Talk:Photographic mosaic

Edit War

Dear 71.244.111.216, Please note that you need a reliable source for the relevance of the links you add. Please follow the guidelines at WP:V in order for your edit to quality. Thanks.

~The Soup Nazi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinityseed (talk • contribs) 19:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Example

A less potentially controversial example would be good. FAL 04:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Toddmatic 03:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions? The George Bush example is good because the tiled images relate to the main subject image of the photo mosaic. --J2thawiki 11:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the one of Lincoln made up of Civil War photographs? Toddmatic 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a copyrighted image by Robert Silvers so I doubt wikipedia would get permission to use it--J2thawiki 18:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What about this as a non-controversial example mosaic?

Seagull photographic mosaic using images of birds and other nature photos as tiles

Patent License

User:Phorut changed my entry:

There are a number of other commercial companies that create mosaics with photos. These companies either use processes that do not infringe on the particular process claimed in Silver's patents, have obtained licenses under those patents, or are infringing those patents but Silver/Runaway Technology have chosen not to bring infringement proceedings.

back to:

There are a number of other commercial companies that create mosaics with photos. These companies either use processes that do not infringe on the particular process claimed in Silver's patents or are infringing those patents.

Citing that:

Corrections, not know license to other companies, if you know, need reference, there was at least one case and some letters for patent problems

However, in my opinion mentioning the possibility of licenses in the absence of any citations whatsoever is essential. If there have been patent problems, we need verification of that. Otherwise, my version of the text lists all of the possible situations that could exist: either other companies use a different process, or they infringe, or they have licenses (meaning that using the claimed process does not count as an infringement). I am not claiming that there are any licenses under the patent, but that option must be included in the absence of verification of what the true situation is. Legally, it is also important to mention that, if there has been infringement, the patentee's have chosen not to bring proceedings since this could create a legal assumption that will not enforce the patents against future infringers.

Again, I repeat that I am not saying that any of these have actually ocurred, but in the absence of verification to the contrary, I think my general statement is the most accurate that can be made. I will therefore put it back in although I'll make the point clearer that this is merely a list of possible alternatives.

I just checked the UK register [1] for the current status of European patent EP0852363. It appears that there are no licenses recorded there (but that doesn't mean that there aren't any in other countries), but an application for revocation was filed in July this year. I think that's worth a mention too, since it's probably going to relate to part of the controversy over software patents. GDallimore 10:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the passage that says:

Due to different software patent practices between the UKPO and the EPO, the outcome of these proceedings will play an important part of the larger debate over software patents.

because the EPO will not now have an opportuntity to review the validity of the patent, since the opposition period passed without any opposition being raised. The revocation proceedings may be interesting, but it looks like (if they do get going) the arguments will be down to whether Robert Silvers made a prior disclosure (which he almost certainly did), not whether the invention is patentable. Any mention of the software patents "debate" is therefore a little misleading. --Pearcedh 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the fact that the EP opposition period has expired seems irrelevant since they had already granted the patent, thus concluding that it did relate to patentable subject matter - a finding which the UKIPO might still have disagreed with in the revocation action. However, I agree with your second reason that it looks as if novelty is the main issue here. Shame as there are precious few chances to compare the practices of the two offices directly. Be grateful if you could let me know if you hear more about the revocation as I'm not watching for the results that carefully - I'll then update the entry on List of software patents. As an aside, the Olswang article could do with some work :) GDallimore (Talk) 13:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

External links

A large number of external links have just been removed. Although this may have been done in retaliation since that editer had had one of his link removed, I still say good riddance. They add little to the article and having too many of them is just inviting spam. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Anyone else like to comment? GDallimore (Talk) 18:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Although wikipedia is not a link directory (well, mostly - List_of_free_software_packages), relevant links for an article are welcome. Links to commercial/spammy stuff is obviously bad though. I think many people, having read the article, would want to create their own photomosaics so links to free software to do this is a good thing. Maybe we should have a vote with options for [no links],[free stuff only],[free and commercial software]? I'd personally vote for the middle one. --J2thawiki 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if people want to find software to create photomosaics, they can use a search engine. This is an article about photomosaics, not a resource for photomosaics.

While the idea of only having free links is certainly Wikipedia friendly, the problem with having any such links is that there may be hundreds of products out there and where do you stop? GDallimore (Talk) 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think photo mosaics is a small enough niche that the number of free products won't overwhelm the page. Anonymous Editor commented on my talk page to state their support for the removal of commercial links which I agree with as per WP:EL. --J2thawiki 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:EL suggested that commercial and non-commerical links are normally to be avoided if they add little to the article itself. How about only linking to those free products that only describe how the software works? In this way, we're not just linking to someone's software, but also providing an information link to tell people how to make a photomosaic. At the very least, the links we provide should be to sites that provide the source code for their software, otherwise it's not truly "free". GDallimore (Talk) 18:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that for most readers of the article, the inclusion of links to free software to make mosaics with is welcomed, and that for them, free simply means free to use, not the opportunity to read lots of sourcecode! --J2thawiki 20:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The list of available programs is getting silly. This can't continue or the entire article will be a list. I'm going to move it all to a new article and delete it from here. GDallimore (Talk) 18:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

it's a good idea, but before deleting the section, there will be this moving in a new article. There is someone that keeps going on with deletions without creating that mystical new section. BEFORE erasing, see for example List of text editors and Comparison of text editors ... and only TRY to erase this... Please, don't disrupt good informations: moving it is good, but just erasing informations imho is a vandalism. --87.15.28.138 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gioconda Sapiens Spain Domus.jpg

Image:Gioconda Sapiens Spain Domus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jfk mosaic adam finkelstein.jpg

Image:Jfk mosaic adam finkelstein.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Photo-mosaic-Joseph-Francis.jpg

Image:Photo-mosaic-Joseph-Francis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Done--Knulclunk (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"list of photographic mosaic making software" please?

there are so many other software related categories that got their own specialized software lists, please add one to this too (depending on the size, it would get it's own article, like hwo it happens elsewhere)--TiagoTiago (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also an anon user that keeps deleting that list and telling others "don't recreate it" ! ?? but why? there is a lot of other software lists! like in editors or web-forums ... compressors... and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.28.138 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see External links section above for explanations188.16.15.114 (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do it. --87.15.28.138 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dave McKean

Does anyone know what comic cover he used this technique for? The info isn't much use without a title or link. --Septemberfourth476 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I Robot (movie) ?

Doesn't the AI that tries to take over the world to save humanity from itself in that movie manifests itself as a video mosaic forming it's virtual face? --TiagoTiago (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

non digital mosaic photo appears in 1992

many people talking about computer generated photomosaic, but nobody noticed the original mosaic photo had been appeared in 1992, which is developed by a student in the Staffordshire University year 2 of Photography, his name is Arron Liu, come from Hong Kong. He developed thousands of mini size of black and white photo, (each one with size about 1cm x 1.5cm), which consisted of most of the photos he took in England, put on a A1 size cardboard, stick one by one to form a large photo of his Eye, it was not in a regular order of row and column like the digital mosaic photo, the photos are arranged along the flow of drawing, like a painting of eye, so beautiful and created a great impact to the lecturers of the university. However, one day a professional photographer from United States come to visit the photography students' work, he saw Arron's mosaic photo, he said it was so unique and wonderful, it could be the most influencial photography work during that century, but he was wonderful how could a photographer make a mosaic photo without any drawing skills, because Arron is also a painter before, so his mosaic photo is based on his great skill of painting. At that time, the guest photographer asked Arron to see if he could make it with computer, so Arron has done an experiment to use Photoshop to put up the photos to make a small mosaic photo, but it was a piece of work with any art sense, due the photos could not be put on any position as free as by hands, cos' the computer speed was so slow at that time, Later, he put in a regular row and column to make it easier, but Arron did not like the fixed format, that format is boring and not a kind of art, so he has given up to use computer, he kept on to make his mosaic photo by hands like drawing. In 1993 to 1994, he has made 5 pieces of master pieces, including his Eye, his Ear, his Hands, his Love and his Portrait and show up in his degree show. It brings a well-known reputation of his name to the whole city of Stoke-on-Trent, the curator of London Art Gallery come to ask him to buy his work by 1,000 sterling pounds per piece. Later, he flew back to Hong Kong and kept on developing his own pieces of fine art. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.84.196 (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Illustrate the two kinds

It would be great to have a closeup comparison of the simple (averaging) vs advanced (matching every pixel) algorithms.

Fuse Algorithm

This should be added to the history section: In 1993 the Fuse Algorithm was released -- and it's a generalization of photographic mosaics. This was incorporated into the GIMP and widely distributed later. The Fuse algorithm is the first implementation of the advanced form of photographic mosaics, and includes the additional ability to match the tiles against their neighbors in addition to the target image. See http://draves.org/fuse, especially the face pictures at the bottom. See Texture synthesis for an additional citation of this code. I am the original author of Fuse so it would be better if someone other than me did the edit. Spot (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Patent

On August 31, 2010, the USPTO issued a Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of all claims in the patent which were amended to refer to shape matching (a feature that contributes to the high resolution of photomosaics).

Sources? That's basically the opposite of http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/silvers/silvers498finalrejection.pdf In the document, the patent office basically rejects most parts of the patent held by silvers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.37.41.88 (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the date is wrong. The date the final rejection of such claims was issued is Febuary 16, 2010, not August 31 2010.2001:620:600:4400:AC34:E81D:2FF1:876C (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that a majority of the patent as originally claimed has been deemed to be either not patentable, or invalidated by prior art. Mr. Silvers then amended the claim, reducing its scope, and the patent as amended has been determined to be valid. See [2], section "legal status". It is also of interest that both the European and the Canadian patents have already lapsed; see [3] and [4]. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln in Dalivision

Is it not worth mentioning that Dalí painted Lincoln in Dalivision (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Lincoln_in_Dalivision) right at the beginning of photographic mosaics, and it was an analog of digital stuff? ;) 2804:431:CFFC:2EB0:9972:6D70:8EAA:5928 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)