You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
It seems if the input images are fairly detailed the output image ends up with a lot of artifacting, nearly to the point of destroying the image depending on the input. Is this a side effect of the exploit or a bug / something on my end? I notice your example images have some artifacting, but not nearly as much as I'm seeing
.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes, it's inherent in how the exploit works. You can reduce the artefacting by making your images more compressible. You can do this by:
Upscaling with nearest-neighbor interpolation
Reducing the number of colours in the image
I've been meaning to add this to the readme
To explain further, the artefacts that you see are actually the compressed bytes of the secondary image. So the more compression ratio you have, the better your artefact-to-image ratio is.
It seems if the input images are fairly detailed the output image ends up with a lot of artifacting, nearly to the point of destroying the image depending on the input. Is this a side effect of the exploit or a bug / something on my end? I notice your example images have some artifacting, but not nearly as much as I'm seeing
.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: