Image/File Compression

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

To get this thread back on track...

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).

>>41
Cudder, you are annoying. I start believing that you really are a woman.

2010

http://forum.xentax.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5459

>>43
You're more annoying than Cudder. Get you shit back to /video-games/

>>14
i read a bit about them and all i could find were philosophy bullshit about how everything has feedback

eat a dick, this cybernetics thing is the gayest shit i've read in years

This thread is sponsored by the Smoke Weed Every Day^TM guy and his friends from the ^image_reddits.

>>45
Clearly you haven't read enough. All that gay shit you've read is the basis of all the information theory we use today.

>>47
philosophy is the basis of modern science, but that doesn't make current ``philosophical breakthroughs'' less gayer

i hope you enjoy reading about the feedback of your philosophical autopoeitic systemic observer deterministic ad hominem feedback, fagstorm

i'm not accusing you of ad hominem, by the way

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

>>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
prove your proof method.

>>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.

>>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.

>>53
Just like in physics you take the axioms of a theory to be true until a contradiction with experiment is found.

sure is reddit in here today

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness#In_the_physical_sciences
According to several standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, microscopic phenomena are objectively random.
Then how can determinism?

>>56
According to Jewish interpretations
here we are.

But quantum computing works ! IBM did factorize 15 in 3*5 using Shor's algorithm on a 7-qubit machine !

>>58
if quantum computing was random, result would be random too.

how do i ^image_reddits

^image_reddits

^image_reddits

I respect IBM. They helped count dead jews

_count^dead_JEWS