I am just curious if I can be able to copy books from google or not.And I am also curious to know what to make such kind of material.
I suppose the best way is to convert the text pages to images. You'd still be able to capture the images, but they wouldn't be in text form anymore; to get them back in their original form, you'd have to OCR them, which is an arduous process.
Related
I have a map that is 40x50 that shows when the visitor comes to the website, i would like the visitor to click the map which puts in topmost actual size 400x500 and everything beneath is blacked out, when they click off the pic it will simply vanish.
I have seem it happen in many galleries but can't seem to find one i can recode and don't even know what the actual process of doing this is called.
I believe the word you're looking for is lightbox.
See this: http://lokeshdhakar.com/projects/lightbox2/
By the way, tags are for tagging what languages you are using. Appropriate tags for this post would probably be html and javascript. The image tag is alright, but without context, it's difficult to figure out how your are trying to implement it.
I work at a printer where we generate thumbnails of artwork for orders and store them in a folder before printing.
I'm looking for a code library that will allow us to take a photo of a printed item and look through the library of thumbnails for the design.
Just wondered if anyone knows of a library or api that could do this?
Thanks
David
pHash is one solution.
There are others but that mainly depends on your requirements: do you only want to identify identical images, if not, what types of transformations do you want to be able to capture etc.
In general you should look for near duplicate image search.
#david-jennings there are numerous methods to look for similar images in libraries. Remember that google already does this in google images.
Your problem falls under the scope of Content Based Image Retrieval (CBIR), which aims at looking for images with similarities in their content. MPEG-7 is a standard established many years ago to address these issues and the research field is very active with new techniques being developed constantly.
The main idea in CBIR is to extract some kind of a signature from an image and try to match it with all previously extracted signatures of all images in your database. Which method to use depends upon the specifics of your problem... According to your initial post I suppose that probably the use of SHIFT is going to do the work for you...
You may implement such a system using OpenCV with C/C++/Java/etc., or something more "scientific" using MATLAB.
I've been looking around to see if there exists a good way to prevent viewers from using their right click options to download images that I upload to my website.
I know that people can look at the image url in the page source, and was wondering if you suggest a way to prevent them being taken, by disabling the save image option.
This is an unsolvable problem.
As long as you actually want people to see the images, you cannot prevent them from saving them via a number of methods (e.g. screenshots). All measures you might think of will just annoy your users, without actually preventing them from doing what they want anyway. Also consider that the people watching those images will have some interest in them (otherwise they would not watch them in the first place), so there we already have a motive for them to keep a copy.
The only way to reliably prevent people from saving the images is to never let them copy them onto their computers in the first place (and remember: showing something on another computer always entails making a copy).
One solution could be to invite people into a place where they can view the image on a screen which you control, and not let them take any pictures. Think of modern cinemas where security people with night sights watch the spectators and pull out those who might have been handling any camera like device.
If you want to make it even more difficult, do not use an IMG tag. Instead, define the image using CSS with the property 'background-image'. To make it even more tricky, define that property at runtime using JavaScript that was placed on the page using base64 encoding.
You can try this...
onload=function(){
document.oncontextmenu=function(){return false;}
}
This will disallow the operation of the context (right mouse button click) menu...
If a user knows what they're doing they can get around this, though.
I suggest not doing this. It's annoying and you're not actually protecting yourself.
If you must, jQuery makes it pretty easy to disable the right click menu:
$(document).ready(function(){
$('img').bind("contextmenu",function(){
return false;
});
});
Just make your images so ugly no one would want to take them.
Seriously, what are you worried about?
If you use the Microsoft Ajax Seadragon Deep Zoom viewer for you images then you can present your images as lots of overlapping tiles - a real pain to stick back together, difficulty depends on images size, but for hi-resolution images it makes 'printscreen' the only option for those wanting to steal stuff.
Incidentally the contextmenu thing works on divs better than images (things bubble) and you don't have to offend people by doing no click on the whole document.
To do it by class, e.g. with Prototype:
$$('.your-image-container-class').each(function(s) {s.oncontextmenu=function(){return false;}});
If you're familiar with Reddit, you'll know how all of their posts containing pictures get a small thumbnail preview beside the title of the submission. How does Reddit go about doing that? Does it just check to see if the link ends with .jpg, .png, .bmp, etc?
reddit will try to pull a thumbnail from any source--not just an image URL. This is done firstly by having set rules for specific sites, and secondly by having one generic process for retrieving thumbnails for unknown URLs--and is an automated periodic task.
One of the (many) benefits of reddit is that the source code is open, and if you understand Python, you should check out /r2/lib/scraper.py for a more detailed view at how this process works.
Also, while StackOverflow is a great place to have programming-related questions answered, you might also want to check out reddit's own /r/redditdev for information on reddit development.
Indeed, if the URL contains .jpg, .png,
etc., use that.
If the site is a
popular domain (flickr.com,
youtube.com, amazon.com, etc.), have
a set of predefined rules to extract
something you know will be relevant
(may it be the featured image, YouTube
thumbnail, Amazon product image,
etc.)
Otherwise, if all you have to
work with is some HTML, you'll have to dig it out yourself. You could choose the
first one on the page, the biggest by size,
or even the one you've algorithmically
determined to be the most relevent (e.g. relatively big, inside what you think is the main body content.)
If you have to resort to the last option, one technique I'd recommend is to extract multiple images, and A/B test them to find the one which has the best click-through rate. That way you can nearly always get the best one.
You can check for the content of the <img> tag.
I've been admiring StackOverflow's default quilt-like profile pictures (which I notice are also on the Fail Blog) and am curious what program both are using to generate them.
But what I really want to know is: If you were to design the system to create default profile pictures, how would you do it?
I'm looking for ideas on what algorithm you'd use, as well as things like how you would related the image to the user, be it related to their username, or some portrayal of their progress (ie the image gets more complex, or larger, as they gain reputation).
FWIW, the default pictures are generated by gravatar, which is why you'll see them on more than this site.
It's called an Identicon. On Stackoverflow it Gravatar uses your IP address to generate the image.
This is an editorial, not necessarily an answer.
Those auto-generated avatars on this site come from a service (Gravatar) that focuses exclusively on providing avatars and is therefore the core of their business. For apps that aren't specifically intended to generate and display avatars, I would just go with an empty placeholder (like Facebook). It's a neat feature, but is it worth your development time when a simple placeholder would be just as effective?
A very good source of images would be flame fractals. They are rather computationally expensive, so simply sourcing them from a project like electric sheep or having them be rendered by the user's computer should be considered to offload the work.
Who wouldn't want default profile pictures like these?
alt text http://sheepserver.net/v2d6/gen/202/124809/icon.jpg alt text http://sheepserver.net/v2d6/gen/202/124805/icon.jpg alt text http://sheepserver.net/v2d6/gen/202/125373/i77.jpg alt text http://sheepserver.net/v2d6/gen/202/125431/i116.jpg
Use a Julia set or something like that and set the initial conditions to a hash of the user's email address.
I'd use a jpeg server tool (aspjpg or similar) to manipulate the image on load so it displays their badges within their profile pic.
In fact, using any tool to dynamically generate images is pretty cool. Applying some sort of 3d or flash technology to dynamically create images using random variables for eye spacing or facial structure would be pretty wicked as well.
But ya this is a weird question. hah!
I did something similar years back, I used POV-Ray to generate little 3D scenes with torusses (torii ?) and spheres. There were lots of parameters to tweak such as the position, size and colour of each object.
POV-Ray is a scriptable 3D render engine, you can find it here.
Unfortunately my images all looked too similar to each other. I love Gravatar's identicons as uses on this site. I think the symmetry helps and the shapes are unique enough that you can identify users fairly clearly.
In ruby there have a library http://github.com/swdyh/quilt to generate it!