Image2Brick (cancelled)

[computermix]

Apparently people hated an image made by this and judged the entire program off of that. Oh well, I tried.

[Ad Bot]

[Port]

I cannot help that. I guess PIL hates any other format

Wrong. Also, this looks worse than the old one. I really don't know what you did to screw it up this badly. It may be lines 7 to 10 or lines 17 to 20, though. You're processing every single pixel in a high-quality image and lowering it to color depth 64 (or lower). You need to process only every x^th pixel and optionally average the color values of surrounding ignored pixels. That or you're resizing the image slightly.

[computermix]

How does it look worse? I did applebloom again in the old one and she looked zombified. The color picker in the old one was really forgeted up.
For every pixel there is a 1x1 brick, and those two images are 128x128. I believe the old Image2Brick did the same thing, and I'm not resizing at all.

The other half of your post I didn't quite get.

It takes literally two seconds to process a 128x128 image into a macro file, too.
The only thing I care about it right now is that it works a bunch better for me (and it probably will for others) than the old Image2Brick. I could probably add a few things to enhance the performance.

EDIT: one more thing, using any other image type yielded errors that it couldn't find the file. .png works fine.
I'm sure if the old Img2Brick source was released it would be very similar to this.

[computermix]

Some comparison, same colorset:


Differences:
- big green blotches
- lack of a proper transparent color finding
- ugly white outline
- mane and tail is very solid, not a bunch of detail

Ways it beats mine:
- bow is more pink
- mane is more reddish

I did this once with the old Img2brick on Blur's pallet and it was eyeforget. I noticed not every row was not the same length, that must have offset it.

By the way, getTransparentColor is only called once.
The only thing I could work on is making this more sensitive to red. I could possibly add a tweak value that adjusts the sensitivity to finding colors.

[Port]

If you tell me this is even slightly reminiscent to good quality then you certainly must be joking.



I've highlighted a few of the many issues.

[computermix]

If you tell me this is even slightly reminiscent to good quality then you certainly must be joking.

-snip-

I've highlighted a few of the many issues.

This is all based entirely on opinion. I've had two people see this and say it looks great. If you cannot get over the fact that not every single loving pixel is going to be perfect, oh well.

The black blotches at the bottom were suppose to be the shadow. The transparent hole in the middle had other images behind it.
Next time I will get screenshots in a better environment. It's possible that it can look worse because its zoomed in.

Still, thanks for feedback.

[Port]

Well, it really all depends on the image and the colorset.





Wrote my own because I felt like it.
As you can see, it processes this image nearly perfectly, however other images can look really bad.
There is really no magical system that works for all colorsets and images.

EDIT: apparently it's flipped

[computermix]

Cool.

Tomorrow I'll add a tweak value, horizontal support, and I'll rewrite the whole thing. I might post a picture of that messed up applebloom to show how bad it was. I probably should add more pictures to the OP either way...

[Port]

You should also try manipulating the colorset by script.

[computermix]

You mean making an entire new colorset just for the image? I can't do that, I made this for the purpose of using it client-sidedly on different servers with little resource as possible.

[computermix]

New version!
Added some color tweaking. Here's an example with that same pony except red = 100, green = 0, and blue = 0.


As you can see, it has a bunch more reddish tint to it than normal.

I recently tried it with green and blue, and it works pretty well. Putting 0 for each tweak makes it normal.

You can tweak the values by opening the .py file in a text editor and adjusting the values at the top.

[Cajetan]

Don't work. Syntax Error:
"Image2Brick.py
  File "C:\Users\Caje\wurm\Image2Brick.py", line 35
    with open("colorSet.txt") as f:
            ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax"

[Yosher]

If you tell me this is even slightly reminiscent to good quality then you certainly must be joking.

-snip-

I've highlighted a few of the many issues.

You better could've highlighted the entire picture when you said you highlighted a few issues.
The entire picture except for the eyes is the most horrifying quality I have ever seen in img2brick.

[computermix]

Don't work. Syntax Error:
"Image2Brick.py
  File "C:\Users\Caje\wurm\Image2Brick.py", line 35
    with open("colorSet.txt") as f:
            ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax"

Very odd. I have the same text at the same line, and mine works perfectly. Maybe when you downloaded it something messed up. Did you mess with it? It could be improperly indented. Let me try downloading it on a separate computer and see what problems it has.

EDIT: just tried it with my laptop. worked perfectly fine. Maybe your download got corrupted or mediafire screwed it up. Try again.

You better could've highlighted the entire picture when you said you highlighted a few issues.
The entire picture except for the eyes is the most horrifying quality I have ever seen in img2brick.

I think you're right, I should just remove that picture. It's from an older version, and to be honest it does look bad (It was zoomed in too and anything zoomed in looks horrible). But as port said, it's not going to be perfect because it always varies between the colorset and the image. You will also have to mess around with the color tweak values.

Two things I need from you:
- Is the one with the old image2brick better or worse? I posted it above (the one with the black background)
- What do you think of the other pictures?