[HN Gopher] Blender shader-based halftone CMYK offset printing e...
___________________________________________________________________
Blender shader-based halftone CMYK offset printing emulation
process
Author : CyMonk
Score : 153 points
Date : 2022-05-27 14:11 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mrmotarius.itch.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (mrmotarius.itch.io)
| Ombudsman wrote:
| Halftone webgl tutorial here:
| https://weber.itn.liu.se/~stegu/webglshadertutorial/shadertu...
| gilleain wrote:
| Reminds me of when I started gaming there was a cRPG series
| called the 'gold box' - pools of radiance, curse of the azure
| bonds, secret of the silver swords, etc.
|
| The first of these was in CGA (I guess corresponding to CMYK?)
| which was I think '4-bit'. Then 'Curse' was EGA and Silver Blades
| was VGA.
|
| Ok on looking these up, its way more complicated than that.
| Still, those colours are a nostalgia trip...
| focusedone wrote:
| Wow, this is a calibration mark and inky fingers away from
| perfect nostalgia.
|
| Does the offset mismatch do rotation too?
| arcticbull wrote:
| Gorgeous. I'd love to see a side-scroller or roguelike type game
| in this visual style.
|
| > MRMO-Halftone "Deluxe" version can be used in both non-
| commercial and commercial projects of any kind, _excluding_ those
| relating to or containing non-fungible tokens ( "NFT") or
| blockchain-related projects.
|
| Warms my heart <3
| mkl wrote:
| That licensing section doesn't make sense to me. Blender is
| GPL, so add-ons must be GPL too:
| https://www.blender.org/about/license/
| nvrspyx wrote:
| Although the discussion around Blender add-ons and the GPL is
| interesting, this isn't an add-on and doesn't apply. It's a
| .blend scene, thus isn't bound by the GPL since it's an
| output from Blender. This is ultimately the equivalent of any
| other exported artwork, like a 3D model.
|
| Below is the relevant part from that page:
|
| > What you create with Blender is your sole property. All
| your artwork - images or movie files - including the .blend
| files and other data files Blender can write, is free for you
| to use as you like.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| It is not settled that add-ons have to be GPL. The add-ons
| are python programs that do not contain or link against
| Blender code. Instead, they are called by Blender itself (and
| can call Blender python APIs). It's not much different from a
| Linux userspace program, for example.
|
| There are reasonable arguments either way. For example, is an
| add-on for an electronics device that directly interfaces
| with the motherboard considered a derivative work? How about
| an accessory for some kind of tool? Like a plug in, they are
| useless without the original device, but does that make them
| derivative works that need permission to be distributed? We'd
| argue not for copyright of the designs of physical goods, so
| why would it be different for software?
|
| There are clearly arguments either way and this isn't a
| settled matter.
| charcircuit wrote:
| No, worst case it just means you won't be able to
| redistribute blender + that addon.
| wyldfire wrote:
| It's likely the case that the author doesn't understand that
| they can't encumber their users under the terms of the
| license granted to them.
|
| > Sharing or selling Blender add-ons (Python scripts)
|
| > Blender's Python API is an integral part of the software,
| used to define the user interface or develop tools for
| example. The GNU GPL license therefore requires that such
| scripts (if published) are being shared under a GPL
| compatible license. You are free to sell such scripts, but
| the sales then is restricted to the download service itself.
| Your customers will receive the script under the same license
| (GPL), with the same free conditions as everyone has for
| Blender.
| mnd999 wrote:
| Maybe the do understand but they're trying it anyway. Most
| people will just follow what it says. NFT bros are not the
| sharpest tools in the box.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Merely using an API doesn't infect GPL software (for
| example, syscalls on an OS). The actual legal argument from
| the FSF on this point is more convoluted, and hinges on the
| plug-in being a derivative work in the legal sense. Whether
| this is true or not isn't settled.
|
| It seems to me that the legal community leans in the
| direction that using an API doesn't make a work derivative
| in and of itself, and that transforming the actual work and
| redistributing the transformation (or the work itself) is
| required. It is however clearly a gray area.
| wyldfire wrote:
| Yes, I agree. However using an API that may-or-may-not be
| bound by the GPL is different (de facto) from using an
| API that the licensor claims is covered by the GPL. It's
| quite a bit more risky IMO.
|
| > using an API doesn't make a work derivative in and of
| itself
|
| Note that while it might be a gray area, there is some
| (recent) precedent [1]. Although a SCOTUS ruling isn't
| quite as binding as it used to be... :(
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_Am
| erica,_....
| sudosysgen wrote:
| IIRC that case isn't that the using an API makes it a
| derivative work, but that the API itself is copyrighted
| and that making an implementation of that API is a
| copyright violation (except for fair use, etc...).
|
| EDIT: gpm is correct, they didn't arrive to such a
| conclusion.
| gpm wrote:
| > the API itself is copyrighted
|
| They didn't decide either way on that question. To quote
| wikipedia "This conclusion rendered the need to evaluate
| the copyright of the API unnecessary".
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Yeah...if that is the case, wouldn't nvidia graphic
| driver's kernel-shim-to-closed-source-binary not be
| legit, since the shim defines an API in the kernel and
| then the closed source blob uses that GPL'd API?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Precisely. Though perhaps NVidia would argue they're
| giving themselves a license exemption?
|
| If you understand drivers as plugins (which makes sense,
| really, drivers are kernel plugins), and if you
| understand plugins as derivative, it would be even worse.
| It would mean every driver on Windows's copyright is
| Microsoft's by default. And that the original NVidia
| closed source is already GPL.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Drivers aren't plugins. They link to and incorporate GPL
| code. You can't grant special terms in that scenario. The
| best they can do is dual license their headers. The hazy
| area is where no linking happens and it's just a pure API
| without code sharing.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Do DKMS drivers have to include headers as redistributed?
| I was under the impression they didn't have to, but I
| have very little expertise with DKMS and could definitely
| be wrong.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Even linking isn't as clear cut as the FSF would like it
| to be.
| my123 wrote:
| Not just NVIDIA, ZFS too. From the GPL perspective, any
| non GPL compatible license is considered the same way.
|
| That said, that part of the GPL on library linking was
| never attempted to be enforced in court.
|
| For additional entertainment: redistributing a linked GPL
| program to a non-GPL compatible non-OS bundled (those
| have an exception) library is supposed to be forbidden
| too, but is very often done. For example, for the Visual
| C++ runtimes.
|
| It's supposed to not be okay according to the FSF, which
| does quite some overreach in their FAQs. A reminder that
| the FAQs themselves are _not_ part of the license.
| admax88qqq wrote:
| Some kernel debelopers think that the Nvidia driver
| violates the copyright and should be GPLd.
|
| Nobody has tested it in court yet.
| itronitron wrote:
| For anyone wanting to process individual images they could use
| Gimp's CMYK features.
| mikewhy wrote:
| Surprised there's no equivalent in Reshade
| kekkidy wrote:
| Asooka wrote:
| > I'd love to see a side-scroller or roguelike type game in
| this visual style.
|
| The license says "you may not distribute the shader even if you
| modify it", so I don't know if you could. Obviously you'd
| convert the shader to HLSL and simplify it for realtime, but
| the vague language doesn't make it clear to me if a
| reimplementation of the shader counts as your own thing, or as
| a derivative for the purposes of "you may not distribute".
| Though I highly suspect the author would give you a go-ahead if
| you just email him directly.
|
| A bigger concern I have for animated content is that dithering
| usually looks horrible in motion. It might be perfect for a
| Myst-style game, though - something with very minimal movement.
| riidom wrote:
| Yup. If the author doesn't show examples with motion, it is
| pretty safe to say that it won't look well for animations.
| This most often does not come for free.
| gaetgu wrote:
| I follow the creator on Twitter and I am pretty sure that
| there are a couple of examples of animation that he has
| posted.
|
| EDIT: here's the link:
|
| https://twitter.com/MrmoTarius/status/1526290098781921280?c
| x...
| mkesper wrote:
| Not free software, though, sadly.
| robin_reala wrote:
| Sometimes there are higher principles than free software.
| kdfjgbdfkjgb wrote:
| What?
|
| "This CMYK print emulation is free but the creator accepts
| your support by letting you pay what you think is fair for
| the CMYK print emulation."
| egypturnash wrote:
| The license explicitly forbids using this for NFTs. Cut and
| pasted from the very end:
|
| Licensing:
|
| "Basic" version license: MRMO-Halftone "Basic" version can
| be used in non-commercial projects of any kind, excluding
| those relating to or containing non-fungible tokens ("NFT")
| or blockchain-related projects. You can modify it to suit
| your needs. You may not redistribute, or resell it, even if
| modified. Credit is not necessary, but very much
| appreciated.
|
| "Deluxe" version license: MRMO-Halftone "Deluxe" version
| can be used in both non-commercial and commercial projects
| of any kind, excluding those relating to or containing non-
| fungible tokens ("NFT") or blockchain-related projects. You
| can modify them to suit your needs. You may not
| redistribute, or resell them, even if modified. Credit is
| not necessary, but very much appreciated.
| robin_reala wrote:
| I assume we're talking here about Free Software (capitals
| important):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
| wyldfire wrote:
| That's gratis but not libre. It's free from cost but not
| free as in freedom.
| almost wrote:
| That's one freedom I'm happy to see restricted. Let the lame
| NFT people find some other gimmick for their 1 millionth
| monkey-based ugly JPEG project.
| natly wrote:
| There was a cool tweet using this on that note a bit ago:
| https://twitter.com/MrmoTarius/status/1527281714371866626
| matthewfcarlson wrote:
| This looks gorgeous. A really clever idea
| thetwentyone wrote:
| This is very cool! Are there any libraries to do this with HTML
| elements? I'd love to do certain site content in a similar way.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-27 23:00 UTC)