ofnuts wrote:
lylejk wrote:
Nicely done, Tran, but it's time for a new PC. lolol
Or a more efficient matching algorithm. 27 hours? For 192 tiles?
The Texan: "my estate is so big, it takes a full day to drive through it"
The Kentucky hillbilly: "yes, I also used to have a car like that."
I don't know of a more efficient algorithm...
It's 192 tiles yes, it also does 8 colors (indexed selections) so there might be more then 1 selection per tile.
And I also offset my tile image by 1/10 of 100 (squared) so it does 100 times the number of searches so that it can find best match.
I have no idea how to make it more efficient.
I am now testing another version that uses random images from unsplash.it for tile instead of one tile image. But for this version i wanted to find even better match by using histogram call which is 5 times as slow instead of the efficient pixelized blur because my selection isn't always rectangle/square. It could be some weird shape so making the rest of the are white or black would not be as accurate as pixelblur makes your r,g,b value into ints... while i think histogram returns real numbers averages which could be more accurate (I am not sure about this real or int) but a histogram of actual selected odd shape area could be more accurate so i thought i'd suffer the wait.