That's Not a Picture

[Damian]

theDailyGrind.net is proud to announce our latest web design tool:

That's Not a Picture converts images into intricate HTML tables. This application allows web authors to offer superior support for users who rely on browsers which support tables but not images.

PNG, TIFF, JPG, GIF and on a good day PDF files can be imported. That's Not a Picture's superior algorithm can compress a 4k PNG into a mere 1.3mb HTML document.

Drag the image file onto That's Not a Picture's icon, or into the image well on the left of its window. A HTML table describing the image using cell background colours appears in the right-hand field. A large image may take some seconds to translate.

This table can be copied and pasted into a webpage's source. Alternatively, the "Generate header" option creates a stand-alone HTML page.

more info (http://www.thedailygrind.net/work/software/content.php?id=445_0_10_0)

Direct Download (25k) (http://www.thedailygrind.net/work/software/files/ThatsNotAPicture.sitx)

[Jason Colman]

Sweet! Have you thought about converting movies too ? :D

[DaFalcon]

PNG, TIFF, JPG, GIF and on a good day PDF files can be imported. That's Not a Picture's superior algorithm can compress a 4k PNG into a mere 1.3mb HTML document.[/URL]

That demo screenshot is very nifty indeed! Except... I really hope that the line I quoted above is a typo!!! [I can just imagine developers turning all of their web pages into 10 MB monstrosites just to support those few (why use a table-enabled-but-image-free browser, exactly?) people who can't see the images naturally.


Sweet! Have you thought about converting movies too ? :D

ASCII movies not good enough? :) View this at higher 9, 10, 11, or 12 px for best effect (IMHO)

http://www.romanm.ch/ascii-movies/ascii-matrix1.htm

Seriously though, a web-table-movie would be something cool to see.

[Carlos Camacho]

This is the exact thing that I heard in an old Box-Top Software April Fools joke a few years back!

[Justin Brimm]

It might actually be useful for web phones, or when surfing the web from your PDA.

[DoG]

Probably uses latest image anti-compression technology (TM).

[whogben]

um, if a 4k image becomes 1.3mb, then a 40kb image becomes 13 mb, then, well, surely this thing is useless? what image can you want to show the user that is small enough? they would have to have broadband for almost anything,, and if they havee broadband WTF is the chance they will have a image-incapable browser?

[NCarter]

um, if a 4k image becomes 1.3mb, then a 40kb image becomes 13 mb, then, well, surely this thing is useless?
Damian, I think you've been rumbled.... ;)

Still, there is one obvious use for this technology: spammers could use it to get an image past an email client's picture filter!

[Justin Brimm]

I honestly don't see how it could turn 4k into 1.3mb. All your doing, is converting to text, and there are novels that barely make up 1.3mb. If it somehow, really is that size, you can replace recurring tags/phrases/ect with a table that defines them once, and a character that you place in the body, that replaces it, and a javascript that decompresses it for the browser to read, at runtime.

[skyhawk]

ok, so obviously this code needs to use some kind of optimization in the tables it generates. maybe you could add a quality button so that it can generate lesser quality images that use smaller (but bigger) tables. That would reduce the size

[DoG]

ok, so obviously this code needs to use some kind of optimization in the tables it generates. maybe you could add a quality button so that it can generate lesser quality images that use smaller (but bigger) tables. That would reduce the size
ROFL I can't believe how much you are thinking about this.

[Justin Brimm]

ROFL I can't believe how much you are thinking about this.

This can actually serve a purpose, especially with web-phones, and PDAs.

[DaFalcon]

This can actually serve a purpose, especially with web-phones, and PDAs.

Yes, because web-phones and PDA's have no trouble downloading a **4MB** page which consists of ONE PICTURE which used to be a 47k jpeg. (Sorry, I'm just amazed at how massive a file this thing creates. I mean, it is TEXT we're talking about!) [I suppose you could create special, very small, low-res versions of your images for use on cell phones and PDA's, but it appears that it would *still* create huge files]

I thought for sure it was a typo, but no, it is true. But WOW, it certainly does create a very faithful reproduction of the image (at least it doesn't use LOSSY anti-compression!)

If I can upload this page somewhere I will show you all my **4 Megabyte** HTML image...

Here is the original jpeg:
http://www.dafalcon.com/images/dafalcon_interface_header1.jpg

And the link to the html version... take a look at the source code, I dare you! :-)
[WARNING: This really is a 4 MB page. It may take some time to load on dial-up connections. It may even take quite some time to render on some browsers, I'm not sure.]
http://www.snakequest.com/other/testfalcon.html

<<Okay, okay, so this program obviously doesn't take itself seriously as it just goes in with brute force and finds the HTML code for the color of EACH PIXEL and then adds the appropriate tags and moves on. Sheeesh, it could *at least* have checked to see if the next pixel was the same color for the slightest bit of compression :) >>

[skyhawk]

This can actually serve a purpose, especially with web-phones, and PDAs.
actually, I don't care about imageless things, the mere cool factor of this thing is very high

[Damian]

I honestly don't see how it could turn 4k into 1.3mb. All your doing, is converting to text, and there are novels that barely make up 1.3mb. If it somehow, really is that size, you can replace recurring tags/phrases/ect with a table that defines them once, and a character that you place in the body, that replaces it, and a javascript that decompresses it for the browser to read, at runtime.

Yes, the HTML it generates is inefficient. I'm working on a new version which already produces 50% smaller files, and may improve further. I'll post when I upload it, probably in a couple of days when I have some free time to finish it.

[kelvin]

I'm almost tempted to write my own and see if I can do better... :ninja:

[Justin Brimm]

I'm almost tempted to write my own and see if I can do better... :ninja:

Same here. I've been fighting it all day, since I'm working on another project, and really shouldn't be getting distracted.

[kelvin]

Bah. I couldn't help myself.

weighing in at a 1.8MB...DaFalcon take3 (http://www.variableaspect.com/gallery/dafalcon_interface_header1.html) :mad: :wacko: :zzz: :cry: :ninja:

[kelvin]

Bah. I couldn't help myself.

weighing in at a 1.8MB...DaFalcon take3 (http://www.variableaspect.com/gallery/dafalcon_interface_header1.html) :mad: :wacko: :zzz: :cry: :ninja: Anyone want the source?

[Justin Brimm]

Anyone want the source?

I'll take it.

[DaFalcon]

Bah. I couldn't help myself.

weighing in at a 1.8MB...DaFalcon take3 (http://www.variableaspect.com/gallery/dafalcon_interface_header1.html) :mad: :wacko: :zzz: :cry: :ninja:

lol, cool.

Why is it that sometimes it creates nice longer rows of solid colors where there are supposed to be solid colors ... but sometimes it breaks it up into something like 25 and then 4 and then 12.... ?? Is it that the actual RGB value are different in those sections even though the webcolor equivalents are the same?? Just curious :-)

[kelvin]

lol, cool.

Why is it that sometimes it creates nice longer rows of solid colors where there are supposed to be solid colors ... but sometimes it breaks it up into something like 25 and then 4 and then 12.... ?? Is it that the actual RGB value are different in those sections even though the webcolor equivalents are the same?? Just curious :-) woah. I didn't notice that. I'll fix the comparison before I post the code.

[Nevada]

Wow. Seeing as how that was 1.8 MB, it loaded incredibly fast on my 56k...... Odd...

[kelvin]

With DaFalcon's insight, I've nixed the duplicate color codes (don't really know why they were showing up). The new final size is 1.5MB. Still ridiculously huge IMO.

Here's the xCode source with binary:
http://www.variableaspect.com/experiments/ImageBrick.zip

I was too lazy to put any kind of features (not even a progress bar). But Drag and drop works as well as opening from the menu. Output html files are written to the same image filename with a .html extension. :bored: I stuck a few comments into the code for the noobs; will answer question on this thread.

[Damian]

Here's a new version, with configurable cell size and a more efficient algorithm:

http://www.thedailygrind.net/work/software/content.php?id=445_0_10_0_M

[DaFalcon]

Here's a new version, with configurable cell size and a more efficient algorithm:

Saw this announcement on MacNN.com ... BTW, love this quote from the site:

Critical acclaim:
"Pointless and against every principle of usability and standards-compliance"
--- some guy on VersionTracker.com

[Damian]

New version, with CSS and xhtml support:

64k download (http://www.thedailygrind.net/work/software/content.php?id=445_0_10_0_M)

[Damian]

Beta version here (http://www.thedailygrind.net/software/files/ThatsNotAPicture_3_1_beta.dmg.gz)

What's new:

Convert pictures to tables directly from the Finder via the Services menu.

[Byron Clarke]

Gets my vote for worst application ever made... I mean cool, accomplishing anything in software design is something to be proud of. But this makes things infinitely slower. It took a full minute to load on cable. :rolleyes: :lol:

But wait to go! :lol:

[Damian]

I've collected the best reviews here (http://www.thedailygrind.net/software/content.php?id=445_0_10_0_C#Critics%20rave).

[skyhawk]

do you have anyways to make the tables bigger?

[Damian]

do you have anyways to make the tables bigger?

There's an NSComboBox or something that allows you to set cellsize.

tableSize = imageSize x cellSize

[skrew]

seriously damian i have to give a hand to you, everytime you bring out a new app/game i literally laugh out loud not only for the fact that they are either completely useless or utterly distasteful(and fun) but because you seem to persevere to ridicule every possible person who dislikes your software, not only by posting their reviews on your site but by continueing to develope.

thats a long sentence, but seriously, keep it up man, we need more people like you around.

~skrew

[Byron Clarke]

This thing gets funnier the more I think about it... I think it deserves a new word... trollware!

[Volte]

I think it deserves another word, only this one isn't new:

********.

ok so apparently the the word that is described as "less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age." is a swear/cuss/bad word... :/

I'll give you a hint tho, it starts with "re" and ends in "tarded"

[Damian]

ok so apparently the the word that is described as "less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age." is a swear/cuss/bad word... :/ I'll give you a hint tho, it starts with "re" and ends in "tarded"

Your contribution to comedy and grammar is Mugabesque (http://www.thedailygrind.net/news/content.php?id=954_0_8_0_C).