I'm trying to purposely corrupt the data in a photo and recover it to get the cool effect it leaves behind. I don't want to recreate it in Photoshop, i'd like to do it organically if that make sense. I'm looking for any information on corruption and recovery. what makes this crazy effect happen.
I've attached a image of what im looking for..again if anyone has articles or any information on this subject i'd like to be indulged! Thanks in advance!
Related
I'm developing an app that I want the user to be able to take a screenshot with a button (this works, but it's stored to camera roll). I have a need to keep history of these screenshots along with site name, etc.
I've been reading that it's not recommended to save binary data in a sqlite db, so I've stumbled across core data. I'm still learning, but one question that comes to mind is this. Some recommend to save the filename to coredata and then save the image to document directory. I want to read the data back into a table view controller and have the image part of the cell. Will I need to resize the image to the size I want when reading in, or will it automatically size down to what it needs?
Also, when saving to document directory, are those files accessible from the camera roll? I don't want them to be and I'd like to give the user the ability to be able to delete them with the tableviewcontroller.
Please let me know if I need to expand on anything. I'm learning Swift, so I'm sure I missed something.
You should not save it to the Documents directory.
You should instead Allow External Storage of the attribute. Core Data will take care of storing it for you. This is explained in the answer by jansenmaarten to this question.
I think a student of mine renamed a PNG a Word document and intentionally submitted a corrupted file to buy more time (or something) on an assignment. The student denies everything and claims it was a computer malfunction. Before I submit an honor code violation I want to be sure that there's no explanation that does not involve cheating that I'm somehow overlooking.
Basically, I'm a TA and a student submitted a paper, let's say it was Smith.docx. When I was working on grading and went to open Smith.docx Word wouldn't open it and said that it was corrupted. I eventually had the idea of opening it in a text editor and there it was a massive jumbled file of all sorts of odd characters (total file size: 180kb for what was supposed to be a 5 page paper).
I noticed, though, that the first few characters of the file were:
‰PNG
I renamed the file Smith.png and it opened. Bizarrely, it was an image of the first page of a Word document. More specifically, it looks like a screenshot of a Word doc cropped so as to show just the page. What makes it seem like a screenshot is that the cursor thingy (the vertical bar marking where you're typing) shows up next to the title.
An additional interesting bit of data is that if I scroll further down in the file (opened in notepad) I come to this:
XML:com.adobe.xmp <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="XMP Core 5.4.0">
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
<exif:PixelXDimension>996</exif:PixelXDimension>
<exif:PixelYDimension>1286</exif:PixelYDimension>
</rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>
I'm not sure what all that means but 1286x996 are the dimensions of the png image. The rest suggests to me that the file was created in some Adobe program but I'm not sure if that's right and how to figure out more about that.
So, my actual question: Is there any conceivable explanation of any kind for how I would come to have a file called Smith.docx that is a perfectly functioning png of what sure looks like a screenshot of the first page of a Word document other than that the student did it on purpose? The student claimed that their computer was "corrupting" files and that they had to take it into the Apple for service. I find this incredibly implausible (student has also not provided the receipt for this, which I requested).
Additionally, other than the case I laid out here, is there any positive evidence for my theory (that it was a straightforward case of cheating) that I can present to strengthen my case? eg, is the data from the file that I posted above a smoking gun that it was created in an Adobe program or is there any conceivable way that could come out of a Word document or other sort of corrupted file?
Also, is there anything else I can look for in the PNG file that would be a smoking gun?
Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to offer!
just rename the file with .png at the end instead of .docx and if it was a png then it should open just fine as a png
The key is that you see the cursor in the screenshot, there is no way Word would export (somehow) a docx file as a png AND draw the cursor for typing. Also, any tool that could do that would save the file as png not docx, only the user could deliberately change the file extension.
Also, does the screenshot show an empty document? or it looks like the final document your student delivered at the end?
Short answer:
The student is lying and is in fact a cheater (in my opinion).
Also, even if they were telling the truth, it is still their responsibility to have their work done, ready, and fully functional on time. Your computer is corrupting your files? Tough cookies. No one cares. You should have done your work on another computer. In the real world, excuses don't get you anywhere and they shouldn't get you anywhere in school either.
Lastly, it is very easy to re-name an extension of another file type and claim it's corrupt and very unlikely that a computer is just creating corrupted files. If their computer would otherwise create corrupted files, I would imagine it would be nearly impossible to get the computer to boot. In other words, they probably wouldn't have been able to turn on their "corrupted" computer to create "corrupted" files in the first place.
I am onto a photo project. Dynamically added a watermark in the large picture preview. But someone with general idea can manipulate the link and get the original picture. Disabling Right button seems to be useless. In this case what can be the appropriate solution?
Disable any access to original pictures. Make server script that receives picture's ID (or name) and sets watermark before picture will be shown. And make your application such way that this script only can access images by users. If manipulation with link allows users to have unauthorized access, then it looks like you have problems with architecture of project.
I know about key loggers and root kits. I know it is possible for these programs to know what keys a user is pressing and what programs a user has open at any given time but, is it possible for a program (or background process) to know what commands (functions) with in a program are being executed?
e.g. A user is in Photoshop and does the following:
Opens the file called mountain.jpg
Crops 103 pixels off the top
Increases the Contrast by a value of 50
Saves the file as mountain-EDIT_1.jpg
Can a background process (daemon) understand that a user ran Photoshop's Open, Crop, Contrast and Save functions?
To be more specific, can a background process:
gain access to those unsaved edits like Crop and Contrast
take that data and save it else where
Also how does one locate where a program like Microsoft Word, Photoshop or ProTools is saving each of the edits a user makes?
The more close you would get to this functionality would be by using the photoshop's built-in scripts. I do not have enough knowledge to talk about this more, and I also doubt its the place to discuss this functionality.
On a more programming oriented point of view, you would need to look at memory photoshop is allocating for this image file and reverse-engineer photoshop's code to understand what happens on every edits you mentionned. I doubt its humanly possible.
If the user is saving the image after each edits though, you could watch for changes in the image, and try to look for the what you want to understand.
You may create a Photoshop plugin or script. But a generic software in such detail I don't think is possible.
We're currently working with Filepicker.io to allow users the ability to upload both images and videos. It appears that if we specify image conversions in the Javascript API options, video uploads don't process and instead get stuck at 99.30%. If I remove the 'conversions' option, video uploads process without issue. Is it not possible to specify image conversion options and accept both type of uploads? If so, this should really be specified in the docs.
I attached a JSFiddle with the code in question. http://jsfiddle.net/BYkD4/
It might be an issue on our end, taking a look now. For large files (+1Mb) we split the file into chunks, upload them in parallel, and then reassemble them on the server side. We use browser progress up to the 90% mark, after which we have to "best guess" what the server-side progress looks like, for now at least. That's the reason why it's hanging at 99.30% - it may actually be able to complete if you give it enough time.
In any case, looking into it
Edit: looks like this was an issue on our end. Fix deployed, everything should be working fine. Sorry about the issue