Newfag here, can someone please explain why this image changes when you expand it on 4chan, and why it only works on 4chan?
>inb4 mods think this is not technology related, theres technology in pngs too
>>57307406
It's a demonstration of the problems of linear gamma image processing.
>>57307571
we speak english on 4chan pajeet
>>57307588
>I'm too stupid to research anything so I'll make pointless 4chan threads and still be too stupid to understand the replies.
>>57307571
Cool. How can I do something like it?
>>57307599
i put that hindi gamma processing bullshit into google translate and all i got was poo
can you explain it in simpler terms.
>>57307618
Darken an image then overlay a brightened image you want to appear after a bad rescaling job sparsely enough pixel-wise that the darkened image is what's visible when viewed normally.
>>57307406
>>57307406
It does not only effect 4chan you mong
>>57307667
how come i don't see it working when i view it in 2x size windows viewer? isn't it only meant to work when the image gets bigger?
>>57307648
tfw based firefox scales down correctly
>>57307693
It isn't the browser that scales it down for thumbnails, it's 4chan's server software.
>>57307648
ayy y u so hard
>>57307712
>>57307680
How come you think that has anything to do with 4chan and not your web browser?
>>57307588
>being this fucking illiterate
wew lad
its gdlib "problem"
>>57307788
Thank you knowledgeable anon.
How come it only works on 4chan btw?
>>57307588
Okay Professor Egghead, how about you bring that down to a 8th grade level for those of us without tenure, capeesh?
>>57307844
That sure was hard.
>>57307857
Still not getting it across, poindexter. How about using normal people words? You know, ones that non-virgins use?
>>57307891
Why exactly are you here? On a technology board?
>>>/out/
>>>/fit/
>>>/b/
>>>/trash/
>>>/v/
>>57307571
>gamma
I cannot achieve such an effect though
>>57307788
If it's a gdlib problem, why are some web browsers not effected? Do they take gdlib into account and correct the image?
>>57307918
The "bright" image form when the image is scaled down with incorrect gamma settings, causing the high-valued pixels (bright) to overpower the lower-valued pixels (dark) at an incorrect rate.
>>57307905
Whoa, whoa, slow down with the sciencey jargon brainiac. Come back down from hyperspace and give us "less gifted" people the plain lowdown.
>>57307950
Well, well, we've got a regular Nikola Tesla here. How about an executive summary without ten dollar words, you know, for those of us who actually have sexual relations?
>>57307984
Small number make unbright colour. Big number make bright colour. But comptuer think big number make even brighter colour. Mix big number with little number gives middle size number which much brighter than mix unbright colour with bright colour.
>>57307920
4chan (and similar image board that use php gdlib) when it creates the thumbnail it throws away the gamma setting in the png so you see the "top" image in the thumbnail. the original image still has the gamma setting in the file so the browser uses that and you get the "hidden" image.
>>57308003
Slow it down, Einstein. Not everyone here has a PhD in Quantum Physics. Can you explain it to me like you're a well-adjusted person not some antisocial nerd freak?
>why are some web browsers not effected
they also throw away (ignore) the gamma setting.
>>57307844
>>57307891
>>57307956
>>57307984
>>57308083
Is this the resurrection of an ebin ancient meme?
>>57307788
test
>>57307950
Yea, it seems like some other tweaking needs to be done according to>>57307788
>>57308071
No, you apparently misunderstood what I was saying. I remember a long time ago people had complained because Safari on OSX displayed the image correctly meaning there was no hidden image. You had to use Firefox to see it. It could be that Safari used native OSX gamma setting and Firefox did not.
>>57307788
How to do this in linux with GIMP?
did a simple search for "gamma double image" and found this: http://thume.ca/projects/2012/11/14/magic-png-files/
Firefox on android just displays the image as seen in the thumbnail. In OPs pic I can see the eyes thats supposed to come up, but in the others I see nothing underneath.
>>57308126
Lmao.
Get out
>>57308275
stop posting blank images.
>>57307984
Wow, are you dumb.
You are dumb.
And still, there are even dumber people that would fuck you?
Wow, this world is retarded.
And so are you.
Retarded.
>>57309765
>>57307984
>>57307950
It's almost as if we're on /g/
/g/
for technology
>>57309765
>>57309779
Dial down the technobabble a bit there Scotty. We're not on the Enterprise. It wouldn't hurt to talk like a common person. You'll get your point across better.
>>57309971
Why should I? You are a retard. You deserve to be killed. We don't need your kind on this planet. You are superfluous.
>>57309986
Jeez Louise, we can't all afford to get a Masters of Excessive Education at MIT. How about words with one or two syllables, huh?
>>57308268
Completely the same way. The tools are just in different places.
>>57310004
Two syllables. Fine:
You are a faggot. XOR yourself.
>>57307406
This one doesn't works here
>>57310027
>XOR yourself.
fuck off with your new age pronouns. you're either male, or female and I'll address you as such. Not some xir, xer, xor shit.
>>57307788
Nice tut. anon.
>>57310135
Personally, I think written down like this it's easier to follow step by step.
>>57307723
daddy is gonna cum
>>57307622
Fuck off "le I'm white" idiot..
>>57312447
>>57312538
>>57312595
Download double vision for linux
>>57312635
>>57308126
We gotta bunch of idiots on this site. I've noticed that number has been growing over the last few years or so.