I just converted my home stereo. Pioneer, so lots of brushed metal. It looks really great at 2560x1440. Great dither.
Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
11–20 of 61 posts
Re: Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
#12This implementation is great and the interface brings back memories.
I was wondering why my Atkinson dithering web-component[0] was getting more hits today - sad news. I’ve always thought that Atkinson dithering produces the nicest images on really crisp monitors like the original Mac - something about it just looks cool and 80s which is why I used it in a game last year.
[0] https://sheep.horse/2023/1/improved_web_component_for_pixel-...
Re: Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
#13Cute UI! GitHub link of demo: https://github.com/gazs/canvas-atkinson-dither
Re: Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, he invented* the algorithm. One assumes it must be. * Corrected from 'discovered;' see below.
Invented the algorithm. The choice and arrangement of weights is a matter of fine-tuning to balance practical concerns - not some natural law of mathematics that could be figured out.
I appreciate the correction.
Re: Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
#15The implementation is excellent, and could be slightly improved by giving a default name and .png extension to the downloaded file, by passing a value to the "download" property on the anchor. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLAnchorE...
In his defence, that attribute has been available in browsers since March 2017 according to your link [1], whereas the most recent commit in the repo for the dithering tool was in March 2016 by the looks of it.
https://github.com/gazs/canvas-atkinson-dither
He’s still active on GitHub though, in other repos. Maybe he will accept a pull request? :)
[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLAnchorE...
Re: Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
#16Don't click the "as follows" in the info dialog. Looks like this wasn't updated in a while and since then the link became NSFW.
Re: Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
#17The implementation is excellent, and could be slightly improved by giving a default name and .png extension to the downloaded file, by passing a value to the "download" property on the anchor. See https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLAnchorE...
In his defence, that attribute has been available in browsers since March 2017 according to your link [1], whereas the most recent commit in the repo for the dithering tool was in March 2016 by the looks of it. https://github.com/gazs/canvas-atkinson-dither He’s still active on GitHub though, in other repos. Maybe he will accept a pull request? :) [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLAnchorE...
Oh, I assumed it had been recently built and probably posted today by its author given the news and the lack of a year in the title. I'll open a PR.
edit: I might open a PR. 'CoffeeScript...now there's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time...'
Re: Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
In his defence, that attribute has been available in browsers since March 2017 according to your link [1], whereas the most recent commit in the repo for the dithering tool was in March 2016 by the looks of it. https://github.com/gazs/canvas-atkinson-dither He’s still active on GitHub though, in other repos. Maybe he will accept a pull request? :) [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLAnchorE...
Oh, I assumed it had been recently built and probably posted today by its author given the news and the lack of a year in the title. I'll open a PR. edit: I might open a PR. 'CoffeeScript...now there's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time...'
> CoffeeScript
It was acceptable in the 2010s
It was acceptable at the time
:p
Re: Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
#19What am I doing wrong? I import a photo, I click save to desktop, and I get an unidentified file in an unknown format.
Re: Convert photos to Atkinson dithering
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh, I assumed it had been recently built and probably posted today by its author given the news and the lack of a year in the title. I'll open a PR. edit: I might open a PR. 'CoffeeScript...now there's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time...'
> CoffeeScript It was acceptable in the 2010s It was acceptable at the time :p https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOV5WXISM24
Nor have I said there is anything wrong with it, only that it's been a long time. So reflexively to equate calling something old with calling it bad seems like a young man's game, but it has been some time since I had close experience of being one of those, also.