[[email protected]]

Corey White...

Can you repost the link to your software ?

Although the Wikipedia page is fascinating and the stealing away of
images in a waveform if so Hermetic that it would probably have Egyptian
mystics wetting their pants...I can't help but think there's a more
elegant way.

Metasynth is basically producing an SSTV like signal (I think), but in
the audio range...the bottom line of pixels is the lower frequency
, the next line up is the next frequency range up the spectral waveform
image in your sound software. All the way up to the higher frequencies.

Although interesting...my heart always jumps when I see images of cats
in a spectral readout! It's NOT how an image sounds...right? Because
reproducing the image depends on how spectral readouts work...and that
you have to read your image by each line of pixels.

More interesting would be to look at an image, a photo as what it
actually IS which is a record of wavelengths of light. If you feed
your, say, digital camera image into ENVI (for example)...a high end
satellite spectroscopy software...you can actually categorise the
frequencies of light in the image (this is used to identify minerals
in sat images). ENVI does this by comparing the RGB channels, which
are, of course at KNOWN frequencies.

Now shift those frequencies into the AUDIO range and...well I hav'nt
tried it. What Philcordia is saying is interesting...there's a problem
translating between the different dimensions of sound and image.

I wonder how a Miss Piggy image would sound ?

http://www.angelfire.com/emo/on/artwork.html

DJ Barney

philicorda wrote:
On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:46:52 -0700, CoreyWhite wrote:


This is the next step of the program:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrogram


Do that and you have reinvented metasynth.

What you are doing already is kinda more interesting.

I suspect you are coming up against the same challenges that I did, namely
that there is not a lot you can do to the raw audio data in the graphics
editor without making really nasty noises. (Though you may have a
different idea of what a nasty noise is

The idea of relating the image size to time sounds like it will lead
somewhere. Perhaps relating it to pitch would be useful.
Ie, drawing a 25 pixel wide vertical line in a picture 100 pixels wide
should give you a 25% pulse wave a roughly 440hz. (At 44100 samples per
second.)

If the user could change the width of the displayed picture while editing
it, they could select different pitches and draw them in. To do this would
require writing your own graphics editor, which is why I suggested it in
an earlier post. (You want to be able to change the width of the displayed
picture without interpolating or altering the data at all.)

It would also be handy if the graphical editor would let you hear the
changes in real time, without having to save and convert to wav again.

Not as hard as it looks as bitmap editors are quite straightforward. It
looks to me as though most of the useful operations would be a tiny subset
of what photoshop does, and work in a way somewhat different to how a
conventional graphics editor operates.