Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Interested in a FREE copy of HTML5 game maker Construct 2?

We'll be giving away three Personal Edition licences in next Tuesday's GDNet Direct email newsletter!

Sign up from the right-hand sidebar on our homepage and read Tuesday's newsletter for details!


We're also offering banner ads on our site from just $5! 1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


Creating noise in a 2D array by swapping values, with special conditions


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
4 replies to this topic

#1 Zouflain   Members   -  Reputation: 532

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 16 September 2012 - 02:06 PM

I have an interesting issue. Technically this is a graphics problem, but the algorithm I'm looking for is not unique to this situation and applies to any array with these constraints. Ultimately I just want to swap 2 pixels in a fragment shader in a reproducable, psuedorandom fashion to simulate GIMP's "spread" noise filter.

As a more general problem, I have a 2 dimensional array of values. I need to be able to iterate every member of the array and swap it with a psuedo-random neighbor (within an nxn neighborhood). This would ordinarily be trivial, but unfortunately at each step of the iteration, a value can only modify itself and is only aware of the values that exist before iterations and the seed to the whole operation. I cannot cache swaps because each iteration is unaware of them, nor can the iteration be stopped or reversed. Therefore, and more formally, I need a function that takes an x,y pair and produces some psuedorandom x',y' such that f(x,y) = x',y' and f(x',y') = x,y where 0<|x-x'| <= n and 0<|y-y'|<= n. I may be overthinking this (or not thinking at all!) but I'm not sure how to approach this, to be honest.

I suspect that any periocidy would be relatively unnoticeable as the input array is already fairly random. Also, the array is only 4196 x 4196 units large, so a relatively short period would not have a chance of recurring. With these two things in mind, a very bad randomizer is perfectly fine. I also dont care if the algorithm can generate collisions - it's just a noise function, the collisions will be more noise as long as they are not very regular.

Sponsor:

#2 l0calh05t   Members   -  Reputation: 772

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 17 September 2012 - 02:04 AM

Why not just select a random point in an appropriately size circle (or square) around each pixel and sample the original image at that point? Does it really need to be swapped with that point? Probably not. (I think this is how GIMP's spread noise works as well)

#3 jefferytitan   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2221

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:12 AM

One simple way would be to create a texture that encodes which values to swap, e.g. use r and g as indices for the position.Then use the screen position as an index into that texture, and use the r and g as relative indices into the original screen image.You could get as fancy as you want creating your index texture because it wouldn't need to be calculated at runtime.

#4 Zouflain   Members   -  Reputation: 532

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:34 AM

@l0calh05t I actually did that while searching for a "good enough" solution, and it worked within reason. The reason I wanted to avoid it was because the effect influences the total concentration of values at each level. For now, this is "good enough" and I'll go with it, but I was wondering if there was a solution.

@Jefferytitan that's a sensible solution that I hadn't considered. I wonder, though, if I would need to use a texture of equal size (4196x4196) or if a smaller, repeating texture would be "random enough?"

Still, two very nice answers. Thank you both.

#5 jefferytitan   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 2221

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 17 September 2012 - 04:53 AM

I think you could get away with a smaller texture. Remember that you could mix it up somewhat, e.g. it could be rotated and/or reflected, and you could also pack another random texture into the b and a. Combine those together... rotate x 4, horizontal reflect x 2, vertical reflect x 2, other channels x 2, which gives you 32 variations.




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS