Original Usenet thread from rec.arts.ascii, started 20 Jan 2003.
[DIS] A little history question
rec.arts.ascii
· 12 messages · 20 Jan 2003 - 30 Jan 2003
This may seem like a bit of a weird question, but here we go:
Does anyone know of ASCII-Art generation software that considered
sub-character source image detail and was publicly available in or
before October 1996?
The earliest occurrence that I was able to find with a brief search
was ASCIIMac, released in 1998. It did sub-character analysis and
even did it in real time. I'm reasonably sure that if someone was
doing it real-time then, someone else had to have been doing it on
still images long before that.
As a sample of what I'm talking about, here's what the output might
look like given an input of a black skewed triangle on a white
background. On the left is what the output from the kind of software
I'm interested would look like. On the right is the output of what
the much simpler algorithms that were around as early as the 70s would
generate.
sub-cell detail simple brightness
'#$$h, .:MM:.
'#$h, .:M:.
'#h, .::.
'\. .:.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 07:16:25 +0000 (UTC), goo...@inio.org (Ian Rickard) wrote: >This may seem like a bit of a weird question, but here we go: > >Does anyone know of ASCII-Art generation software that considered >sub-character source image detail and was publicly available in or >before October 1996? > >The earliest occurrence that I was able to find with a brief search >was ASCIIMac, released in 1998. It did sub-character analysis and >even did it in real time. I'm reasonably sure that if someone was >doing it real-time then, someone else had to have been doing it on >still images long before that. > > >As a sample of what I'm talking about, here's what the output might >look like given an input of a black skewed triangle on a white >background. On the left is what the output from the kind of software >I'm interested would look like. On the right is the output of what >the much simpler algorithms that were around as early as the 70s would >generate. > >sub-cell detail simple brightness > '#$$h, .:MM:. > '#$h, .:M:. > '#h, .::. > '\. .:. Looks like you might be able to do something like that using a regular OCR program, matching the character cell detail against a standard glyph's characteristics, perhaps after training against samples of a given output character set. Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Bri...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply abu...@aol.com tos...@aol.com abu...@att.com abu...@earthlink.com abu...@hotmail.com abu...@mci.com abu...@msn.com abu...@sprint.com abu...@yahoo.com abu...@cadvision.com abu...@shaw.ca abu...@telus.com abu...@ibsystems.com uc...@ftc.gov spam traps
Brian Inglis <Bri...@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote: > Looks like you might be able to do something like that using a > regular OCR program, matching the character cell detail against a > standard glyph's characteristics, perhaps after training against > samples of a given output character set. Certainly I could, but the important part of my question was who was doing it in 1996 or earlier :). However, since I posted the original article I have come across Gifscii, which does exactly what I wanted, and appeared on the net as early as 1994: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1994Feb16.134427.1%40acad.drake.edu Now I'm wondering if anyone might know of a magazine or other dated published document which might contain a reference to Gifscii from that period (published in or prior to October 1996).
Ian Rickard writes >> [snip] > >Now I'm wondering if anyone might know of a magazine or other dated >published document which might contain a reference to Gifscii from >that period (published in or prior to October 1996). > what kind of published document ? on-line or printed ? see: Ascii-Art FAQ v1.0 February 28 1994 usenet publication curious ... what is significant about October 1996 ? -- __ ___ ___ :::/ |_ | . ):: ::( (-| | | <::: :::\__|___|_|_\::
CJRandall <col...@shieldwolf.demon.co.uk> wrote: > what kind of published document ? on-line or printed ? Printed would be the only improvement over what I have now. I already have the google archive of the original posting of the source code in Feb. '94, along with a binary that someone compiled and posted a few weeks later. I haven't gotten around to asking if either of those is admissable, but I doubt it. > curious ... what is significant about October 1996 ? That date is one year prior to the file date of US Patent #6,137,498, which I'm hoping to use Gifscii as prior art against (specifically the first two claims).
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:01:54 +0000 (UTC), goo...@inio.org (Ian Rickard) wrote: >CJRandall <col...@shieldwolf.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> what kind of published document ? on-line or printed ? >Printed would be the only improvement over what I have now. I already >have the google archive of the original posting of the source code in >Feb. '94, along with a binary that someone compiled and posted a few >weeks later. I haven't gotten around to asking if either of those is >admissable, but I doubt it. > >> curious ... what is significant about October 1996 ? >That date is one year prior to the file date of US Patent #6,137,498, >which I'm hoping to use Gifscii as prior art against (specifically the >first two claims). If you google (Advanced Groups Search / Sort by Date / End Date 1991-12-31) for ascgif.c you get some earlier references from comp.graphics in 1991: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=08K602Gt04Dv01%40JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com and one poster mentions pbmplus which with gif in google returns the 1989 links to alt.sources by Jef Poskanzer; includes giftoppm.c: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=13617%40well.UUCP includes ppmtogif.c: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=13621%40well.UUCP which mentions Unix compress as the source of Lempel-Ziv compression code. Old versions of Unix hardcopy manuals and documents are probably around in AT&T/Lucent/Bell/univ. archives. A further google on Lempel-Ziv-Welch brings back references to PC ARC and Kermit LZCOMP/DECOMP from 1986, CP/M CRUNCH from 1987, and compress from 1988. One interesting quote from 1987 is in: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=377%40ames.UUCP "Now many of us know that Sperry was called Sperry Gyroscope during WW2, so Hastings' interest in the "gyroscopic particle" theory is believable. And Sperry has been involved with respectable research since (e.g. Unix buffs should realize that the Welch in Lempel/Ziv/Welch was able to popularize the LZ algorithm embodied in 'compress' only after a Sperry research center was disbanded -- a neat way to bring heretofore proprietary work into the public domain)." and going further back with "Lempel-Ziv" and "Welch" brought up a version of compress from net.sources in 1984: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1131%40utah-gr.UUCP which contains the reference: Algorithm from "A Technique for High Performance Data Compression", Terry A. Welch, IEEE Computer Vol 17, No 6 (June 1984), pp 8-19. HTH Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Bri...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply abu...@aol.com tos...@aol.com abu...@att.com abu...@earthlink.com abu...@hotmail.com abu...@mci.com abu...@msn.com abu...@sprint.com abu...@yahoo.com abu...@cadvision.com abu...@shaw.ca abu...@telus.com abu...@ibsystems.com uc...@ftc.gov spam traps
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:01:54 +0000 (UTC), goo...@inio.org (Ian Rickard) wrote: >CJRandall <col...@shieldwolf.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> what kind of published document ? on-line or printed ? >Printed would be the only improvement over what I have now. I already >have the google archive of the original posting of the source code in >Feb. '94, along with a binary that someone compiled and posted a few >weeks later. I haven't gotten around to asking if either of those is >admissable, but I doubt it. > >> curious ... what is significant about October 1996 ? >That date is one year prior to the file date of US Patent #6,137,498, >which I'm hoping to use Gifscii as prior art against (specifically the >first two claims). A little more google browsing brought up the following 1987 xposted discussion of the Unisys patent on Lempel-Ziv coding: http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=KPETERSEN.12302199905.BABYL%40SIMTEL20.ARPA referring to patent 4,464,650 -- Willard Eastman, Abraham Lempel, Jacob Ziv, Martin Cohen) assigned to Sperry Univac (now Unisys) Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Bri...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply abu...@aol.com tos...@aol.com abu...@att.com abu...@earthlink.com abu...@hotmail.com abu...@mci.com abu...@msn.com abu...@sprint.com abu...@yahoo.com abu...@cadvision.com abu...@shaw.ca abu...@telus.com abu...@ibsystems.com uc...@ftc.gov spam traps
"Brian Inglis" <Bri...@SystematicSw.ab.ca> skrev i meddelandet news:3oe...@4ax.com > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:01:54 +0000 (UTC), goo...@inio.org > (Ian Rickard) wrote: > >CJRandall <col...@shieldwolf.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> curious ... what is significant about October 1996 ? > >That date is one year prior to the file date of US Patent #6,137,498, > >which I'm hoping to use Gifscii as prior art against (specifically the > >first two claims). > A little more google browsing brought up the following 1987 > xposted discussion of the Unisys patent on Lempel-Ziv coding: Why are you talking about compression, when Ian is asking about image to ASCII conversion (or technically image to tiled images conversion)? Does the Lempel-Ziv compression algorithm as used in GIF compression somehow represent the image using different tiles? You seem to be off on a tangent. The GIF format uses LZW compression, but GIF isn't the central idea here; Ian seems to be looking for something along the lines of conversion from a high-resolution image to a "mosaic image" made up of several different images. I'm sure a program converting BMP files to ASCII art would also serve as prior art against the patent mentioned by Ian. -- OO Joaquim G�ndara .||. http://www.Nerd-Boy.net bb jg
"Joaquim G ndara" <cla...@lords.com> wrote in message news:<b18kmv$1003f9$1...@ID-102694.news.dfncis.de>... > Why are you talking about compression, when Ian is asking about image to > ASCII conversion (or technically image to tiled images conversion)? Does > the Lempel-Ziv compression algorithm as used in GIF compression somehow > represent the image using different tiles? > > You seem to be off on a tangent. The GIF format uses LZW compression, but > GIF isn't the central idea here; Ian seems to be looking for something along > the lines of conversion from a high-resolution image to a "mosaic image" > made up of several different images. I'm sure a program converting BMP > files to ASCII art would also serve as prior art against the patent > mentioned by Ian. I couldn't have said it better myself :).
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:32:12 +0000 (UTC), goo...@inio.org (Ian Rickard) wrote: >"Joaquim G ndara" <cla...@lords.com> wrote in message news:<b18kmv$1003f9$1...@ID-102694.news.dfncis.de>... >> Why are you talking about compression, when Ian is asking about image to >> ASCII conversion (or technically image to tiled images conversion)? Does >> the Lempel-Ziv compression algorithm as used in GIF compression somehow >> represent the image using different tiles? >> >> You seem to be off on a tangent. The GIF format uses LZW compression, but >> GIF isn't the central idea here; Ian seems to be looking for something along >> the lines of conversion from a high-resolution image to a "mosaic image" >> made up of several different images. I'm sure a program converting BMP >> files to ASCII art would also serve as prior art against the patent >> mentioned by Ian. > >I couldn't have said it better myself :). That would only invalidate whatever claim they may have made about resolution conversion: AFAIK that would not invalidate the patent, only the claim; AIUI invalidating one claim does not invalidate the patent, unlike contract law where one unenforceable clause can invalidate the whole thing, but IANAL Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada -- Bri...@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply abu...@aol.com tos...@aol.com abu...@att.com abu...@earthlink.com abu...@hotmail.com abu...@mci.com abu...@msn.com abu...@sprint.com abu...@yahoo.com abu...@cadvision.com abu...@shaw.ca abu...@telus.com abu...@ibsystems.com uc...@ftc.gov spam traps
look here for program bg_ascii: http://www.mazaika.com/ when used in black/white mode it use sub-cell detail analysis. -boris goo...@inio.org (Ian Rickard) wrote in message news:<ebf...@posting.google.com>... > This may seem like a bit of a weird question, but here we go: > > Does anyone know of ASCII-Art generation software that considered > sub-character source image detail and was publicly available in or > before October 1996? > > The earliest occurrence that I was able to find with a brief search > was ASCIIMac, released in 1998. It did sub-character analysis and > even did it in real time. I'm reasonably sure that if someone was > doing it real-time then, someone else had to have been doing it on > still images long before that. > > > As a sample of what I'm talking about, here's what the output might > look like given an input of a black skewed triangle on a white > background. On the left is what the output from the kind of software > I'm interested would look like. On the right is the output of what > the much simpler algorithms that were around as early as the 70s would > generate. > > sub-cell detail simple brightness > '#$$h, .:MM:. > '#$h, .:M:. > '#h, .::. > '\. .:.
Brian Inglis <Bri...@SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote: > That would only invalidate whatever claim they may have made > about resolution conversion: AFAIK that would not invalidate the > patent, only the claim; AIUI invalidating one claim does not > invalidate the patent, unlike contract law where one > unenforceable clause can invalidate the whole thing, but IANAL I only care about claim 1, and to a lesser extent claim 2. I've developed methods that are better than those claimed in the rest of the patent, and not derivatives therefrom.
Related ASCII art in the Gallery
Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:
Make your own ASCII art
Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.
About this thread.
These messages were posted publicly to the newsgroup
rec.arts.ascii
in 2003 and are mirrored here unchanged as part of the Historic Archives – only email addresses are masked.
The artwork and text belong to their original authors: if you copy a piece, keep the artist's initials or signature intact and credit them where you can.
Are you one of the authors? Contact us to get your posts attributed, connected to your artist profile, or removed.
Report this message
Help us keep the archive clean and accurate. Reports are reviewed by a person – nothing is changed automatically.