hey /prog/, an inquiry here, for anyone who knows anything about image compression.
Long story short, me and a few other people are working on a hitbox/frame viewer for Guilty Gear, as well as extracting the Gallery images.
We've successfully extracted the images in binary form, but we can't make sense of them, there appears to be a compression on the images. Does anyone here have any experience in this field? http://pastebin.com/16HMZzQY Here's a example if you want a quick look http://www.mediafire.com/?rx88knqj4ym99ul here's a full bin if that helps more
Looks like some uncompresed bits at the beginning (thumbnail?) followed by compressed data so if you have what the decompressed data should look like you may have better chance at figuring out but anyway your'e abetter of takbinwa a loo a thet ecode o insated.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 8:28
call mee i wanto fukthis weekend :=)
:)
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 9:33
Compression
Why bother? You can get any image just by typing cat /dev/random and waiting for correct sequence of bytes.
>You can get any image just by typing cat /dev/random and waiting for correct sequence of bytes.
That's why Chaos and Entropy are in constant violation of any and all copyright and other laws - because of their latent possibility of the manifestation of any copyrighted and/or illegal sequence of zeroes and ones at any time.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 20:19
>>12 Chaos and Entropy
Jewish buzzwords. Physics is deterministic.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 21:22
pyshics is just a reductionist view. you have to study cybernetics, ross ashby, stafford beer and maturana. (skip norbert wiener. he's boring)
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 21:26
>>13
There is no such idea of "physics is deterministic".
stop using words you don't understand you dumb atheist
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 21:27
>>14
Can you imagine a “physical process” whose outcome could depend on whether there’s a set larger than the set of integers but smaller than the set of real numbers? If so, what would it look like?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 21:27
>>15
Can you imagine a “physical process” whose outcome could depend on whether there’s a set larger than the set of integers but smaller than the set of real numbers? If so, what would it look like?
>>13
Even if it is, most practical systems are far too complicated to make any useful predictions. To determine how events unfold, you need to have perfect knowledge of the initial state - this is not possible, the information regarding the initial state will always be incomplete due to various restrictions. Soon enough, the relatively small discrepancies not accounted for will accumulate and skew the unfolding of events so much as to shatter the meaningfulness of any predictions that have been made under any practical conditions.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 21:48
>>18 . However, the development of quantum mechanics gave thinkers alternatives to these strictly bound possibilities, proposing a model for a universe that follows general rules but never had a predetermined future.
Either way, it's an open question and we aren't qualified to debate about it. Keep it on wikipedia, noob
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 22:00
>>20
It isn't open. Universe is finite, therefor deterministic.
Otherwise can you imagine a “physical process” whose outcome could depend on whether there’s a set larger than the set of integers but smaller than the set of real numbers? If so, what would it look like?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 22:29
>>21
You have no authority, your opinion means nothing.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 22:33
Conway/Kochen, who clearly prove, given three axioms, that the universe *can’t* be deterministic. Actually, they prove it isn’t “random” in the usual sense either. And the axioms one needs to assume are essentially completely straight QM and relativity, together with the inability to influence past events.
If we predict something through a model, it means that the modeled system has gone in a cyclic behavoir, a state of balance that only can lead to the death of the system.
So, suddenly, the mistery is solved and is not interesting anymore, because we know what will happen next.
oh boy, we got a bunch of stoners here with their oh so "scientific" and "abstract" thoughts from their stoned minds
>>25
here, this guy, what the fuck is he even going on about?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 1:10
Information and Entropy
Any information that results from an observation, a measurement, or an experiment, and that tells us only what we already know, produces no change in the number of possible responses; it does not diminish our uncertainty. The lower the probability that a message or an event will occur, the greater is the information carried by that message. The information obtained by drawing the correct response the first time (I = 32/1) is the inverse of the probability of obtaining this response before the drawing is made, or before the message is received (P = 1/32). Probability and entropy are related by statistical theory (see p. 102). By bringing together the different mathematical expressions, we can see that information is the inverse of the entropy of the physicists- it is the equivalent of an antientropy. The term neguentropy, negative entropy, has been proposed to identify this important property. Information and neguentropy are therefore the equivalents of potential energy.
The alliance goes further. By choosing suitable constants and values one can express information in thermodynamic units and relate it directly to entropy. We can then calculate the smallest expense of energy needed to generate one bit of information. To obtain an amount of information equal to one bit, we must degrade in entropy a very low but finite and therefore significant quantity of the energy of the universe.
This important finding has led physicists like Leon Brillouin to generalize Carnot's principle in such a way as to express the indissoluble relationship that exists between information acquired by the brain and the variation of entropy in the universe: Every acquisition of knowledge based on an observation or a physical measurement obtained with the help of an instrument uses energy in the laboratory--and therefore some of the energy of the universe.[2]
Consider an example. The reading of this page involves several elements: the text (printed in black on the paper) ( see notes ), a source of light (natural or artificial), the eye, and the brain. The lamp is the source of neguentropy. It emits a flow of light that is refracted on the succession of black and white segments of the printed words and modulates the light beam that strikes the eye. The eye receives the message and the brain decodes and interprets it. Thus the reader's brain has acquired information. But this must be paid for in energy: the watts of the lamp in exchange for the 24,000 bits of information on the printed page.
To obtain an amount of information equal to one bit, we must degrade in entropy a very low but finite and therefore significant quantity of the energy of the universe.
>>27 this must be paid for in energy: the watts of the lamp in exchange for the 24,000 bits of information on the printed page.
no free lunch?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 8:37
>>30
Physics is a bunch of arbitrary bullshit then.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 8:37
>>31
Jews invented induction™ to fool goyim, when smarter goys wont accept the Yahweh or infinity outright, cunning Jew says "see if you have N dollars then you always can get N+1 dollars, just invest your N dollars into my fund".
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fund_raising for more info on "induction"
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 8:38
>>33
No. Axioms are arbitrary. Observation and experiment - aint.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 8:47
Physics doesn't have axioms, but any physical theory does.
Just like in different branches of mathematics there are different axiomatics.
The difference is that in physics theories are ultimately tested against the experiments, while in mathematics it's pretty much a free-for-all except for every set of axioms being self-consistent.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 8:50
>>36 axioms being self-consistent.
Not a requirement. It is enough axioms are consistent for the most part.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 8:58
>>37
What does "for the most part" mean? Either there is a true statement whose negation is also true, or there isn't such a statement. No in-betweens.
Get the executable and start analysing it. You're not going to figure anything out by just staring at data, unless it's a terribly obvious format (which this isn't).
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 9:21
>>41
Cudder, you are annoying. I start believing that you really are a woman.
it's just that these texts on cybernetics (which have nothing to do with robotics or the things everyone thinks of when ``cybernetics'' is mentioned) like to use big words, which is also a big hobby of pseudointellectual redditards who love spewing words like fallacy, burden of proof or projection that make them think they're automatically winning an argument
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 13:37
>>20
Fuck you noo/b/, you can't even quote properly.
>>21 Otherwise can you imagine a “physical process” whose outcome could depend on whether there’s a set larger than the set of integers but smaller than the set of real numbers? If so, what would it look like?
I see through your fallacies, kike!
>>36 The difference is that in physics theories are ultimately tested against the experiments, while in mathematics it's pretty much a free-for-all except for every set of axioms being self-consistent.
Strangely worded. Mathematical theorems are proved deductively using other theorems and/or axioms. The latter being a given until a contradiction is found.
>>50 The latter being a given until a contradiction is found.
No, axioms in mathematics are not a given, but a chosen. For instance, there's at least half a dozen different geometries in mathematics and they all have different sets of postulates. There is a mathematics without infinity too. And it's useless to ask which set of axioms is true, because they don't have to adhere to reality.
As opposed to physics where there can be multiple theories and hypotheses for a phenomenon but only the most experiment-agreeing of them survives and is adopted by the mainstream. E.g. there were lots of aether theories at the beginning of XXth century, but the special theory of relativity turned out to be the only one that passed all the empirical tests. Now aether theories are a relic of the past while the relativity theory is taught and used.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 13:49
>>51
All I said was they're proved ``deductively" which is pretty ambiguous. I don't want to argue about the philosophy of maths.
>>52
You misunderstood. I mean you just take them to be true until a contradiction is found.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 13:52
>>53
Just like in physics you take the axioms of a theory to be true until a contradiction with experiment is found.