My requirement is to convert a image with a transparent background to look like gold foil (the way it’s printed on leather etc.)
I've been using ImageMagick and am getting excellent results with certain kind of PNGs but not with others.
The Image Magick command I am using is:
composite foil.png tmp.png logog.png outputg.png
foil.png is just a gold foil image
tmp.png is a plain/empty transparent background png
logog.png is the logo with transparent background
outputg.png is the output (this is what I need)
However, this kind of result does not occur in most other images with transparent backgrounds.
Ex.
logom.png gives outputm.png which is all gold
logos.png gives outputs.png which is all gold and all wrong
Download all files as zip from here from here http://sdrv.ms/1h7QW4A or view from http://s.imgur.com/a/ExLRE
I checked the encodings of these all PNGs and they are all the same. What is wrong with logom and logos that the outputs are not as they should turn out to be?
If I am approaching the solution from the wrong direction, please suggest alternatives.
Related
We're doing a cognitive experiment that requires flashing 480 black-and-white images at high speed against a neutral-gray background. The image shown is detail at about 300% zoom; the full display is 932 x 612; there are actually other clusters similar to this one elsewhere on the screen.
We have to generate these images in a source app and later display them in the experimental app. At first, we were using 24-bit PNG's with the background color built in, but despite the size of each file hovering around 10KB, the total file payload of 480 is too large and takes way too long to preload. We can, however, set a default background color in the app and put up 1-bit images. Although we can change the background color in the source application, we don't have control over bit depth there, so we are stuck generating screen captures and then downsampling to binary. We have tried this with original images that sit on both a white background and the gray background. Using ImageMagick, both of these commands yield similar results:
magick gray.png -transparent "rgb(192,192,192)" -alpha set -depth 1 out\gray-out.bmp (or .png)
magick white.png -transparent white -alpha set -depth 1 out\white-out.bmp (or .png)
The PNGs are coming out to 1.5K to 5K, so this is where we want to be. However, we're stuck with that problem aliased edge whether we start with gray- or white-background images. We've also tried the -fuzz argument (1-99%) to no effect. The resulting pseudoalias artifact that we see in these 1-bit files is the same in multiple apps, so apparently it must be built into the output file generated by ImageMagick's attempt to filter the edge, and not an artifact of any single app or the OS.
We don't quite get how an alpha channel can even be attached to a 1-bit image if it is not strictly RGBA: an alpha channel with a 1-bit image doesn't even make sense. But if an alpha channel isn't being included, then where is the map coming from in a nonbinary image to distinguish that "white" edge from a nonwhite surface? It's not the destination apps. The output files must either not be strictly binary, or else ImageMagick is not computing the channel exactly to the contour edges. (When we remove the -alpha argument, ImageMagick generates a larger file; the aliasing (e.g., when we place into PowerPoint and select Transparent Color to white) may appear in slightly different places, but the effect is essentially the same.
The question is, how is it possible to remove this artifact in a 1-bit image using ImageMagick? We'd like to get the file sizes down to the minimum.
On this similar thread they have been proposed solutions to convert the background color of some image to transparent.
But sometimes the background is a simple pattern, like in this case:
Note the square background pattern.
When processing images, the background does often need to be removed or changed, but firstly you need to detect it (i.e: change its color, or making it transparent). For example, on the above image example, I would like to obtain:
How can I detect/change a specified pattern inside an image?
GUI solutions accepted.
Open source solutions preferred (free at least required).
The simplest solution will be preferred (I would like to avoid installing some hundreds of MB program).
Note: I was thinking about posting this question at Photography
StackExchange site, but I would rather say the mind of a programmer (I
could need to edit dozens of such images) is more close to what I
want. I am not an artist.
This is not a fully developed answer, but it does go some way towards thinking about a method - maybe someone else would like to develop it...
If, as you say, your pattern is specified, you know what it is - good, aren't I? So, you could look for the "Minimum Repeating Unit" of your pattern in your image. In your case it is a 16x16 grid like this:
Now you can search for that pattern in your image. I am using ImageMagick at the command-line, but you can use other tools if you prefer. ImageMagick is installed on most Linux distros and is available for OSX and Windows for free. So, I search for that grid in your globe image and ImageMagick gives me an output image showing white dots at the top-left corner of every location where the two images match:
compare -metric ae -dissimilarity-threshold 1.0 -compose src -subimage-search globe.gif grid.png res.png
That gets me this in file res-1.png
Now the white dots are where the 16x16 "Minimum Repeating Unit" is found in the image, but at the top-left corner so I shift them right and down by 8 pixels to the centre of the matching area, then I create a new output image where each pixel is the maximum pixel of the 16x16 grid in which it existed before:
convert res-1.png -roll +8+8 -statistic maximum 16x16 z.png
I can now invert that mask and then use it to set the opacity of the original image, thereby blanking areas that matched the "Minimum Repeating Unit":
convert globe.gif \( z.png -negate \) -compose copy_opacity -composite q.png
No, it's not perfect, but it is an idea for an approach that could be refined...
Guys i have 2 images one with CMYK color model and other with sRGB.. I would like to find out which color model is better to use while dealing with image processing like resizing, cropping, color filling etc..
Thanks in advance guys.. !
CMYK color space is used for print, (s)RGB is used for screens (web, monitors, tvs etc). If one were to open a CMYK document in a viewer/program that doesn't support the color profile (which is not uncommon, since CMYK isn't as widely supported as RBG) the colors would appear to be extremely over-saturated. If you are altering the images for use on the web, or in an application, I would highly recommend that you use some variant of RGB.
In short, neither is really better than the other in general, it all depends on where you will be using the images (apples and oranges, comes to mind). CMYK is better for print, and (s)RGB is better for screens.
UPDATE in response to OP's comment:
Just to be clear (forgive me if you already know this) color space/profiles do not affect the resolution of an image, they only affect how the colors are handled/encoded. Resolution is only affected by file dimensions, DPI/PPI (dots/pixels per inch) and compression.
UPDATE 2 in response to OP's comment:
I'm not familiar with "Imagemagick", but in general, I can tell you that I've converted thousands of documents to RGB from CMYK (and vise versa) and never noticed any degradation in quality, when the file is viewed in a program that supports the color profile. The only exception is when converting to CMYK FROM RGB, it is possible to lose a wee bit of vibrancy (due to the fact that CMYK is a smaller color space. Like I said before, if by "quality" you mean "resolution" the color profile won't effect it, the image won't suddenly lose clarity, when switching color profiles. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Neither is "better" for these purposes. In general you should use the color space/model that best aligns with your output device, like CMYK for paper and sRGB for screen, but for manipulations (such as resize, crop) they are the same.
the best is sRGB because is larger and the color are better preserved. AdobeRGB is even better. But remember that if you want to distribute you graphic image you have to know what kind of device will be used to print/view. You may use also a AdobeRGB but when you print it, you'll be sad, because many colors of AdobeRGB cannot be seen on a paper.
Cheers
I am able to use PNGs that have drop shadows but the effect when displayed on the BlackBerry looks like it collapses the transparent channel down from its original smooth gradient to only several transparent values giving it a choppy look.
The same issue is encountered by drawing on the UI using BlackBerry fields or the graphics.drawBitmap method. Anyone want to share hints for getting great looking transparent effects on the BlackBerry?
Dither your images or pre-composite them. When loading an image on a BlackBerry, you get at most 4 bits of alpha data, which allows 4 bits each for RGB. So, if you want to dither your transparent images, go for RGB4444. If you don't dither them, that's what causes 8-bit alpha to just be mapped to the nearest 4-bit value.
If you include no alpha data (i.e., precomposite), you can get RGB565, which will have a better image quality overall, but you will have to deal with static positioning for your dropshadows.
I'm looking for software to create PNG8 format transparent images as per this article.
NOTE: I need a Linux solution myself, but please submit answers for other OSes.
pngquant does a good job of converting to PNG8 while preserving full transparency.
If you're size-conscious, you may also be interested in pngcrush, which can usually (losslessly) compress PNG files quite a bit.
I also needed a Linux solution and found pngnq to do a pretty good job. It seems to be designed specifically for creating 8-bit PNG images with alpha channels.
apt-get install pngnq # If on Ubuntu/Debian
For Mac: ImageOptim and ImageAlpha are GUIs that run pngcrush, pngquant, and various other normally command-line compression utilities. http://pngmini.com/
The link you provided references ImageMagick, which is an excellent toolkit for manipulating images on Linux.
Ah, if I remember correctly, when I have read this article some months ago, pngquant hadn't a Windows version. I see it has one now. So I tried it, and pngnq too.
The latter seems to do a slightly better job on the IceAlpha.png test image (from libpng.org), at the cost of a slightly bigger image (it can be post-processed with pngcrush or pngout anyway).
The dithering algorithms (the two of pngquant, the only one of pngnq) are different, and it might be worth having both tools, converting images with all algorithms and see what looks the best.
For the record, on the Windows side, IrfanView (4.10) displays these images very well (using the transparency level on each palette entry) while XnView (1.85.1) and GIMP (2.4) apply only a full transparency/opaque display, à la GIF: the light bulb given as an example in the linked article has a transparent background around it, but the orange part is fully opaque.
And the excellent utility TweakPNG shows we have a PLTE (palette, 222 entries) chunk and a tRNS (alpha values for palette colors, 222 entries) chunk. Even more, it allows to edit each palette entry, color and alpha level. It might be an interesting complementary tool for this format.
Note on IrfanView support: if it handles PNG8 correctly for transparency, it doesn't handle gamma information in PNG files: on the toucan image or the ping-pong image, I had to apply a gamma of 2.4 to get similar (lighter) colors.
Note also that IrfanView does an awful job of converting 32-bit PNG images to 256, allowing only one transparent color, which looks bad if full color was dithered!
I see that the GIMP manual states: "his “PNG8” format, like GIF, uses only one bit for transparency; only two transparency levels are possible, transparent or opaque. "
while the ISO/W3C standard states:
"The tRNS chunk specifies either alpha values that are associated with palette entries (for indexed-colour images) or a single transparent colour (for greyscale and truecolour images).". The PNG specification 1.2 added: "Although simple transparency is not as elegant as the full alpha channel, it requires less storage space and is sufficient for many common cases."
It looks like the unique transparent color is more implemented than the full transparency palette, alas. At least browsers get it right.
It depends on what exactly your original images look like.
If your images already contain 256 or fewer colors (RGBA values), you need only look at pngout (Windows) (Linux/BSD/Mac OS X ports), which you should already be using to optimize your PNG images anyway. It can't quantize images, but it can save them as 8-bit, including alpha transparency. Just pass in the /c3 (or -c3 on Linux et al.) color option to force it to save the image as PNG8.
If your images do contain more than 256 colors, you have a few more, but all less than perfect options:
Adobe Fireworks is probably the best option in terms of the resulting image quality. It will do the job if you only need to convert a few images, or if you don't mind relying on Fireworks to do the batch processing. I did find that it sometimes somehow limits the number of colors in the palette, creating a worse quality image than necessary. I don't know if that's perhaps a bug in CS3 that's been fixed in CS4.
If you're not on Windows or OS X this obviously isn't an option, and buying Fireworks just for this probably isn't worth it either.
The only alternatives I know of are the already mentioned pngquant and pngnq. I've had better luck with pngnq, but that's probably just going to depend on which quantization strategy works best on the files you're working with.
Unfortunately, I've noticed that neither of them work very well with small amounts of transparency (say, an opaque image with transparent, rounded corners).
I recommend "The GIMP" as it is possible to output in PNG8 and supports Linux/Windows. If you want a quick Windows-only solution, I also recommend IrfanView.
Microsoft Windows: Ultimate Paint (freeware and shareware
versions are available).
Both versions can save as an 8 bit transparent PNG image.
It can also save as a 4 bit PNG (16 colours). This cuts the
file size in half compared to 8 bit.
Input formats include BMP, GIF, ICO, JPG/JPEG and PNG.
The freeware edition of Ultimate Paint Standard 2.88 LE can
be downloaded directly from
http://www.ultimatepaint.com/up.zip (1.7 MB).