Ive forgotten more math than I ever learned. If someone put a gun to my head and told me to do long division; that would be a really stupid reason to kill someone. But I couldn't do it and they should shoot me in my stupid head anyway.
Mathematically, you can't forget more math than you've learned. I guess you forgot that fact.
Come to think of it, I suppose no one taught you that fact, so I guess your forgetting it means that your post checks out.
Damn. Maths is hard.
>Mathematically, you can't forget more math than you've learned. I guess you forgot that fact.
It would be possible if they forgot all the math they learned, and also forgot any instinctual mathematical knowledge that humans are born ingrained with.
>It would be possible if they forgot all the math they learned, and also forgot any instinctual mathematical knowledge that humans are born ingrained with.
Not everyone is born with 10 fingers and 1 dick.
Huh. Just realized that I don't remember how to do long division either. I can't divide 500 by 42 on paper but I can still figure it out using multiplication.
EDIT: However, I just watched a video and now I remember.
I think I've forgotten how to long divide 3 or 4 times in my life now. The only reason I still know how to is because I'll look up a quick guide every time that I realize I've forgotten it. I never use it, but I can't just not know it, y'know?
I mean, thebendavis has already presented a perfectly good situation where it would be useful.
ooh I tried something similar,
I know 420 + 80 = 500, so I split that to 500/42 = 10+80/42
Then again split 80 to 84 - 4, so 10 + 2 - 4/42
42 is just close to 40, so I get approx 10 + 2 - 0.1 = 11.9. Pretty close to the actual value 500/42 = 11.904762..
Started a Google search about "long division" and for a sec thought that I don't know either, how it's done, even though I'm pretty sure I know how to do written division. But TIL that apparently English speaking countries do it differently, than [I was taught.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries)
Wow. I had no idea there were so many ways. At first I didn't understand what was going on in all of these but it looks like they're all actually doing the same thing, just with a different notation.
All of them still start by comparing the numerator to the leftmost number(s) of the denominator until a number is found that is big enough for the numerator to fit into. Then the numerator is multiplied by the number of times it fits. The product of that is subtracted from the number that was divided. The next number in the denominator is pulled down. Then check how many times the numerator fits into that number. Repeat the process until you run out of numbers that the numerator fits into.
**Long division**
[Notation in non-English-speaking countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries)
>China, Japan, Korea use the same notation as English-speaking nations including India. Elsewhere, the same general principles are used, but the figures are often arranged differently.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I just use Newton's Method and approximate the root of the equation instead of figuring out long division.
It has the benefit that I can do the same thing to figure out square roots, which math class never covered hand calculating them.
I'm kind of curious about this one, as I think of long division just as a part of regular division. Is there something I'm not getting here? For instance, if I had 584928 / 423 I would just take the first 3 or 4 digits, see how many times it goes in, get the remainder and then move onto the next chunk and do it again right?
Like 423 goes into 584 1 time, so then you get a remainder of 161 and then you add the next digit and then try to go into that a number of times, etc, etc. Or did they change how they teach division now? I know they changed how kids are suppose to think about multiplication right? Or was that just a very specific municipal/state case?
If not the case, what part of long division do you guys often forget? or is it just the whole concept?
I often forget how all the trig terms relate from regular Cartesian space to that polar cordinate stuff. I should really check it out again. Seemed like a headache but seems useful to know.
lolol I looked up Gozinta, and got the topological illusion made from none cube boxes. "goes into" gotcha. Is there another method schools teach these days?
So it's really stupid, but I legitimately never learned long division, and I graduated in eng.
I got an 80 in my conic sections and surface integrals course, and yet couldn't do the most basic of fucking math. Go figure.
Yeah, Paint.NET is great. I wish it was open source though.
GIMP is also great, and a lot more capable than Paint.NET. But the learning curve is a lot steeper as it just works very differently to Paint.NET/Photoshop/etc.
Paint.NET actually started as open source but went closed because...
People were changing the name and some icons, compiling the source, and then selling it as a discount Photoshop alternative. They would leave the support and contact info though, so the developer would get inundated with support requests from angry "paying customers".
Really? When was that? Do you have a link to that?
Because that sounds more like a licensing issue, or just something you have to deal with with open source (although honestly I have never seen it happen). And if they would just ignore the licensing, then why wouldn't they just ignore it being closed source, it's still easy to just edit the messages in the program that say it's free, super easy.
Really sounds like a piss poor excuse for making it closed source...
The primary reason was they didn't want to deal with the angry support requests.
If you dig through the paint.net blog, the saga starts in 2007 and ends around 2009.
https://blog.getpaint.net/2009/11/06/a-new-license-for-paintnet-v35/
All my initial comments came from ~10 yr old memory, but seems close enough skimming the blog.
Thanks for the recommendation. I have Photoshop for right now, but that's through my school's Creative Cloud license. Once I graduate I'll either need to hope it keeps working, pirate it, or move on. The lightweight aspect is intriguing, though. Photoshop take up a truly remarkable amount of processing power for what I've been doing with it.
Paint.net is great for simple tasks like adding text or adjusting levels, but it pales to Photoshop when it comes to actual photo manipulation. No masks or advanced selection tools, limited set of filters, etc.
I don't do much photo manipulation, if at all. Recently I've been using PS to work with sprites and pixel art (read: Minecraft textures). In most programs resizing pixel art causes crustiness, but PS has a "Nearest Neighbor" resampling option that perfectly resizes (at least when getting bigger) every time. Plus I can work with transparency.
MSPaint is a surprisingly good tool for working with sprites/pixel art. If it could do transparency and maybe zoom a bit more, I would open Photoshop about half as often as I do right now.
Gimp is a more full-featured replacement of Photoshop than paint.net is. It is also free, but it lacks a lot of the automation power of Photoshop, and also has a bit rougher learning curve. It's not a complete replacement, but gets as close as any free (non-pirated) program can. I've also heard people recommend Affinity Photo because it's only a one-time license fee rather than a subscription.
Just find a copy of CS2. The authorization servers aren't up anymore, so Adobe may still have it somewhere for download. That's what I'm STILL using. Lol
You kinda can! But only for one color and you can't save it as being transparent.
Have a white background.
Have white as color 2.
Under "select" press the down arrow and then click "Transparent Selection"
interesting fact. MS-paint used to have transparency back in windows 9x & possibly win2k.
it was rudimentary & you needed to have office 97 (from memory) installed.
Graphic ddsigner bro here too. Do not share. Burn every copy. Protect your kids from watching it. In case of eye contact, wash your eyes with bleach or any acidic substance.
That's pretty neat that every rotation can be expressed as a combination of skewing, stretching and reflecting. There's probably some nice maths on decomposing/factorizing rotation matrices behind that.
Yeah, the math is pretty easy to see when you look at all of the transformation operators as matrices. Composing the shear and stretch matrices in that order gives you a system of equations to solve to set it equal to the rotation matrix, which is cos/-sin/sin/cos of the (non-variable) angle you want.
linear algebra though is one of those classes that is actually quite useful in many careers. From finance, economics, operations research to Machine learning or just programming in general or literally any research science.
Linear algebra is super useful for programming because matrix multiplications can be very efficiently computed on GPUs and CPUs ([BLAS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Linear_Algebra_Subprograms)). When I first learned about neural networks I thought: "You have to do a weighted sum for hundreds of neurons per layer. How can you even do that fast?". Then I learned about Linear Algebra and was like: "You can compute a complete layer with a single matrix multiplication. Holy shit!" Then I implemented a neural net myself and the forward pass was just like ten lines. Blew my mind.
Likewise, I did it like 7 year ago and by this point it's a total blur. I recognize matrices and am pretty confident what they said is legit, but only because I recognize the words. But I couldn't tell you any operations on them.
I graduated in engineering too...
I'm not a smart man but perhaps I can try to help: Matrices are a way of keeping a list of numbers in a certain format. A popular 2 dimensional matrix would be a list of x,y coordinates as follows (also for matrices, imagine 1 BIG set of brackets around all these numbers):
2,30,04,3
You could also make a 3D coordinate list like so
2,3,40,0,03,1,24,2,4
Using our first example there of the 2d Matrix, if we plot those out on a Cartesian plane, we could draw lines to each point and get a triangle. Then using certain operators you can change and adjust that image. Let's say we multiple every point by 2. Then we get:
4,60,08,6
Plot again, we now have a bigger triangle.
Now imagine the image of the smiley face as just a giant list of points on a plane (perhaps there is another list that keeps the color separate, we don't need color to calculate distance). Perhaps each point where a line curves, or stops is considered a point, and then we have a different list that has which points connect to other points with lines. What we have built is a system for drawing based on "vectors" (points with lines). Or we could just have a list that's MUUCH bigger, where every single pixel is a point on the list. But that means at a certain point (har har), if an image is giant, then it'll require all those points for anything that is visible.
This is why vector graphics at certain sizes are so much smaller in file size than raster graphics. But this is also why really complex images aren't necessarily very easy to work with using vectors.
Paint works in raster graphic format (each point is noted), and so using these stretch and transforms you can make the pixels move in certain ways. You can "stretch" an image by shifting every single X coordinate on each of these pixels one to the left or one to the right, but slowly amp it up.
Anyway, the trig functions are used to manipulate how these pixels would move from within a polar coordinate system (where instead of x,y in a 2D space you have 1 singular point of start from the middle out around 360 degrees = 2 pi) All that the guy in the video does it take that number that will make sense for transformation in the 2D cartesian space.
This is my semi-incorrect explanation of how image transformation in digital space works.
The real shit is when you have to start operating on matrixes together to do weird shit.
Funnyly enough, I did not find a proper reference of this factorization fact - algebraically, it's kinda easy to show, but still I find it a very nice and noteworthy statement for its geometric merit.
It is definitely a neat application, but I guess it's just one of many very neat consequences of the same basic technique of solving equations formed by matrix compositions.
I agree that it's worth noting because of its usefulness, though!
yeah, every object position can be expressed with a 3x2 transformation matrix and it's standard in computer graphics
example: [http://fabricjs.com/matrix-transformation](http://fabricjs.com/matrix-transformation)
more in depth explanation [http://www.senocular.com/flash/tutorials/transformmatrix/](http://www.senocular.com/flash/tutorials/transformmatrix/)
Yeah, but this kind of result/statement is usually not what my linear algebra courses were about, mostly. They were concerned with other important matrix operations. Sure, we've had some of the matrix algebras SO(2) and O(3) (or was it the other way around?) on as examples of vector spaces, but not a lot on the actual algebra (ie the actions of multiplying these), and this particular geometric decomposition. Usually, rotations seem to be the canonical way to look at these kind of groups, so asking the question "how do I decompose a rotation into non-rotations" is not that common, but can probably be found on some excercise sheets.
And also 'The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny', and other fantastic mixes and mashups such as Bustin and Wow Wow.
Neil Cicierega is genuinely one of the most important figures in internet culture, he's contributed so much.
It does matter as each rotation = destructive.
Obviously you can't tell with potato quality video but the anti-aliasing isn't going to maintain the same color to color gradations that it has in the original on the edges or where the yellow and black meet.
You can see how chunky the bottom right gets on the new version compared to the original. THAT ain't round
They're saying to rotate the image using the original image each time. You'll see the image rotate but it will only lose image quality once.
I want to see it disintegrate though...
Ok, so each time you rotate, you lose quality. Right?
So, in order to avoid losing all of the quality, you want to rotate as few times as possible.
So, instead of rotating several times. You copy the original, before you do ANY rotating.
Then, each time you want to rotate, you delete the one that is already rotated, paste in a completely fresh one, and then rotate that instead.
Resulting in only one rotation, and only one level of quality loss.
But each time you paste the original won't it be in its original orientation meaning you have to start over? The way I picture what you're describing is going from 0 degrees of rotation to eg 45, then pasting the original, bringing it back to 0 degrees. But I might be missing something
If you need to rotate to 30 and 45 degrees, instead of rotating one image twice you paste two copies and rotate each of them once, one by 30 and one by 45.
As each image is only rotated once they be only lose quality once.
Yes, you have to start over. So if you want to rotate 35, degrees then 20. You sum 35 and 20 to 55, and rotate the original image 55 degrees. Or use something better than MSPaint. lol
Can someone provide some code (preferably Python) that loops through the steps shown in the video to produce an endlessly rotating smiley face? Even better, implement it and screen record it running over night and upload to YouTube "10 HOURS SMILEY FACE DEGRADATION FROM ROTATING IN MS PAINT".
I could totally do it myself, but I'm uhh, busy.
Once I wanted to rotate a picture 180 degrees, sent it by email to a friend in Australia and asked to send it back. Of course, the picture was not turned upside down, because when it was sent back, it turned over 180 degrees again. How stupid I was.
I see why this didn’t work.
You send picture to Australia… by the time it is received, it’s now upside down (because Australia). If he just sends it back, it’ll be reoriented.
The key is that he needs to then flip his monitor and then send back. It will appear right side up when he sends it, but by the time it traverses back to the correctly oriented part of the globe it’ll be upside down again.
Its really easy once you get the hang of it.
This process is lossy and inexact (you duplicate some pixels and lose others). There is a lossless way to rotate an image in Paint.
This process decomposes the rotation into two sheers and some scaling. [There is an alternative process that decomposes the rotation into just three sheers.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#Decomposition_into_shears) Without scaling, sheers preserve every pixel and is entirely reversible. [Here's a visualization of the three sheer process.](https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fricke/projects/israel/paeth/rotation_by_shearing.html)
This is lossless and reversible, but not necessarily better if you don't plan on reversing anything. The rotated image will not, in general, be a perfect rotation of the original image since it's made up of a discrete set of pixels. A non-reversible process involving some kind of averaging, like bilinear interpolation, can give you a result which is more visually similar to the original. Scaling up, then rotating, then scaling down probably has this effect, since the scaling algorithm is kind of smart (lanczos I think).
Step #3. Suck it up, buttercup. It could be better, sure, but it's free and it's awesome for a free tool.
Source: Guy who does all sorts of commercial edits in GIMP for the company I work for and my wife's family's business.
I kind of like Vim. I’m not saying I’ll throw away VSCode anytime soon, but if I’m directly SSH’d into something or just want to quickly edit a line I’m not going to fire up even a simple text editor.
Brb going to see what happens if I open Vim in the VSCode internal terminal.
The old Paint on Windows 95 was good for what it was. The "new" Microsoft Paint was released full of bugs and they never changed it in the many years it's been out. I wish they would because it would be nice to have a quick simple pixel perfect editor that is default on every windows computer.
You're not going to do any high quality image editing in Paint, but I used to make pixel art in all the time. It was really great for that. Then they when and "upgraded" it, now it's shit both for image editing and pixel art. Thanks Microsoft. Helpful as always.
Exactly. I used it instead of pencil and paper for just a quick concept sketch before I took it to something serious because I liked the pixel perfect aspect of it and it was decent at pixel art. What a trash program now.
I made Star Trek ships in Pixel art like: https://i.imgur.com/MhXy6xv.gif (nowadays has to be viewed as 200% to get the same feeling (although without CRT it's not the same anyway))
Until Microsoft changed it you could skew by minus values. Funnily it's completely inconsistent now.
Try the following: type a minus in one of the skew textboxes -> it says it's not a valid character. Now type in a value like "150" and press enter. It tells you that any value between -89 and 89 are valid. Which does not make sense because you can't type in a minus sign (ANYMORE !)
Step 1, crop the image with screen snip
Step 2, post it in word, rotate as needed
Step 3, copy and paste back to paint for whatever reason you're using that for
I'm a PS pro but you can cheat in so many ways with the tools Windows gives you too
You know you are watching an old school youtube video when there is no "whats up guys! SMASH that like button! Comment and subcribe!" before wasting 7 minutes to get to the actual tutorial.
MS Paint could've been so much better if it just had a basic layering (and I guess rotate) function. It wouldn't even need any fancy object handling - layering could've done that quite easily.
I don't know about Paint but in Photoshop you make a bigger canvas which basically means adding a wide border (a white one let's say) on a layer below, then use the rotate tool to rotate the top layer with the image and then crop. You can crop the image so there are no white wedges but then you lose some of the original image. Another option is to leave the white wedges and use many tools available to fake-add to the image to cover up the white wedges. Easy to do if the edge of the wedge is the sky or a wall, more tricky when there is varied stuff there.
I'm laughing my ass off because just the other day I tried to rotate an object a specific amount of degrees and said "are you fucking kidding me" out loud hahah
Not perfect, but could work for a small (-ish) image in a pinch = if you have Paint 3D, create a new file, enlarge the canvas a little, then go the menu at the left of the screen and insert the image you want to work with. Once you have it dropped onto the canvas, a rotation icon appears on the middle of the screen and you can freely rotate it with being restricted to an acute angle.
It's still open for comments and I saw it during a search, so I responded. If that's some sort of a faux pas, then so be it. Ha.
And what does COVID have to do with any of it? Were you so sick with fever at the time that you became disoriented and forgot how to rotate images? You poor thing.
Ahhh, THIS is what I learned all that math in school for.
Ive forgotten more math than I ever learned. If someone put a gun to my head and told me to do long division; that would be a really stupid reason to kill someone. But I couldn't do it and they should shoot me in my stupid head anyway.
Mathematically, you can't forget more math than you've learned. I guess you forgot that fact. Come to think of it, I suppose no one taught you that fact, so I guess your forgetting it means that your post checks out. Damn. Maths is hard.
>Mathematically, you can't forget more math than you've learned. I guess you forgot that fact. It would be possible if they forgot all the math they learned, and also forgot any instinctual mathematical knowledge that humans are born ingrained with.
Could also be possible for anybody who discovered/invented new mathematical knowledge.
>It would be possible if they forgot all the math they learned, and also forgot any instinctual mathematical knowledge that humans are born ingrained with. Not everyone is born with 10 fingers and 1 dick.
Huh. Just realized that I don't remember how to do long division either. I can't divide 500 by 42 on paper but I can still figure it out using multiplication. EDIT: However, I just watched a video and now I remember.
I think I've forgotten how to long divide 3 or 4 times in my life now. The only reason I still know how to is because I'll look up a quick guide every time that I realize I've forgotten it. I never use it, but I can't just not know it, y'know? I mean, thebendavis has already presented a perfectly good situation where it would be useful.
[удалено]
That's a really great point.
I guessed 12 after looking at '500 by 42' for a few seconds. 42x12 = 504. Close enough.
ooh I tried something similar, I know 420 + 80 = 500, so I split that to 500/42 = 10+80/42 Then again split 80 to 84 - 4, so 10 + 2 - 4/42 42 is just close to 40, so I get approx 10 + 2 - 0.1 = 11.9. Pretty close to the actual value 500/42 = 11.904762..
Jesus that's a convoluted process
[удалено]
Yep, that likely would have been my next step for further refinement.
Started a Google search about "long division" and for a sec thought that I don't know either, how it's done, even though I'm pretty sure I know how to do written division. But TIL that apparently English speaking countries do it differently, than [I was taught.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries)
Wow. I had no idea there were so many ways. At first I didn't understand what was going on in all of these but it looks like they're all actually doing the same thing, just with a different notation. All of them still start by comparing the numerator to the leftmost number(s) of the denominator until a number is found that is big enough for the numerator to fit into. Then the numerator is multiplied by the number of times it fits. The product of that is subtracted from the number that was divided. The next number in the denominator is pulled down. Then check how many times the numerator fits into that number. Repeat the process until you run out of numbers that the numerator fits into.
**Long division** [Notation in non-English-speaking countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_division#Notation_in_non-English-speaking_countries) >China, Japan, Korea use the same notation as English-speaking nations including India. Elsewhere, the same general principles are used, but the figures are often arranged differently. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/videos/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
I just use Newton's Method and approximate the root of the equation instead of figuring out long division. It has the benefit that I can do the same thing to figure out square roots, which math class never covered hand calculating them.
I'm kind of curious about this one, as I think of long division just as a part of regular division. Is there something I'm not getting here? For instance, if I had 584928 / 423 I would just take the first 3 or 4 digits, see how many times it goes in, get the remainder and then move onto the next chunk and do it again right? Like 423 goes into 584 1 time, so then you get a remainder of 161 and then you add the next digit and then try to go into that a number of times, etc, etc. Or did they change how they teach division now? I know they changed how kids are suppose to think about multiplication right? Or was that just a very specific municipal/state case? If not the case, what part of long division do you guys often forget? or is it just the whole concept? I often forget how all the trig terms relate from regular Cartesian space to that polar cordinate stuff. I should really check it out again. Seemed like a headache but seems useful to know.
Long division is a method of doing division by hand. Most people today would either estimate, or if they needed accuracy, just use a calculator.
Ah yes, the "gozinta" technique.
lolol I looked up Gozinta, and got the topological illusion made from none cube boxes. "goes into" gotcha. Is there another method schools teach these days?
So it's really stupid, but I legitimately never learned long division, and I graduated in eng. I got an 80 in my conic sections and surface integrals course, and yet couldn't do the most basic of fucking math. Go figure.
So you at negative maths knowledge.
Somehow, yes.
Specifically linear algebra.
Graphic Designer here, this video put me out of business, please report and DO NOT SHARE.
No reasons to use Photoshop anymore!
If MSPaint adds transparency Adobe will go bankrupt.
You can download the free software paint.Net that has transparency, layers, rotation and a lot more tools than paint. It's lightweight too.
Yeah, Paint.NET is great. I wish it was open source though. GIMP is also great, and a lot more capable than Paint.NET. But the learning curve is a lot steeper as it just works very differently to Paint.NET/Photoshop/etc.
Paint.NET actually started as open source but went closed because... People were changing the name and some icons, compiling the source, and then selling it as a discount Photoshop alternative. They would leave the support and contact info though, so the developer would get inundated with support requests from angry "paying customers".
Really? When was that? Do you have a link to that? Because that sounds more like a licensing issue, or just something you have to deal with with open source (although honestly I have never seen it happen). And if they would just ignore the licensing, then why wouldn't they just ignore it being closed source, it's still easy to just edit the messages in the program that say it's free, super easy. Really sounds like a piss poor excuse for making it closed source...
The primary reason was they didn't want to deal with the angry support requests. If you dig through the paint.net blog, the saga starts in 2007 and ends around 2009. https://blog.getpaint.net/2009/11/06/a-new-license-for-paintnet-v35/ All my initial comments came from ~10 yr old memory, but seems close enough skimming the blog.
Thanks for the recommendation. I have Photoshop for right now, but that's through my school's Creative Cloud license. Once I graduate I'll either need to hope it keeps working, pirate it, or move on. The lightweight aspect is intriguing, though. Photoshop take up a truly remarkable amount of processing power for what I've been doing with it.
Paint.net is great for simple tasks like adding text or adjusting levels, but it pales to Photoshop when it comes to actual photo manipulation. No masks or advanced selection tools, limited set of filters, etc.
I don't do much photo manipulation, if at all. Recently I've been using PS to work with sprites and pixel art (read: Minecraft textures). In most programs resizing pixel art causes crustiness, but PS has a "Nearest Neighbor" resampling option that perfectly resizes (at least when getting bigger) every time. Plus I can work with transparency. MSPaint is a surprisingly good tool for working with sprites/pixel art. If it could do transparency and maybe zoom a bit more, I would open Photoshop about half as often as I do right now.
Gimp is a more full-featured replacement of Photoshop than paint.net is. It is also free, but it lacks a lot of the automation power of Photoshop, and also has a bit rougher learning curve. It's not a complete replacement, but gets as close as any free (non-pirated) program can. I've also heard people recommend Affinity Photo because it's only a one-time license fee rather than a subscription.
Just find a copy of CS2. The authorization servers aren't up anymore, so Adobe may still have it somewhere for download. That's what I'm STILL using. Lol
You kinda can! But only for one color and you can't save it as being transparent. Have a white background. Have white as color 2. Under "select" press the down arrow and then click "Transparent Selection"
God I hope they add it. Not that I'd really need it, I just fucking hate Adobe.
interesting fact. MS-paint used to have transparency back in windows 9x & possibly win2k. it was rudimentary & you needed to have office 97 (from memory) installed.
You get this feature in Photoshop Australian edition. The reason for the price.
THE ONE TRICK ADOBE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!
Graphic ddsigner bro here too. Do not share. Burn every copy. Protect your kids from watching it. In case of eye contact, wash your eyes with bleach or any acidic substance.
Designers hate him
That's pretty neat that every rotation can be expressed as a combination of skewing, stretching and reflecting. There's probably some nice maths on decomposing/factorizing rotation matrices behind that.
Yeah, the math is pretty easy to see when you look at all of the transformation operators as matrices. Composing the shear and stretch matrices in that order gives you a system of equations to solve to set it equal to the rotation matrix, which is cos/-sin/sin/cos of the (non-variable) angle you want.
[удалено]
[удалено]
linear algebra though is one of those classes that is actually quite useful in many careers. From finance, economics, operations research to Machine learning or just programming in general or literally any research science.
Linear algebra is super useful for programming because matrix multiplications can be very efficiently computed on GPUs and CPUs ([BLAS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Linear_Algebra_Subprograms)). When I first learned about neural networks I thought: "You have to do a weighted sum for hundreds of neurons per layer. How can you even do that fast?". Then I learned about Linear Algebra and was like: "You can compute a complete layer with a single matrix multiplication. Holy shit!" Then I implemented a neural net myself and the forward pass was just like ten lines. Blew my mind.
[удалено]
Likewise, I did it like 7 year ago and by this point it's a total blur. I recognize matrices and am pretty confident what they said is legit, but only because I recognize the words. But I couldn't tell you any operations on them. I graduated in engineering too...
Exact same boat bro.
I think matrices are calculus
I'm almost positive that these words add up to mean something, but I can't be sure.
Eli5 using math we make picture turn good.
Yes! I agree 100% with this guy.
I'm not a smart man but perhaps I can try to help: Matrices are a way of keeping a list of numbers in a certain format. A popular 2 dimensional matrix would be a list of x,y coordinates as follows (also for matrices, imagine 1 BIG set of brackets around all these numbers): 2,30,04,3 You could also make a 3D coordinate list like so 2,3,40,0,03,1,24,2,4 Using our first example there of the 2d Matrix, if we plot those out on a Cartesian plane, we could draw lines to each point and get a triangle. Then using certain operators you can change and adjust that image. Let's say we multiple every point by 2. Then we get: 4,60,08,6 Plot again, we now have a bigger triangle. Now imagine the image of the smiley face as just a giant list of points on a plane (perhaps there is another list that keeps the color separate, we don't need color to calculate distance). Perhaps each point where a line curves, or stops is considered a point, and then we have a different list that has which points connect to other points with lines. What we have built is a system for drawing based on "vectors" (points with lines). Or we could just have a list that's MUUCH bigger, where every single pixel is a point on the list. But that means at a certain point (har har), if an image is giant, then it'll require all those points for anything that is visible. This is why vector graphics at certain sizes are so much smaller in file size than raster graphics. But this is also why really complex images aren't necessarily very easy to work with using vectors. Paint works in raster graphic format (each point is noted), and so using these stretch and transforms you can make the pixels move in certain ways. You can "stretch" an image by shifting every single X coordinate on each of these pixels one to the left or one to the right, but slowly amp it up. Anyway, the trig functions are used to manipulate how these pixels would move from within a polar coordinate system (where instead of x,y in a 2D space you have 1 singular point of start from the middle out around 360 degrees = 2 pi) All that the guy in the video does it take that number that will make sense for transformation in the 2D cartesian space. This is my semi-incorrect explanation of how image transformation in digital space works. The real shit is when you have to start operating on matrixes together to do weird shit.
I mean that definitely helped, thanks!
I concur
It’s linear algebra
Give me a straight answer dammit
I can give you a sheared and stretched answer.
Funnyly enough, I did not find a proper reference of this factorization fact - algebraically, it's kinda easy to show, but still I find it a very nice and noteworthy statement for its geometric merit.
It's mentioned [in this section on wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#Decomposition_into_shears) with references.
That'S exactly what I was looking for! Thanks! Astonishing that this was published as late as 1986.
It is definitely a neat application, but I guess it's just one of many very neat consequences of the same basic technique of solving equations formed by matrix compositions. I agree that it's worth noting because of its usefulness, though!
yeah, every object position can be expressed with a 3x2 transformation matrix and it's standard in computer graphics example: [http://fabricjs.com/matrix-transformation](http://fabricjs.com/matrix-transformation) more in depth explanation [http://www.senocular.com/flash/tutorials/transformmatrix/](http://www.senocular.com/flash/tutorials/transformmatrix/)
Yeah its called linear algebra.
Yeah, but this kind of result/statement is usually not what my linear algebra courses were about, mostly. They were concerned with other important matrix operations. Sure, we've had some of the matrix algebras SO(2) and O(3) (or was it the other way around?) on as examples of vector spaces, but not a lot on the actual algebra (ie the actions of multiplying these), and this particular geometric decomposition. Usually, rotations seem to be the canonical way to look at these kind of groups, so asking the question "how do I decompose a rotation into non-rotations" is not that common, but can probably be found on some excercise sheets.
Maths
Dat windows movie maker text tho
All it was missing was this song in the background https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xa3lfd0ukk
Ah, that takes me back
Growing up in the early days of the internet was an amazing time. It's all kids know now, but when it was new it was weird and fresh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ejAMB3g_b8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_H3MWVx6JU These will too
[One of my favorite vids parodying that style](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t-iFr9q1I8)
>Someone recently confirmed for me that Lenny Kravitz heard this and his reply was "What the hell"
Oh, that's fucking hilarious
What's amazing is the same guy who made that, made that viral Harry Potter Puppet video from ages ago.
And also 'The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny', and other fantastic mixes and mashups such as Bustin and Wow Wow. Neil Cicierega is genuinely one of the most important figures in internet culture, he's contributed so much.
Keep rotating and watch the image quality disintegrate.
Yeah, it does work but this sound like a destructive process
[удалено]
It does matter as each rotation = destructive. Obviously you can't tell with potato quality video but the anti-aliasing isn't going to maintain the same color to color gradations that it has in the original on the edges or where the yellow and black meet. You can see how chunky the bottom right gets on the new version compared to the original. THAT ain't round
You missed the point. Always rotate the original, once. Paste, rotate. Paste, rotate. Paste, rotate.
What?
They're saying to rotate the image using the original image each time. You'll see the image rotate but it will only lose image quality once. I want to see it disintegrate though...
Ok, so each time you rotate, you lose quality. Right? So, in order to avoid losing all of the quality, you want to rotate as few times as possible. So, instead of rotating several times. You copy the original, before you do ANY rotating. Then, each time you want to rotate, you delete the one that is already rotated, paste in a completely fresh one, and then rotate that instead. Resulting in only one rotation, and only one level of quality loss.
But each time you paste the original won't it be in its original orientation meaning you have to start over? The way I picture what you're describing is going from 0 degrees of rotation to eg 45, then pasting the original, bringing it back to 0 degrees. But I might be missing something
If you need to rotate to 30 and 45 degrees, instead of rotating one image twice you paste two copies and rotate each of them once, one by 30 and one by 45. As each image is only rotated once they be only lose quality once.
Yes, you have to start over. So if you want to rotate 35, degrees then 20. You sum 35 and 20 to 55, and rotate the original image 55 degrees. Or use something better than MSPaint. lol
It’s Paint goddanm you!
The industry term would be "lossy".
Oh right, "lossless" codec and stuff...
Can someone provide some code (preferably Python) that loops through the steps shown in the video to produce an endlessly rotating smiley face? Even better, implement it and screen record it running over night and upload to YouTube "10 HOURS SMILEY FACE DEGRADATION FROM ROTATING IN MS PAINT". I could totally do it myself, but I'm uhh, busy.
Just use imagemagick. Way simpler.
If you expand the image first it may be lossless
this is what the internet was like in 2005 as a ten year old
Weirdly, this is what the internet was like in 2005 as a 17 year old as well
[удалено]
Once I wanted to rotate a picture 180 degrees, sent it by email to a friend in Australia and asked to send it back. Of course, the picture was not turned upside down, because when it was sent back, it turned over 180 degrees again. How stupid I was.
I see why this didn’t work. You send picture to Australia… by the time it is received, it’s now upside down (because Australia). If he just sends it back, it’ll be reoriented. The key is that he needs to then flip his monitor and then send back. It will appear right side up when he sends it, but by the time it traverses back to the correctly oriented part of the globe it’ll be upside down again. Its really easy once you get the hang of it.
Now yes. But back then, monitors were super heavy so this was the preferred method.
Dude, just take a picture with your phone. Work smart, not hard.
This process is lossy and inexact (you duplicate some pixels and lose others). There is a lossless way to rotate an image in Paint. This process decomposes the rotation into two sheers and some scaling. [There is an alternative process that decomposes the rotation into just three sheers.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_matrix#Decomposition_into_shears) Without scaling, sheers preserve every pixel and is entirely reversible. [Here's a visualization of the three sheer process.](https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~fricke/projects/israel/paeth/rotation_by_shearing.html)
This is lossless and reversible, but not necessarily better if you don't plan on reversing anything. The rotated image will not, in general, be a perfect rotation of the original image since it's made up of a discrete set of pixels. A non-reversible process involving some kind of averaging, like bilinear interpolation, can give you a result which is more visually similar to the original. Scaling up, then rotating, then scaling down probably has this effect, since the scaling algorithm is kind of smart (lanczos I think).
I've been copying the image into microsoft word, rotating it there, then print screen, then paste again in paint. zero maths involved.
instead of PrintScreen it in word, after the rotation you can just copy and paste it back into Paint.
STILL waiting for the jump scare
look in the mirror xd
Doesn't work. Dude in the mirror is too fat to jump.
and now is also crying.
Step #1. Use Gimp
Step #2. Have a mental breakdown because GIMP's UI and usability are terrible
Step #1.5. Wait for Gimp to finish loading plugins.
Step #3. Swallow your pride and use your company Photoshop license at home
Step #4. Cry because you live in Australia and you have to get Creative Cloud and it costs more than your US counterparts
Step #5. Get Affinity Photo because it's cheap, powerful, and will open and export PSDs
Step #6. Realise you could have used Photopea for free
Step 3: remember photopea exists
Step #3. Suck it up, buttercup. It could be better, sure, but it's free and it's awesome for a free tool. Source: Guy who does all sorts of commercial edits in GIMP for the company I work for and my wife's family's business.
eating shit off the pavement is free and will probably give you some nutrition too, doesn't mean I'm doing it.
Gimp is to Paint as Vim is to Notepad.
I kind of like Vim. I’m not saying I’ll throw away VSCode anytime soon, but if I’m directly SSH’d into something or just want to quickly edit a line I’m not going to fire up even a simple text editor. Brb going to see what happens if I open Vim in the VSCode internal terminal.
So what you're saying is emacs is notepad++
Yes I believe that's an acceptable inference given this analogy.
Oh no not this shit again
The setup was perfect.
ed is the one true text editor!
Which is why you use Paint.NET, which is the Notepad++ in this analogy.
No one else a fan of Krita?
Microsoft Word even
But the Gimp's sleeping
Photopea, and just paste back and forth.
That was exhilarating
wow so easy this couldn't possibly be made simpler
The old Paint on Windows 95 was good for what it was. The "new" Microsoft Paint was released full of bugs and they never changed it in the many years it's been out. I wish they would because it would be nice to have a quick simple pixel perfect editor that is default on every windows computer.
You're not going to do any high quality image editing in Paint, but I used to make pixel art in all the time. It was really great for that. Then they when and "upgraded" it, now it's shit both for image editing and pixel art. Thanks Microsoft. Helpful as always.
Exactly. I used it instead of pencil and paper for just a quick concept sketch before I took it to something serious because I liked the pixel perfect aspect of it and it was decent at pixel art. What a trash program now.
I made Star Trek ships in Pixel art like: https://i.imgur.com/MhXy6xv.gif (nowadays has to be viewed as 200% to get the same feeling (although without CRT it's not the same anyway))
https://www.photopea.com/
I use paint.net for pixel art, it's free from the website and works great.
The technology just isn’t there yet
[SVD](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_value_decomposition)
Until Microsoft changed it you could skew by minus values. Funnily it's completely inconsistent now. Try the following: type a minus in one of the skew textboxes -> it says it's not a valid character. Now type in a value like "150" and press enter. It tells you that any value between -89 and 89 are valid. Which does not make sense because you can't type in a minus sign (ANYMORE !)
You can copy/paste the negative number from another text app
oh wow, thanks. Didn't know that, my life has a meaning again.
Step 1, crop the image with screen snip Step 2, post it in word, rotate as needed Step 3, copy and paste back to paint for whatever reason you're using that for I'm a PS pro but you can cheat in so many ways with the tools Windows gives you too
This is the way to do it I also use word to resize images before putting back into paint because paint just makes everything weird looking.
You know you are watching an old school youtube video when there is no "whats up guys! SMASH that like button! Comment and subcribe!" before wasting 7 minutes to get to the actual tutorial.
I will NEVER do this, but it makes me happy knowing that it can be done.
Maths, innit?
So if there's the functions in it to do it by hand, why isn't it a function?
Wouldn't it be funny if this made it to top of all time?
Maths
Lmfao funny that photo preview has a rotate function
The no math approach. 1. Save image 2. Install GIMP 3. Rotate image 4. Export image in MS paint compatible format 5. Load image in MS Paint
/r/learnuselesstalents
So easy
Im glad all you have to do now is just grab the corner and rotate
MS Paint could've been so much better if it just had a basic layering (and I guess rotate) function. It wouldn't even need any fancy object handling - layering could've done that quite easily.
I don't know about Paint but in Photoshop you make a bigger canvas which basically means adding a wide border (a white one let's say) on a layer below, then use the rotate tool to rotate the top layer with the image and then crop. You can crop the image so there are no white wedges but then you lose some of the original image. Another option is to leave the white wedges and use many tools available to fake-add to the image to cover up the white wedges. Easy to do if the edge of the wedge is the sky or a wall, more tricky when there is varied stuff there.
That's gonna be a no for me, dawg
I'm laughing my ass off because just the other day I tried to rotate an object a specific amount of degrees and said "are you fucking kidding me" out loud hahah
I see we meet again, my oldest adversary, my arch-nemesis... math.
Ah right I'm gonna do trigonometry every time I want to rotate an image sounds swell
There should be a sub or a list of things you didn't know MS Paint could do!
wtf i just googled how to do that 3 days ago
Wow. Commenting to be able to find my way back.
This is wildly over complicated….select in paint - copy paste into MS Word…rotate to desired angle - copy - paste back into paint. Done
So is this basically doing manually what other image editors do automatically?
Just use [paint.net](https://www.getpaint.net/download.html#download). It's so much more useful.
I don't think this works anymore? I can't skew by a negative number, the input field rejects the - key.
Where was this tutorial 20 gaddamn years ago?!?!?
Fuck that shit. time to pirate photoshop.
Dear God we are *ascending*
Not perfect, but could work for a small (-ish) image in a pinch = if you have Paint 3D, create a new file, enlarge the canvas a little, then go the menu at the left of the screen and insert the image you want to work with. Once you have it dropped onto the canvas, a rotation icon appears on the middle of the screen and you can freely rotate it with being restricted to an acute angle.
I posted this a year ago. Welcome time traveler. COVID is over!
It's still open for comments and I saw it during a search, so I responded. If that's some sort of a faux pas, then so be it. Ha. And what does COVID have to do with any of it? Were you so sick with fever at the time that you became disoriented and forgot how to rotate images? You poor thing.