can someone help me? :)

[Icymew]

http://www.classicgaming.com/kirby/m...nojwp_1024.jpg

I'm wondering if anyone has the skills here to remove the 2004 HAL Laboratory part. I would appreciate it if you could remove it and make it look as if it was never there

[HavoX]

I'd do it, but I'm eating Eggo's now and I have to leave for work shortly

[RedStarWarrior]

Then why the **** did you bother responding, HavoX?

I spent a couple of minutes on it. I guess it looks decent.

http://www.iphq.net/~scott/nojwp_1024.jpg

[kainashi]

Then why the **** did you bother responding, HavoX?

I spent a couple of minutes on it. I guess it looks decent.

http://www.iphq.net/~scott/nojwp_1024.jpg

nice. can hardly tell it was there! :monocle:

[RedStarWarrior]

The problem was that there was a lot of pixelation around the text. ****ing JPEG format.

[Chris]

That is actually a fantastic job. Nice work Scott. :monocle:

[HavoX]

The problem was that there was a lot of pixelation around the text.

well, unless you zoom-in up-close to it, it's hardly noticeable

great job

[Icymew]

why is the quality so shitty

[HavoX]

why is the quality so shitty

Because the file was compressed (made into a smaller size)... thus reducing the quality of the image. The image you requested to be modified was a JPEG file.

JPEG is "lossy," meaning that the decompressed image isn't quite the same as the one you started with. (There are lossless image compression algorithms, but JPEG achieves much greater compression than is possible with lossless methods.) JPEG is designed to exploit known limitations of the human eye, notably the fact that small color changes are perceived less accurately than small changes in brightness. Thus, JPEG is intended for compressing images that will be looked at by humans. If you plan to machine-analyze your images, the small errors introduced by JPEG may be a problem for you, even if they are invisible to the eye.

A useful property of JPEG is that the degree of lossiness can be varied by adjusting compression parameters. This means that the image maker can trade-off file size against output image quality. You can make *extremely* small files if you don't mind poor quality; this is useful for applications such as indexing image archives. Conversely, if you aren't happy with the output quality at the default compression setting, you can jack up the quality until you are satisfied, and accept lesser compression.

Another important aspect of JPEG is that decoders can trade off decoding speed against image quality, by using fast but inaccurate approximations to the required calculations. Some viewers obtain remarkable speedups in this way. (Encoders can also trade accuracy for speed, but there's usually less reason to make such a sacrifice when writing a file.)

[schibetta]

i tried to make it better quality as best i could. you might have to copy/paste to another browser or something seeing as geocities was the only place i could host it for you.

http://www.geocities.com/schibetta1/nojwp_1024.jpg

[Icymew]

i tried to make it better quality as best i could. you might have to copy/paste to another browser or something seeing as geocities was the only place i could host it for you.

http://www.geocities.com/schibetta1/nojwp_1024.jpg

wow that is SO better, thx!

[RedStarWarrior]

LOL @ CD.

[kainashi]

nice copy/paste job, HavoX. 8)

[homeofmew]

tina's editing version
http://www.geocities.com/fumidasukoto/files/TINA.JPG

[RedStarWarrior]

I think I did a good job considering I did it in like 5 minutes in Paint. Of course, if I had used Photoshop, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.