5 ms·
I saw an excellent use of this recently here: https://mobile.twitter.com/SciencePorn/status/634547730271064064?s=09 https://mobile.twitter.com/SciencePorn/stat
by martin-adams 11y ago
I saw an excellent use of this recently here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/SciencePorn/status/634547730271064064?s=09 https://mobile.twitter.com/SciencePorn/status/63454773027106...
- Frozenlock 11y agoYou should edit your post and remove the "mobile" part from the URL. Meanwhile, for everyone not seeing what the fuss is about, here's the correct link: https://twitter.com/SciencePorn/status/634547730271064064?s=09 https://twitter.com/SciencePorn/status/634547730271064064?s=...
- sp332 11y agoThe mobile link works fine for me.
- tokenizerrr 11y agoIt doesn't actually do the thing when expanding (for me on Chrome on Windows). Compare what happens when clicking the image between the two.
- sp332 11y agoHuh, Firefox works fine, but Chrome doesn't.
- bobbles 11y agoGod I hate the trend of putting "Porn" into the title of stuff like this.. stupid
- scrollaway 11y agoDoes it trigger your work firewalls? Are your government's internet filters too aggressive? Or do you just have nothing else in life to complain about?
- bluehex 11y agoNot OP but I also find it annoying. It triggers my internal NSFW filter. I'm not going to make that risky click at work.
- martin-adams 11y agoYes, sorry about that. Unfortunately I've left it too long to edit, so your link will be most appropriate in the thread.
- basseq 11y agoThis example is much more compelling than the ones in the source article—very cool!
- trishume 11y agoProbably because I can't illustrate! Feeding good illustrations like this through my tool should produce equally good results.
- 1ris 11y agoI see no difference.
- thekevan 11y agoTry the non-mobile link: https://twitter.com/SciencePorn/status/634547730271064064 https://twitter.com/SciencePorn/status/634547730271064064
- mikecsh 11y agoI didn't either, but interestingly on this image and the ones on the OP, if I tilt my laptop screen (Macbook Air) such that I'm looking at it very obliquely I can see the other image..
- degenerate 11y agoSomeone in the twitter thread said that the image looks different on a black background. When I click the image it shows with a white background, so maybe it looks different on mobile? I put the image on a black background manually and here is what it looks like: http://i.imgur.com/91qsoKy.jpg http://i.imgur.com/91qsoKy.jpg
- Wistar 11y agoThe "Ze first image" looks the same whether displayed in Firefox or with the default "Windows Photo Viewer" on Win 8.1. I did have an apple/peach image that did display differently on the same machine about a year ago.
- lemiffe 11y agoFunny to see the comments on the Tweet stating it is a transparent png ;)
- Xylemon 11y agoWhen I opened it with ImageMagick it appears to be a transparent PNG. Very clever trick, as it seems to use Twitters black background when viewing an image to achieve the effect.
- kevinwang 11y agoSo it's unrelated to the gamma trick in this article?
- pygy_ 11y agoYes, it is.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Syrup-tan 11y agoIn that case, how does the room disappear?
- myhf 11y agoThe room is drawn with translucent black pixels that show up on any light background. The stars are drawn with translucent white pixels that show up on any dark background.
- kristopolous 11y agolook closely --- it's still there.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoThat's a different effect. It exploits transparency and the fact that Twitter uses a white background for tweets, but a black background for lightbox images.
- gpvos 11y agoThis uses transparency, not gamma correction. A completely different trick.