Hi, I missed yesterday, I'm sorry about that. News below.* But before I get to personal news, I want to explain this image. The PNG file is different from the JPG file, so look at them both if you want. The PNG file is 8-bit, the JPG file is 24-bit. The difference (other than lossy vs. lossless) is that the PNG file is sharpened using the sharpen filter in Gimp. Why did I do that? So that I could get a superior 8-bit image. You can see how nice it looks compared to this one
Hi there, Here you can see three new fun technologies at work to enhance an old picture. You can originally find that picture at the start of Scene 5. It's a decent picture and it may be the first line that I like in JF. I'm going to be redoing all the script for JF Final to make certain a few things that are uncertain now:
Ah, now what is this? Well, from the caption you ought to know. It is star birth clouds - M18, not to be confused with star birth pangs - M16. *cough, cough*. So, you're probably destegging this as we speak, right? You've got your Cray Supercomputer firing away, a gigakey per second. You've gotten into the fifty-letter keys and the fifteen word keys. It won't budge. My encryption is too much for the trillion-dollar budget of the CIA, NSA, FBI, and UN. You are wasting your time. My encryption is that of the mind. Individuals who have minds can read what I write, look at what I draw, and decode it without a hitch. Those organizations which have no minds will find it mighty tough to decode the truth. Read on mindful thinker. Above is a beautiful picture. If it's greyscale, that means that you're looking only at the intensity of the red in that image. It is also half-size. Blame lossless compression for that. The other one is much better. It's four times as much area and three times as much color. However, it lacks a bit of information. Who cares, right? Okay, the real thing is that this image is beautiful. You might not notice it for what it really is. NASA's Hubble Space Telescope took this picture in 1995. The colors are really amazing. It is showing us something that we cannot see with a ground-based telescope, let alone our naked eye. It is next to impossible for use to see something like this here on planet Earth without the Hubble Telescope and everything that led up to it. The fact that a non-astronomer like myself could get ahold of this is even more amazing. Beyond Hubble, there had to be the FOIA (See NASA Ames FOIA). Beyond the FOIA, there had to be an entrepreneur that wanted my parents money. Beyond the entrepreneur, there had to be my parents. It's a system that is very odd indeed. Before Hubble, there was all the space missions, such as Apollo 11, Apollo 13, Challenger, and the brave astronauts who repaired the Hubble. One might actually thank those who set the human race teetering on the brink of extinction during the Cold War. Was the Cold War a necessary step to bring us this picture? Certainly if we say that the Cold War gave us Hubble, we can also easily say that it brought us the Internet since the net was designed to aid scientific rebuilding after a nuclear holocaust. But then you have the alternate historians who say that had the USSR been friendly towards the US (and visa-versa depending on who wrote the story) the Space program would have produced something like the International Space Station, but improved by a factor of ten. War, productive or not (depending on how you look at it), is based on destruction and domination. Creativity in a war machine simply breeds more destruction and cooperation in war often leads to more seperation. In 1984, Emanuell Goldstein writes that war is equivalent in action to producing goods to be thrown on a fire. All the nuclear weapons not used are as good as a deadly joke ala Monty Python. The two nuclear weapons used were extremely harmful.
Below is the synopsis of my 21st birthday party. Big props to Oliver and Leigh Ann for sharing fun with me. Now, on to the lesson that I was too lazy to do yesterday. The picture on the left is the normal DA model, that I've been using since forever. It has a skin on it. Is it the one on the top right, bottom right, or neither? If you guessed bottom, you are right. Why? Uh oh, you can't answer short essay questions? Too many art history classes get you too used to multiple choice, true/false? Well, here we go. The two skins come from the same vector graphic. The lower one is darker than the upper one. Why is that? Because I anti-aliased both of them, but the upper one was twice the resolution. The one on the top had one-pixel lines and the one on the bottom had one-pixel lines, anti-aliased, that means that the upper one is averaged lower. Am I cheating? Sort of. Corel Draw has a line width system where you can choose infinitely thin or an actual thickness. I rarely use an actual thickness just because it's a pain messing with it. So this is how it goes. But there's another factor that you can't see as well. That factor is pixel width. Corel Draw uses an integer pixel resolution export system. So the smaller image will be less correct. It will not show that data loss very much after being anti-aliased, but the larger one retains most of the data giving blurrier lines. Why do I like the one that is incorrect? Because it has more solid lines. I won't do with blurriness even if it is more correct. JF needs sharp, crisp lines if at all possible.
