3 ms·
Most often yields a cacophonous mess, it's true - but it really depends how carefully the image is made. If the image was made using a fullly-detail fft of a so
by danwills 5y ago
Most often yields a cacophonous mess, it's true - but it really depends how carefully the image is made. If the image was made using a fullly-detail fft of a sound then you could in theory get the exact same sound back out that you put in I reckon! :) (admittedly negative color values will be required (or clever mapping), and spreading time-in-the-sound over space-in-the-image).
- danwills 5y agoWords escaped me before by "fully detail", as explained on another threads up there :), I meant that the input image must contain (or have extracted from it) phase information in addition to the amplitudes that a spectrograph-like extraction would provide to have full control over the result (alternatively, a complex valued image (usually positive and negative) would do it). It's hard to make phase-info up from nothing I reckon, maybe that's why many image-to-sound things sound harsh/strange?