HOME | DD

Published: 2014-04-12 17:30:25 +0000 UTC; Views: 1471; Favourites: 16; Downloads: 48
Redirect to original
Description
Note: This part of the tuorial is not required to perform the calculations. This just shows where the formulas came from and how accurate they are.Wikipedia Article:Link
100% of the Overlay Calculator, mentioned at the end of part 2, was written by
(I didn't write ANY of this code)
Overlay Color Calculator(by Decimix): fav.me/d7e5vdw
There seems to be a slightly more accurate way of doing this. I'm not sure of the method, but you can download this , which produces more accurate results. Thanks to for this info.
Part 1:fav.me/d7d7r0b
Part 2:fav.me/d7d7ryp
Transparency Tutorial (Part 3) by bobsicle0 is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License .
Related content
Comments: 5
Trildar [2014-04-19 15:10:16 +0000 UTC]
Just FYI, there is this other program I know of for solving for these transparent colours, here . It appears to be more accurate (at least based on tests on the examples here) and can also solve using more than 2 base colours. I have no idea on the math behind it or anything. If you'd like to know about that, I think the creator can be found on Reddit under the name epdtry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bobsicle0 In reply to Trildar [2014-04-19 16:36:20 +0000 UTC]
Hm, this actually appears to work quite well. It seems to be using some sort of linear regression, though, I can't be sure. Also, you could theoretically use my method for more than 2 base colors if you just do it for 2 colors at a time then average the results.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Trildar In reply to bobsicle0 [2014-04-20 07:49:54 +0000 UTC]
Fair enough. Automation is always nice, however.
P.S. Apologies for being a grammar nazi, but that should be "While you're looking" in your signature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bobsicle0 In reply to Trildar [2014-04-20 14:47:59 +0000 UTC]
I've updated each tutorials description, which I'm sure you've already gotten the notifications for all three. Also, my sig is old. I've been meaning to change it for a while. Now's as good a time as any I guess.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
dervonnebenaan [2014-04-12 21:32:19 +0000 UTC]
Nice. Now I get it... more or less. I'll still have to read the Wiki-Article to find out where the original formula came from, but I'll keep that for later.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0