Re: [PHP] Really impressive work
tedd wrote: > Now, I realize that this company did not take 15 factorial pictures > of this single piece of jewelry to present all these different > combinations but instead placed smaller images of each of the stones > at specific coordinates on the larger image of the jewelry. > > I imagine that each piece of jewelry must have the coordinates of > each setting in a database so that they can "on-the-fly" assemble the > finished product as per user's direction. > > For example, let's take the image of the basket pendant showing three > stones. Each of the stone locations would have a specific pixel > placement (i.e., x,y). As such, the database would have a field for > the image and three location fields for stones 1, 2, and 3. > > Now, we also have smaller images of 12 different stones (in heads) > that are all the same size. Thus, as the user picks the stones and > positions they want and the image is assembled "on the fly". > > Is that the way you see this? Yes - each picture is basically a base + a number of overlays. Quickly done with e.g. libgd or some such. -- Per Jessen, Zürich (8.9°C) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Really impressive work
On 6 May 2010 00:04, tedd wrote: > Hi gang: > > I found something that really impressed me -- please review this: -snip- > Now, we also have smaller images of 12 different stones (in heads) that are > all the same size. Thus, as the user picks the stones and positions they > want and the image is assembled "on the fly". > > Is that the way you see this? Or is there a better way? > > Cheers, > > tedd > > Personally, I wouldn't bother building an image generator (which isn't that difficult to do with GD or Imagick--and I wouldn't go as far as to save the values in a database). This can easily be done in Javascript. The only reason to build an image generator is if the images need to be used in a non-browser environment, e.g. sent to the user in an e-mail or enclosed in a PDF. At minimum you need all colorized images of the jewels, but you could even do with one single image and colorize it using . Too bad that's not supported in anything other than (iirc) Firefox and the Webkit nightly. Michiel
[PHP] Really impressive work
Hi gang: I found something that really impressed me -- please review this: http://palomarjewelry.com/product/id/19/collectionId/1/typeId/3 Try changing the number and type of stones and watch the main image change (i.e., the basket). If one calculates the number of permutations required to show this single piece of jewelry with 12 different stone types located in 15 different stone positions, you will arrive at a very large number. The specific math escapes me at the moment but something in the order of 15 factorial -- a very large number. Now, I realize that this company did not take 15 factorial pictures of this single piece of jewelry to present all these different combinations but instead placed smaller images of each of the stones at specific coordinates on the larger image of the jewelry. I imagine that each piece of jewelry must have the coordinates of each setting in a database so that they can "on-the-fly" assemble the finished product as per user's direction. For example, let's take the image of the basket pendant showing three stones. Each of the stone locations would have a specific pixel placement (i.e., x,y). As such, the database would have a field for the image and three location fields for stones 1, 2, and 3. Now, we also have smaller images of 12 different stones (in heads) that are all the same size. Thus, as the user picks the stones and positions they want and the image is assembled "on the fly". Is that the way you see this? Or is there a better way? 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
