What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Keith: Best Buy Employee and Possible Singing Sensation. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One employee proves he has the chops and the passion to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
155 Comments
- PicklePower, on 10/12/2007, -32/+96I was expecting to see some kind of scenery or something, not one of those blown-up HTML RRGGBB tables that I'm well used to (I know RRGGBB doesn't allow for more than 256 colors, but you get my point).
- stanleyfresh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+68Uhhh.... isn't it 256x256x256 ????
- rnstech, on 10/12/2007, -2/+65Uh, RRGGBB allows for 256 * 256 * 256 colors (16,777,216).
- yzerizef, on 10/12/2007, -2/+62Is it a sailboat? Damn it, I can't ever see these things!
- ReadMeTXT, on 10/12/2007, -17/+68Sexy time
- yzerizef, on 10/12/2007, -3/+50Toronto is tied with Buffalo? Damn it!
- Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45I done a colour count in pspx and ps...both counted 16,777,216 colours. Nifty. It's amazing how looking at it my brain only acknowledges about 50 colours.
- Xinareiaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+43I dont think those show all of them, pixels arent small enough on the screen to show it in a small little thing like that
- Muncher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40@headswine
PNG is lossless. - lucid270, on 10/12/2007, -24/+58This is lame.
- Rhine23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37Not so much if you have bad eyes o.O
- thefirstenemy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+38"Uh, RRGGBB allows for 256 * 256 * 256 colors (16,777,216)."
It's just a whole lot easier to round and say 16.8 million. - venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -8/+38This might possibly be the most boring thing I've ever seen.
- beelz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35You totally gave me a raging clue.
- packerbacker89, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28@r2d7
Uhh... the picture is 4096 X 4096, which in my book adds up to 16,777,216 pixels. - arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26Hopefully you won't miss your retinas...
- borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31what do you get when you mix color number 16,777,111 with color number 16,777,112?
- Durrok, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Congratulations, your PC can display a picture. Maybe we should write to tom's hardware to start using this in it's benchmarks.
- EbowUK, on 10/12/2007, -10/+34It made the front page - it MUST be cool!
Next on 60 Minutes - "When algorithms go wrong - the Digg story" - MrPig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23@r2d7
You kinda need to click on the thumbnail to enlarge it. - sprintmarathon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Go-go-gadget-gradient
- Celeron, on 10/12/2007, -14/+32Nothing to see. Move along.
- Shadar, on 10/12/2007, -27/+45If you add them all up you'll see he is missing 5 colors, shame.. he came so close.
- SenorFrog21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19@cymrubeats
That's so strange...but you are right, it looks like all of those squares are exactly the same. And it doesn't look like very many colors are represented there at all. It doesn't really look that impressive in that form. - pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20@Headswine
Unless he used a format with lossless compression... like PNG. - pile0nades, on 10/12/2007, -12/+29256^3
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I'll never understand modern art.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Pretty cool how PNG compress it to just 58 KB when all pixels are different. Its compression algorithm has to really like the kind of pattern this makes and how the colors rise in RGB values. In raw uncompressed form, this image should be similar (as image headers etc vary) to 4096*4096*(24/8) = 50,331,648 bytes.
- shandar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@gaoshan: That is no colour at all, it's black. If you mix all colours you get white.
- TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15my e-penis is longer than yours, too!
*roll eyes* - igraham09, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@borninda818
you get color 16,777,111.5... duh - mb3581, on 10/12/2007, -14/+26Can't you just copy and paste one of the color pallates of any drawing program?
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"Maybe it's because I'm colored blind..."
colored-blind??? There's a joke in there somewhere, but I don't want to say it.
(something about how you have to 'sit in the back of the blind bus.' Not funny! Sorry!)
I knew a guy who was 'colored-blind.' He could only see white people!
(Sorry, again!)
LMMFAO - drgruney, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@PicklePower... I agree. I was expecting scenery or something. The pattern is strangely pretty though. New desktop!
- u8myfoood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10umm... u can code a program that changes the rgb values for each pixel... i highly doubt that the dude or dudette did it pixel by pixel
- naylor83, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Thank you sir!
BTW, am I the only one thinking that if captchas have to be as hard to read as those here on digg, bots will soon be overtaking humans in reading skill...? - wizgha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8As a matter of fact, it *is* saved as PNG, and I cannot understand where you got the PDF from.
- ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I think the most impressive thing is that the png file is only 50k...
- yevkasem, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15agreed. i'm waiting for the digg story unveiling "the quick brown whatsisface......"
- gfixler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7For a moment, I thought someone had posted something from my LiveJournal, from February 8th of this year. I did the same thing, making a graphic of every 24-bit color, though I looped differently than Mr. Naylor, and ended up with a different, more soul-hurting image. I also randomized it out of curiosity by running through every pixel in a loop, and swapping it with a randomly chosen pixel. It only took a few passes this way to make a really random image, and it did look middle-grey, just as Naylor's does.
As for PicklePower's comment on wishing for scenery - that was actually why I did it - I was heading toward creating shared-luminance palettes, an old idea from '92 when I wanted to use Qbasic on my 386 to create palette sets for converting images to palettes that would all photocopy to the same values. I was a little too into photocopiers back then. They were like magic.
I recently realized I'm finally smart enough to do these kinds of things, so I set to work in Processing (http://www.processing.org) making the image. I don't know how to create anything larger than the screen to save out in there (smarter, but still not that smart), so I did it in tiles, and joined them in Photoshop.
Once in Photoshop, I took the electric image (which varies from Naylor's, and is even harder to look up, as I looped components differently), and converted it to greyscale. Then I had Processing scan the greyscale version to find all greys of the same value of my choosing, and used the color version as a lookup table to gather all colors of the same luminance, at least by Photoshop's opinion of how to convert things to greyscale - this is a highly subjective thing that probably varies widely between computers, imaging software, processors, color theorists' imaginations, and the strengths and weaknesses of individual people, and the roughly 10% of folks with color-based visual afflictions, but hey... you can't please everyone.
Anyway, here's my random image, just now converted to png format:
http://www.garyfixler.com/every24b.jpg (small, jpg preview)
http://www.garyfixler.com/every24b.png (full size: 4096x4096)
I won't upload the scrambled, as even png couldn't compress it below 48MB.
The palettes I was able to make I based on 3 greyscale values: 63, 127, and 191 - roughly 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 of the way through the 0-255 range. For example, in the 63 variant, the colors are ALL of the colors of the 24-bit set that Photoshop converted to the same greyscale luminance value of 63.
http://www.garyfixler.com/rgb063.png
http://www.garyfixler.com/rgb127.png
http://www.garyfixler.com/rgb191.png
They're kinda hard to look at. Some friends have told me they vibrate. For me, they just have an unsettling look, like looking at a light that's too bright, or a face that's too ugly :)
The next step is that I want to take the palettes and map images to them (or is it the other way around?), so that at the very least, if you can see all colors, you'll be able to make out the images just fine by the hues, but if you convert them in Photoshop (with the same color profiles and whatever else matters that I had in effect), you'll get a perfectly, singularly grey image. Also, it should photocopy to a mostly-the-same greyscale image. Finally, people with total color-blindness should see nothing at all but a grey rectangle, and it serves 'em right! Nah, just kidding, but it does suck that they won't be able to fully appreciate my genius ;) - joepinion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Kinda cool actually how it's arranged... In each little square, the very left side has an R value of 0, while the right edge has an R value of 255. Meanwhile, in each little square, the very top edge has a B value of 0, while the very bottom edge has a B value of 255. Then each square (of which there are 256) are distinguished from each other only by the G value. The top left square has a G value of 0, while the bottom right square has a G value of 255. I like it.
- rawM3TAL, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10It started flashing, and I had a seizure.
You've been warned. - yournamehere, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8and also you like to paint toy soldiers
- AhrenBa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Not as cool as I thought it would be......
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13officially the worst thing thats ever made the front page
- Rayor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I ran it through GIMP's colorcube analysis. It said there are 16,777,216 unique colors.
- arloj, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Oh my science!
- oMeSSiaHo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It was actually sorta neat to change the color depth to 16 bit. I guess it does make a difference because the image turned into little squares. Other then that, yeah I was a bit dissapointed.
- Cymrubeats, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Well, you could have a 1/2/3/4/12,000 etc colour image that's 4096x4096 pixels, so that alone doesn't determine anything other than the resolution. If you convert it to monochrome, it'll still be 4096x4096 pixels. :P
- mattmac24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6scroll half way thru the pic so u can only see the top half of the pic.
Then do the same thing so u can only see the bottom half of the pic.
Just shows how what surrounds a colour can influence what we see that colour as
top half looks was darker
bottom half looks was lighter -
Show 51 - 100 of 155 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
