You were talking about an OCR reader for the arrows to see what letters it is pointing to. If the arrow would be at a random location in the actual image, the arrow being not an arrow but ie. a man pointing and the arm being flexible (so even if the man himself would move around randomly, the arm would always face the right direction for the image. I like the idea of a pointing arrow, it could be quick, pretty effective (not 100% since nothing is) and easy for the user to identify. If there was a miniature version of this available, i would use it on my site. Since i hate the text versions. - Olafur W 2007/4/10, tedd <tedd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
At 8:10 PM -0400 4/9/07, Robert Cummings wrote: >On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 17:14 -0400, tedd wrote: >> At 4:39 PM -0400 4/9/07, Robert Cummings wrote: >> >On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 22:27 +0200, Tijnema ! wrote: >> > >> > > This is exactly what tedd did in his last arrow example. He edited the >> >> header of the GIF image, and so that would result in different MD5. >> >> >> >> Finding this part and skipping it in the MD5 check would do the job. :) >> > >> >Yep, that's an obvious solution since it's the same way virus signatures > > >are matched. The entire image needs some kind of permutation. Passing a > > >couple of curved ripples across the image as a transformation, and in >> >different directions should suffice to obfuscate the image signature > > >without obfuscating the image itself :) Similarly watermarking the image > > >using fractal patterns should also provide good noise. >> > >> >Cheers, >> >Rob. >> >> Rob: >> >> It doesn't need to be complicated, just random placed pixels on the >> image from a selection of colors would provide millions of >> permutations. > >No, you're wrong. Read the part about I mentioned about virus >signatures. A small portion of the whole can be used as an identifier >where that portion is unique to the overall entity. For instance, I can >throw a tub of tar over you, then a tub of feathers ;) ;) and if one of >your fingers doesn't get covered, I can still identify your chicken >ass ;) > >Cheers, >Rob. Rob: Your use of metaphor is quite colorful, but if you if change a single pixel in an image, then you change the MD5 signature -- that is what I was talking about -- and that is not wrong. Plus, if you: [A] Passing a couple of curved ripples across the image as a transformation, and in different directions should suffice to obfuscate the image signature without obfuscating the image itself or [B] Similarly watermarking the image using fractal patterns should also provide good noise. You would still leave at least one pixel the same as it was before so your chicken ass would still be exposed, right? Or does your ripple/watermark application alter every pixel by changing its alpha channel or something? And if so, then why is it that you are required to change every pixel? I am sure that there are images that have at least one pixel in common, so I don't see the point you're trying to make -- please explain. Cheers, tedd -- ------- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
