x00\x01\\\x00\x00\x00\x14bkpt\x00\x00\x01p\x00\x00\x00\x14kTRC\x00\x00\x01\x84\x00\x00\x02\x0ctext\x00\x00\x00\x00Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated\x00\x00\x00desc\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\rDot Gain 20%\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00XYZ \x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\xf6\xd6\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\xd3-XYZ \x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00curv\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\x10\x00 \x000\x00@\x00P\x00a\x00\x7f\x00\xa0\x00\xc5\x00\xec\x01\x17\x01D\x01u\x01\xa8\x01\xde\x02\x16\x02R\x02\x90\x02\xd0\x03\x13\x03Y\x03\xa1\x03\xec\x049\x04\x88\x04\xda\x05.\x05\x85\x05\xde\x069\x06\x96\x06\xf6\x07W\x07\xbb\x08"\x08\x8a\x08\xf4\ta\t\xd0\nA\n\xb4\x0b)\x0b\xa0\x0c\x1a\x0c\x95\r\x12\r\x92\x0e\x13\x0e\x96\x0f\x1c\x0f\xa3\x10,\x10\xb8\x11E\x11\xd4\x12e\x12\xf8\x13\x8d\x14$\x14\xbd\x15W\x15\xf4\x16\x92\x172\x17\xd4\x18x\x19\x1e\x19\xc6\x1ao\x1b\x1b\x1b\xc8\x1cv\x1d\'\x1d\xda\x1e\x8e\x1fD\x1f\xfc \xb5!q"."\xed#\xad$p%4%\xf9&\xc1\'\x8a(U)")\xf0*\xc0+\x92,e-:.\x11.\xea/\xc40\xa01}2\\3=4\x1f5\x035\xe96\xd07\xb98\xa49\x90:~;m<^=Q>E?;@3A,B&C"D E\x1fF G#H\'I-J4K<LGMSN`OoP\x7fQ\x91R\xa5S\xbaT\xd1U\xe9W\x02X\x1eY:ZX[x\\\x99]\xbc^\xe0`\x06a-bVc\x80d\xace\xd9g\x08h8iij\x9dk\xd1m\x07n?oxp\xb2q\xees+tju\xaav\xecx/ytz\xba|\x01}J~\x95\x7f\xe1\x81.\x82|\x83\xcd\x85\x1e\x86q\x87\xc5\x89\x1b\x8ar\x8b\xcb\x8d%\x8e\x81\x8f\xdd\x91<\x92\x9b\x93\xfd\x95_\x96\xc3\x98(\x99\x8f\x9a\xf7\x9c`\x9d\xcb\x9f7\xa0\xa5\xa2\x14\xa3\x85\xa4\xf6\xa6i\xa7\xde\xa9T\xaa\xcb\xacD\xad\xbe\xaf9\xb0\xb6\xb24\xb3\xb4\xb54\xb6\xb7\xb8:\xb9\xbf\xbbE\xbc\xcd\xbeV\xbf\xe0\xc1l\xc2\xf9\xc4\x87\xc6\x17\xc7\xa8\xc9;\xca\xce\xccc\xcd\xfa\xcf\x92\xd1+\xd2\xc5\xd4a\xd5\xfe\xd7\x9c\xd9<\xda\xdd\xdc\x7f\xde#\xdf\xc8\xe1n\xe3\x16\xe4\xbf\xe6i\xe8\x14\xe9\xc1\xebo\xed\x1f\xee\xd0\xf0\x82\xf25\xf3\xea\xf5\xa0\xf7W\xf9\x10\xfa\xca\xfc\x85\xfeA\xff\xff


It is an Adobe ICC-Profile with a LUT (Look Up Table) for printing. So: No idea what all this means, but I am pretty sure it's not just an ordinary grayscale image.


Well, there's grayscale, where each pixel can be a intensity value from 0-255 (8 bits per pixel).

Then there's Index, where each pixel is assigned a number that pertains to one of the 256 color swatches, preordained in the color lookup table:
Image
Image

The important difference, is that a true 8-bit grayscale can have an absolute intensity value assigned, per pixel, so if you're employing color management (such as the ubiquitous sRGB gamma curve correction), the colors will be displayed via depending on your monitor gamma, and/or your color workspace gamma. The values can also be manipulated using Curves, or Levels, etc.

Not so with Index Color. Which is fine, accept, do the swatches for a grayscale proceed in a linear scale, or is there already some gamma curve "baked" into the swatches? Can't say for sure, which makes it harder to analyze for absolute values (unless you load your own CLUT, with a linear scale, 1.0 gamma).

(you can see, if you count from 0 to the 12th swatch (see eyedropper sample #1 - Idx:12) for the Mac OS System CLUT palette, you'll see a pink is assigned for the sand/sea color.)

ALLL that said, not sure if it really makes that much of a difference for this purpose! :mrgreen:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:40 pm UTC
by katakombe
since we are talking fitting music, how about
On an Unknown Beach
no mention of sandcastles but the video still fits i think

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:41 pm UTC
by descor
cmyk wrote:
Spoiler:
Rick_LANL wrote:
cmyk wrote:
Tass wrote:
cmyk wrote:Still on track for around frame 962/963.



Are you using chrome values? Because it is not at 50% yet.


Nuh-uh.

I'm downloading the original png from the hash, opening in Photoshop and making sure not to apply any color management (and its gamma set to 1.0 — linear).

Seems other image editors are opening the png as Index Color (with some default color lookup table), which, despite its 256 swatch values, is a bit less accurate than true 8-bit grayscale, so it rounds the value to the closest swatch.

Then, I sample the brightness level of the sand, using the HSB (Hue, Saturation, Brightness) color model, which gives me a percentage from black to white (0 - 100%) under "B".

With that, I just simply plug that percent into its appropriate frame for the graph data in Numbers, and fit an exponential curve to it.

Either way, the color values sampled are absolute, despite any "corrective" gamma function curves being applied to make it appear darker/lighter.


The .png file encodes a grayscale image, with integer values from 0 to 255 at each pixel. The value of the formerly-black pixels (all of which are identical, except near the edges where antialiasing has been applied) seems to me to be a much better measure of whiteness than converting 1-D intensity values to a 3-D colorspace model and then taking one of the three values. Right now it's 110, or about 43.14%.


Sciscitor wrote:
cmyk wrote:Nuh-uh.

I'm downloading the original png from the hash, opening in Photoshop and making sure not to apply any color management (and its gamma set to 1.0 — linear).

Seems other image editors are opening the png as Index Color (with some default color lookup table), which, despite its 256 swatch values, is a bit less accurate than true 8-bit grayscale, so it rounds the value to the closest swatch.


I am anything but an expert on colour spaces and icc profiles, but I took a look at the raw thing.
According to the output

Code: Select all

\x00\x00\x03\x90ADBE\x02\x10\x00\x00prtrGRAYXYZ \x07\xcf\x00\x06\x00\x03\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00acspAPPL\x00\x00\x00\x00none\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x01\x00\x00\xf6\xd6\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\xd3-ADBE\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x05cprt\x00\x00\x00\xc0\x00\x00\x002desc\x00\x00\x00\xf4\x00\x00\x00gwtpt\x00\x00\x01\\\x00\x00\x00\x14bkpt\x00\x00\x01p\x00\x00\x00\x14kTRC\x00\x00\x01\x84\x00\x00\x02\x0ctext\x00\x00\x00\x00Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated\x00\x00\x00desc\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\rDot Gain 20%\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00XYZ \x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\xf6\xd6\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\xd3-XYZ \x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00curv\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\x10\x00 \x000\x00@\x00P\x00a\x00\x7f\x00\xa0\x00\xc5\x00\xec\x01\x17\x01D\x01u\x01\xa8\x01\xde\x02\x16\x02R\x02\x90\x02\xd0\x03\x13\x03Y\x03\xa1\x03\xec\x049\x04\x88\x04\xda\x05.\x05\x85\x05\xde\x069\x06\x96\x06\xf6\x07W\x07\xbb\x08"\x08\x8a\x08\xf4\ta\t\xd0\nA\n\xb4\x0b)\x0b\xa0\x0c\x1a\x0c\x95\r\x12\r\x92\x0e\x13\x0e\x96\x0f\x1c\x0f\xa3\x10,\x10\xb8\x11E\x11\xd4\x12e\x12\xf8\x13\x8d\x14$\x14\xbd\x15W\x15\xf4\x16\x92\x172\x17\xd4\x18x\x19\x1e\x19\xc6\x1ao\x1b\x1b\x1b\xc8\x1cv\x1d\'\x1d\xda\x1e\x8e\x1fD\x1f\xfc \xb5!q"."\xed#\xad$p%4%\xf9&\xc1\'\x8a(U)")\xf0*\xc0+\x92,e-:.\x11.\xea/\xc40\xa01}2\\3=4\x1f5\x035\xe96\xd07\xb98\xa49\x90:~;m<^=Q>E?;@3A,B&C"D E\x1fF G#H\'I-J4K<LGMSN`OoP\x7fQ\x91R\xa5S\xbaT\xd1U\xe9W\x02X\x1eY:ZX[x\\\x99]\xbc^\xe0`\x06a-bVc\x80d\xace\xd9g\x08h8iij\x9dk\xd1m\x07n?oxp\xb2q\xees+tju\xaav\xecx/ytz\xba|\x01}J~\x95\x7f\xe1\x81.\x82|\x83\xcd\x85\x1e\x86q\x87\xc5\x89\x1b\x8ar\x8b\xcb\x8d%\x8e\x81\x8f\xdd\x91<\x92\x9b\x93\xfd\x95_\x96\xc3\x98(\x99\x8f\x9a\xf7\x9c`\x9d\xcb\x9f7\xa0\xa5\xa2\x14\xa3\x85\xa4\xf6\xa6i\xa7\xde\xa9T\xaa\xcb\xacD\xad\xbe\xaf9\xb0\xb6\xb24\xb3\xb4\xb54\xb6\xb7\xb8:\xb9\xbf\xbbE\xbc\xcd\xbeV\xbf\xe0\xc1l\xc2\xf9\xc4\x87\xc6\x17\xc7\xa8\xc9;\xca\xce\xccc\xcd\xfa\xcf\x92\xd1+\xd2\xc5\xd4a\xd5\xfe\xd7\x9c\xd9<\xda\xdd\xdc\x7f\xde#\xdf\xc8\xe1n\xe3\x16\xe4\xbf\xe6i\xe8\x14\xe9\xc1\xebo\xed\x1f\xee\xd0\xf0\x82\xf25\xf3\xea\xf5\xa0\xf7W\xf9\x10\xfa\xca\xfc\x85\xfeA\xff\xff


It is an Adobe ICC-Profile with a LUT (Look Up Table) for printing. So: No idea what all this means, but I am pretty sure it's not just an ordinary grayscale image.


Well, there's grayscale, where each pixel can be a intensity value from 0-255 (8 bits per pixel).

Then there's Index, where each pixel is assigned a number that pertains to one of the 256 color swatches, preordained in the color lookup table:
Image
Image

The important difference, is that a true 8-bit grayscale can have an absolute intensity value assigned, per pixel, so if you're employing color management (such as the ubiquitous sRGB gamma curve correction), the colors will be displayed via depending on your monitor gamma, and/or your color workspace gamma. The values can also be manipulated using Curves, or Levels, etc.

Not so with Index Color. Which is fine, accept, do the swatches for a grayscale proceed in a linear scale, or is there already some gamma curve "baked" into the swatches? Can't say for sure, which makes it harder to analyze for absolute values (unless you load your own CLUT, with a linear scale, 1.0 gamma).

(you can see, if you count from 0 to the 12th swatch (see eyedropper sample #1 - Idx:12) for the Mac OS System CLUT palette, you'll see a pink is assigned for the sand/sea color.)

ALLL that said, not sure if it really makes that much of a difference for this purpose! :mrgreen:

If there is one thing this Needle-pulled thing has taught me, it's that you do not question cmyk when it comes to graphics!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:41 pm UTC
by NoMouse
On one hand, I wish the Time won't end. But on the other hand, the Time is consuming so much of my Outside time, that it would be good for my Outside me.
Yeah, I have now two personalities. The Time-Me and the Outside-Me. And they want the exact opposite thing.
And while I'm writing this, both Time and time are fading away...

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:44 pm UTC
by descor
NoMouse wrote:On one hand, I wish the Time won't end. But on the other hand, the Time is consuming so much of my Outside time, that it would be good for my Outside me.
Yeah, I have now two personalities. The Time-Me and the Outside-Me. And they want the exact opposite thing.
And while I'm writing this, both Time and time are fading away...


How long did that take to write? No wonder Time-You is taking all the Time from Outside-You. Colour me impressed.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:49 pm UTC
by buffygirl
Eliram wrote:- BuffyGirl, is there still room in your queue for a hatless spider?


Okies, you're added to the Pre-Hat-Queue-Mob-Mob (which is the holding spot for any new hats until I complete those in the hat-queue-mob).

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:52 pm UTC
by NoMouse
descor wrote:
NoMouse wrote:On one hand, I wish the Time won't end. But on the other hand, the Time is consuming so much of my Outside time, that it would be good for my Outside me.
Yeah, I have now two personalities. The Time-Me and the Outside-Me. And they want the exact opposite thing.
And while I'm writing this, both Time and time are fading away...


How long did that take to write? No wonder Time-You is taking all the Time from Outside-You. Colour me impressed.

If not counting writing of the text itself, it took me a few seconds. :mrgreen: I have actually written a small program in Delphi a long time ago that does one thing - makes a color transition for text generating it in BBCode. Don't ask me why I made it in the first place (I can't really remember), I have used it in another forum a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:54 pm UTC
by Rick_LANL
cmyk wrote:
Rick_LANL wrote:
cmyk wrote:
Tass wrote:
Spoiler:
cmyk wrote:Still on track for around frame 962/963.



Are you using chrome values? Because it is not at 50% yet.


Nuh-uh.

I'm downloading the original png from the hash, opening in Photoshop and making sure not to apply any color management (and its gamma set to 1.0 — linear).

Seems other image editors are opening the png as Index Color (with some default color lookup table), which, despite its 256 swatch values, is a bit less accurate than true 8-bit grayscale, so it rounds the value to the closest swatch.

Then, I sample the brightness level of the sand, using the HSB (Hue, Saturation, Brightness) color model, which gives me a percentage from black to white (0 - 100%) under "B".

With that, I just simply plug that percent into its appropriate frame for the graph data in Numbers, and fit an exponential curve to it.

Either way, the color values sampled are absolute, despite any "corrective" gamma function curves being applied to make it appear darker/lighter.


The .png file encodes a grayscale image, with integer values from 0 to 255 at each pixel. The value of the formerly-black pixels (all of which are identical, except near the edges where antialiasing has been applied) seems to me to be a much better measure of whiteness than converting 1-D intensity values to a 3-D colorspace model and then taking one of the three values. Right now it's 110, or about 43.14%.


Sciscitor wrote:
cmyk wrote:Nuh-uh.

I'm downloading the original png from the hash, opening in Photoshop and making sure not to apply any color management (and its gamma set to 1.0 — linear).

Seems other image editors are opening the png as Index Color (with some default color lookup table), which, despite its 256 swatch values, is a bit less accurate than true 8-bit grayscale, so it rounds the value to the closest swatch.


I am anything but an expert on colour spaces and icc profiles, but I took a look at the raw thing.
According to the output
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

\x00\x00\x03\x90ADBE\x02\x10\x00\x00prtrGRAYXYZ \x07\xcf\x00\x06\x00\x03\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00acspAPPL\x00\x00\x00\x00none\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x01\x00\x00\xf6\xd6\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\xd3-ADBE\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x05cprt\x00\x00\x00\xc0\x00\x00\x002desc\x00\x00\x00\xf4\x00\x00\x00gwtpt\x00\x00\x01\\\x00\x00\x00\x14bkpt\x00\x00\x01p\x00\x00\x00\x14kTRC\x00\x00\x01\x84\x00\x00\x02\x0ctext\x00\x00\x00\x00Copyright 1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated\x00\x00\x00desc\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\rDot Gain 20%\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00XYZ \x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\xf6\xd6\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\xd3-XYZ \x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00curv\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x01\x00\x00\x00\x00\x10\x00 \x000\x00@\x00P\x00a\x00\x7f\x00\xa0\x00\xc5\x00\xec\x01\x17\x01D\x01u\x01\xa8\x01\xde\x02\x16\x02R\x02\x90\x02\xd0\x03\x13\x03Y\x03\xa1\x03\xec\x049\x04\x88\x04\xda\x05.\x05\x85\x05\xde\x069\x06\x96\x06\xf6\x07W\x07\xbb\x08"\x08\x8a\x08\xf4\ta\t\xd0\nA\n\xb4\x0b)\x0b\xa0\x0c\x1a\x0c\x95\r\x12\r\x92\x0e\x13\x0e\x96\x0f\x1c\x0f\xa3\x10,\x10\xb8\x11E\x11\xd4\x12e\x12\xf8\x13\x8d\x14$\x14\xbd\x15W\x15\xf4\x16\x92\x172\x17\xd4\x18x\x19\x1e\x19\xc6\x1ao\x1b\x1b\x1b\xc8\x1cv\x1d\'\x1d\xda\x1e\x8e\x1fD\x1f\xfc \xb5!q"."\xed#\xad$p%4%\xf9&\xc1\'\x8a(U)")\xf0*\xc0+\x92,e-:.\x11.\xea/\xc40\xa01}2\\3=4\x1f5\x035\xe96\xd07\xb98\xa49\x90:~;m<^=Q>E?;@3A,B&C"D E\x1fF G#H\'I-J4K<LGMSN`OoP\x7fQ\x91R\xa5S\xbaT\xd1U\xe9W\x02X\x1eY:ZX[x\\\x99]\xbc^\xe0`\x06a-bVc\x80d\xace\xd9g\x08h8iij\x9dk\xd1m\x07n?oxp\xb2q\xees+tju\xaav\xecx/ytz\xba|\x01}J~\x95\x7f\xe1\x81.\x82|\x83\xcd\x85\x1e\x86q\x87\xc5\x89\x1b\x8ar\x8b\xcb\x8d%\x8e\x81\x8f\xdd\x91<\x92\x9b\x93\xfd\x95_\x96\xc3\x98(\x99\x8f\x9a\xf7\x9c`\x9d\xcb\x9f7\xa0\xa5\xa2\x14\xa3\x85\xa4\xf6\xa6i\xa7\xde\xa9T\xaa\xcb\xacD\xad\xbe\xaf9\xb0\xb6\xb24\xb3\xb4\xb54\xb6\xb7\xb8:\xb9\xbf\xbbE\xbc\xcd\xbeV\xbf\xe0\xc1l\xc2\xf9\xc4\x87\xc6\x17\xc7\xa8\xc9;\xca\xce\xccc\xcd\xfa\xcf\x92\xd1+\xd2\xc5\xd4a\xd5\xfe\xd7\x9c\xd9<\xda\xdd\xdc\x7f\xde#\xdf\xc8\xe1n\xe3\x16\xe4\xbf\xe6i\xe8\x14\xe9\xc1\xebo\xed\x1f\xee\xd0\xf0\x82\xf25\xf3\xea\xf5\xa0\xf7W\xf9\x10\xfa\xca\xfc\x85\xfeA\xff\xff


It is an Adobe ICC-Profile with a LUT (Look Up Table) for printing. So: No idea what all this means, but I am pretty sure it's not just an ordinary grayscale image.


Well, there's grayscale, where each pixel can be a intensity value from 0-255 (8 bits per pixel).

Then there's Index, where each pixel is assigned a number that pertains to one of the 256 color swatches, preordained in the color lookup table:
Image
Image

The important difference, is that a true 8-bit grayscale can have an absolute intensity value assigned, per pixel, so if you're employing color management (such as the ubiquitous sRGB gamma curve correction), the colors will be displayed via depending on your monitor gamma, and/or your color workspace gamma. The values can also be manipulated using Curves, or Levels, etc.

Not so with Index Color. Which is fine, accept, do the swatches for a grayscale proceed in a linear scale, or is there already some gamma curve "baked" into the swatches? Can't say for sure, which makes it harder to analyze for absolute values (unless you load your own CLUT, with a linear scale, 1.0 gamma).

(you can see, if you count from 0 to the 12th swatch (see eyedropper sample #1 - Idx:12) for the Mac OS System CLUT palette, you'll see a pink is assigned for the sand/sea color.)

ALLL that said, not sure if it really makes that much of a difference for this purpose! :mrgreen:


When I open the .png in Matlab, I get a 395 x 553 array of 1-byte integers. When I open color .pngs, I would get an M x N x 3 3-D array of 1-byte integers, the RGB values at each pixel. While I can't speak to the low-level details of how Matlab opens a .png file, I am postulating that It is saved by Him as a grayscale image.

Now, the question if what exactly a grayscale value of 117 *means* is more interesting. 117/255 as many photons as pure white? Maybe. And how that gets interpreted by the visual cortex as a shade of gray is almost certainly organism-dependent, even leaving out display hardware (and software) differences. So there's ambiguity if one chooses to see it.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:54 pm UTC
by descor
NoMouse wrote:
descor wrote:
NoMouse wrote:On one hand, I wish the Time won't end. But on the other hand, the Time is consuming so much of my Outside time, that it would be good for my Outside me.
Yeah, I have now two personalities. The Time-Me and the Outside-Me. And they want the exact opposite thing.
And while I'm writing this, both Time and time are fading away...


How long did that take to write? No wonder Time-You is taking all the Time from Outside-You. Colour me impressed.

If not counting writing of the text itself, it took me a few seconds. :mrgreen: I have actually written a small program in Delphi a long time ago that does one thing - makes a color transition for text generating it in BBCode. Don't ask me why I made it in the first place (I can't really remember), I have used it in another forum a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....


That's cheating!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:56 pm UTC
by TheMinim
This is the first thread on this forum I ever came across. I visited near the beginning of Time. Now it is late and I decide to come. I wish I had the attention span for time. Or this thread. Or both. Is that a car?

I am an admirer of Time, but not a rigid follower. I catch up every so often. I'd like more Time but am terrified of the possibilities. Very much like in the real world.

Anyway, hiya!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:56 pm UTC
by Swein
My pennys worth on what "Time" is about (for me):
When a child I dreamt about projects as this sand castle. To build something great and glorious. The dream never came true though. My power was too small, my knowledge was too limited and me and my friends patience and endurance was far too short (especially my friends...). As I grew older it came within the reach of my capabilities to make such grand projects that I had dreamt of as a child. But by then the dream had faded away, and I had gone to pursue other goals in life. To me this Comic is about this childhood dream, that war great but faded away as time passed by, and I am La Petite watching in awe... :cry:

Forgive me the cumbersome language - it's not easy to be sentimental in a foregin language... :D

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:59 pm UTC
by NoMouse
descor wrote:
NoMouse wrote:
descor wrote:
NoMouse wrote:On one hand, I wish the Time won't end. But on the other hand, the Time is consuming so much of my Outside time, that it would be good for my Outside me.
Yeah, I have now two personalities. The Time-Me and the Outside-Me. And they want the exact opposite thing.
And while I'm writing this, both Time and time are fading away...


How long did that take to write? No wonder Time-You is taking all the Time from Outside-You. Colour me impressed.

If not counting writing of the text itself, it took me a few seconds. :mrgreen: I have actually written a small program in Delphi a long time ago that does one thing - makes a color transition for text generating it in BBCode. Don't ask me why I made it in the first place (I can't really remember), I have used it in another forum a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....


That's cheating!

Well, we're all cheating anyway. We are storing the old newpixes and writing apps that allow to watch them over and over... That's not how the One True Comic was intended to be read.

I'm actually pretty sure Randall knew we will do such things.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:00 pm UTC
by htom
Swein wrote:My pennys worth on what "Time" is about (for me):
When a child I dreamt about projects as this sand castle. To build something great and glorious. The dream never came true though. My power was too small, my knowledge was too limited and me and my friends patience and endurance was far too short (especially my friends...). As I grew older it came within the reach of my capabilities to make such grand projects that I had dreamt of as a child. But by then the dream had faded away, and I had gone to pursue other goals in life. To me this Comic is about this childhood dream, that war great but faded away as time passed by, and I am La Petite watching in awe... :cry:

Forgive me the cumbersome language - it's not easy to be sentimental in a foregin language... :D


It may have been difficult for you, but your sentiment is wonderfully expressed. Thank you.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:01 pm UTC
by azule
mscha wrote:
vvn wrote:I get #282828
Add: Just for giggles, I tried it in the Epiphany browser, and it appears to match Chrome.

Well, if we're being complete, I also tested lynx (#ffff00) and elinks (#000000). Of course, in both, the beach is pretty unrecognizable, it just looks like the letters ‘T’, ‘i’, ‘m’ and ‘e’. :P

Ooh, you should try links2, they have pictures. (I don't have it install on this comp.)

Sciscitor wrote:
Caswallon wrote:Precepter and historian of the Chruch of the Newpage. achoo

What's a "Chruch"? :D

A chruch is a church. See what I did there? Chruch could be pronounced crutch. Eh? eh?

ChronosDragon wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
tman2nd wrote:
azule wrote:Prediction: The fade to white will be a time fade. We will pick up after their adventure concludes. During the fade out we get to preview the destruction of the sea. During fade in, we see LaPetite barely escaping. ~30 frames is plenty of time for her to disappear and for M&C to then appear after full fade in.

Maybe we will see LaPetite entering in the last few frames of the fading.

Called it!


Ladies and gentlemen, our newest Seer.

Dang, don't I get any credit. At least "Muse of the Seer"?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:02 pm UTC
by Angelastic
I'm guessing from the name that cmyk is good friends with rgb, hsb, index, greyscale and all their relatives, so probably wouldn't spread false rumours about them. In any case, as long as the numbers cmyk uses fit so nicely onto that curve, I'm willing to believe the prediction of the whiteout frame.

Ooh, ooh, it's ong time!
I don't know what to say though!
So here's the picture:

Image

Destruction!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:05 pm UTC
by NoMouse
That's like watching melting icebergs. They are also slowly fading away...

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:08 pm UTC
by mscha
The last few fades:
#676767 => #6e6e6e => #757575 => #7b7b7b. That's +7, +7, +6.
(Raw data, not mangled by browsers or overpriced Adobe cr*pware.)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:08 pm UTC
by AluisioASG
Angelastic wrote:I'm guessing from the name that cmyk is good friends with rgb, hsb, index, greyscale and all their relatives, so probably wouldn't spread false rumours about them. In any case, as long as the numbers cmyk uses fit so nicely onto that curve, I'm willing to believe the prediction of the whiteout frame.

Ooh, ooh, it's ong time!
I don't know what to say though!
So here's the picture:

Image

Destruction!

Not sure why I want to say this, but
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:11 pm UTC
by tman2nd
Lately I've been going back and forth between, "WHY IS TIME FADING!!!! WHERE DID LAPETITE GO!!!!" and, "There's no reason to worry. Time's just going to fade back in." I'm sure I can handle much more of this. Interestingly enough, I actually like the change of pace the fading has provided.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:13 pm UTC
by Qalyar
Angelastic wrote:Destruction!


Since this was the ong post, shouldn't this have been Destructiong!?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:13 pm UTC
by htom
Caught in mid-fall.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:14 pm UTC
by fhorn
"Nowadays," from Chicago (Kander and Ebb)
And that's
Good, isn't it?
Grand, isn't it?
Great, isn't it?
Swell, isn't it?
Fun, isn't it?
But nothing stays

In fifty years or so
It's gonna change, you know
But, oh, it's heaven
Nowadays

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:15 pm UTC
by AK49BWL
In for the big splash.

I see BlitzGirl...