|
I've worked with image software for years and no amount of compression, cropping, saving and recompression has ever produced anything even remotely similar. It looks like someone scanned in an old fax that had been refaxed a billion times. It just defies everything I think I know about image compression algorithms. I see text based images like this 10 times a day and I'm at my wits end trying to figure it out. Someone please explain to me, this bullshit right here:
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 21:04 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 18:33 |
|
I did it. All me.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 21:44 |
|
You'd need a few different layers, lovely emboss, masks, sharpen a poo poo ton, save, enlarge/make smaller a few times, resave as 0 quality a few times... Maybe throw in a IRL crappy photocopy layer for that final touch.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 22:49 |
|
I have seen people take screen shots off of phones also people use phones or cameras to take a picture of the screen.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2016 23:59 |
|
BossRighteous posted:. It looks like someone scanned in an old fax that had been refaxed a billion times. See a post you like, screenshot it, upload it, someone else screenshots/saves and uploads to somewhere, etc etc. Eventually the cycle of Save > Upload > Save magnifies whatever imperfections are in the image.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 06:21 |
|
Yeah taco bell is pretty good
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 14:55 |
|
when text looks like that it means that there is a secondary message just for reptilians. in this case, for example, the secondary message is a subtle alteration to the initial message indicating that the reader, if they are located within a particular geographic area, is to go to a specific taco bell at a particular time in order to receive further instructions from Roy Wood Jr, who is a local section leader.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2016 23:32 |
|
sponsored content loving sucks
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 00:43 |
|
Phone picture of computer screen saved to a haunted sd card.
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 14:02 |
|
Op why do you care about some scan of some guy talking about taco bell on Facebook
|
# ? Feb 17, 2016 14:54 |
|
that guy is right.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2016 01:38 |
|
read this: http://www.theawl.com/2014/12/the-triumphant-rise-of-the-shitpic
|
# ? Feb 19, 2016 02:35 |
|
I think Facebook just always runs a low-pass filter whenever you upload, whereas saving to jpg format is essentially a nilpotent operation (e.g. if it's already jpg compressed then saving as jpg with the same compression causes no change), which explains why you can't reproduce the effect.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2016 18:04 |
|
It's like a digital age Mimeograph copy.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2016 19:47 |
|
|
# ? Apr 26, 2024 18:33 |
|
logical phalluses posted:read this: http://www.theawl.com/2014/12/the-triumphant-rise-of-the-shitpic Stinky_Pete posted:I think Facebook just always runs a low-pass filter whenever you upload, whereas saving to jpg format is essentially a nilpotent operation (e.g. if it's already jpg compressed then saving as jpg with the same compression causes no change), which explains why you can't reproduce the effect. These are good, thank you.
|
# ? Feb 19, 2016 21:19 |