|
Not necessarily - the idea of steganography is that you can't tell there is data embedded in the image. From what I read, he's not trying to do that.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
modified 17-May-15 10:54am.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you referring to an application that uses steganography[^]?
If so, yours truly is in the process (when he gets off his big fat arse) of preparing an application[^], for release, that does this.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
It's not intended to hide the data in an existing image. The output image would be only the source data packed into an image so it could be uploaded to an image sharing site or for whatever other purpose you could find.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
So the purpose of transforming the data into an image format would be purely so that it can be held on an image sharing site?
I don't get it - what is the advantage of having it on an image sharing site when you could just put it as the original file on dropbox?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Please see my response to OG[^] 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless I'm missing one of its features, no - but thanks for pointing out this tool, might come in handy some day
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
I thought the image part on the right side of the screenshot there is exactly that - a binary file depicted as an array of RGBs.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, in a way it is - but the HexEdit-tool doesn't allow you do actually save it as an image and reverse it I think.
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think novel ideas that seem to "fall between the cracks" of existing application -domains are always interesting, even if their immediate practical application does not "jump out at you."
Why not write it up as a CP article ? I think content of how you went about ensuring the file's bunch-of-bits was "packaged" as a valid bit-map file would be of interest, technically, and details of the decoding process might be of value.
cheers, Bill
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
|
|
|
|
|
While there are some small details to it, it turned out to be rather easy: Basically you can just create a Windows.Drawing.Bitmap with an IntPtr to your whatever-data and then call Bitmap.Save(..). The real value of it would have been a practical application. But I'll keep it in mind and maybe I'll write it up 
cheers, Sascha
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
For what it's worth, many hosts will (re)compress uploaded images. (StackOverflow is just one example) If that happens the image is obviously ruined for this use-case.
|
|
|
|
|
How about to MP3? You can store them in your MP3 player then. </sarcasm>
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe when modulating a binaural wave with a text on some topic you'll learn it subconsciously? 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
That's my favorite music genre - raw data. 
|
|
|
|
|
Google drive/docs, and some plugin features of sharepoint do that already. I don't know of a library to replicate that functionality.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'm getting your point -
Andy Brummer wrote: I don't know of a library to replicate that functionality.
- so you think it could be of use for something?
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
A man brought a very limp dog into the veterinary clinic. As he laid the dog on the table, the doctor pulled out his stethoscope, placing the receptor on the dog's chest. After a moment or two, the vet shook his head sadly and said, "I'm sorry, but your dog has passed away." "What?" screamed the man. "How can you tell? You haven't done any testing on him or anything. I want another opinion!" With that, the vet turned and left the room. In a few moments, he returned with a Labrador retriever. The Retriever went right to work, sniffing and prodding, checking the poor dead dog out thoroughly. After a considerable amount of sniffing, the Retriever sadly shook his head and said, "Bark".
The veterinarian then took the Labrador out and returned in a few moments with a cat, which also checked out the poor dog on the table. As had his predecessors, the cat sadly shook his head and said, "Meow." He then jumped off the table and ran out of the room. The veterinarian handed the man a bill for $600. The dog's owner went berserk. "$600! Just to tell me my dog is dead? This is outrageous!"
The vet shook his head sadly and explained. "If you had taken my word for it, it would have been $50, but with the Lab work and the cat scan..."
|
|
|
|
|
No. It's so bad that it's actually bad...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
...and so old..
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Ah! But the old ones are the best!
Except in this case, obviously...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
...and so reposted...
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: ...and so reposted...
Exactly!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
