What Paris looks like with an echo

Re:What Paris looks like with an echo by thisjepisje on Monday July 28, 2014 @07:06AM (#8096053)

I think it would've been more interesting to apply a fourier transformation to the image, convert that to audio, and apply the wah-wah (which is essentially just a low-pass filter) to that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What Paris looks like with an echo by mbrock on Monday July 28, 2014 @08:25AM (#8096295)

Why would you need a Fourier transformation to apply a filter?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What Paris looks like with an echo by boomlinde on Monday July 28, 2014 @09:29AM (#8096557)

The filters used in the article are meant to be applied on linear sample streams. A RAW image is not a linear sample stream. Re-encoding the image into a linear sample stream, applying the effect and then decoding the resulting signal to a RAW image again could be truer to the idea of "Paris with an echo".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What Paris looks like with an echo by thisjepisje on Monday July 28, 2014 @09:18AM (#8096503)

Because then you'd actually be low-passing the frequencies present in the image, instead of some random bits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What Paris looks like with an echo by mbrock on Tuesday July 29, 2014 @03:54AM (#8101134)

Huh? If you can apply an FFT and apply a filter in the frequency domain, what's preventing you from applying the convolution in the spatial domain?

[ Parent | on HN ]