×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Universal Jigsaw Puzzle" Hits Stores In Japan

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the fools-the-eye dept.

Japan 241

Riktov writes "I came across this at a Tokyo toy store last week, and it's one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time. Jigazo Puzzle is a jigsaw puzzle, but you can make anything with it. It has just 300 pieces which are all just varying shades of a single color, though a few have gradations across the piece; i.e., each piece is a generic pixel. Out of the box, you can make Mona Lisa, JFK, etc, arranging it according to symbols printed on the reverse side. But here's the amazing thing: take a photo (for example, of yourself) with a cell-phone, e-mail it to the company, and they will send you back a pattern that will recreate that photo. This article is in Japanese, but as they say, a few pictures are worth a million words. And 300 pixels are worth an infinite number of pictures."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

241 comments

puzzle? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396062)

Not much of a puzzle if you can assemble the pieces in any orientation and layout you wish.

Re:puzzle? (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396138)

It's a puzzle when you have a specific image you're recreating. If you aren't, it is then just a toy... or perhaps an artistic medium.

Re:puzzle? (4, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396318)

Puzzles require thinking and solving.
This is a cardboard version of pixelblocks.

http://www.pixelblocks.com/ [pixelblocks.com]

Re:puzzle? (4, Informative)

Kagura (843695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396530)

I saw this at Tokyu Hands a couple days ago. Now I know what it was. The picture is only just barely similar to whatever photo you send them when you look up close. You have to view it from far away to have it appear to have the detail of the photo.

Re:puzzle? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396612)

Sounds much like oil painting. Up close it looks like crap, but stand a few feet back and it looks great.

Re:puzzle? (1)

tyroney (645227) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396734)

Not quite. Many of the "pixels" are a solid shade, but quite a few of them are various (still monochrome) gradients at variety of angles. By rotating the gradients and putting them next to certain shades or other gradient tiles, all sorts of interesting (if blurry) features can be (re)created.

Re:puzzle? (3, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396410)

I had something similar as a kid, but there were two colors of varying saturation. Grey (from black to white), and gold (from almost white to intensely saturated). The pieces were different shapes, though, so there was a puzzle aspect to it, though all the pieces were some number of squares in different configurations (like tetris pieces, but more shapes in different sizes of 1 to 10 or so squares).

It came with a few patterns to copy from (tiger, city landscape, I can't recall the others, since I never did them).

Unfortunately, there was no www at the time, so no website to submit pictures to for patterns. One of my brothers did make some nice pictures based on photographs.

The memory is a bit hazy, but I know the company that made it was asian (I remember there were pictograms and poorly translate English on the box).

I know, I know -- cool story bro.

Looks familiar (2, Funny)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396072)

The puzzle version of ascii art?

Re:Looks familiar (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397258)

Well I don't know about that. I've used some converters and it was a little rough. 300 pixels is better resolution than some old cell phone screens lol. I think you can do better than ASCII art level with this thing.

infinite? (3, Insightful)

token_username (1415329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396088)

More like 300! I'd say.

Re:infinite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396178)

Assuming a fixed aspect ratio.

Re:infinite? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396190)

Erm, with 300 pieces there are definitely more than 300 combinations of pieces. Considering you can put it into any shape. That's like saying you're 1024 pixel monitor can only show 1024 different pictures.

Re:infinite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396258)

300! means 300 factorial. Ie, 300*299*298*...*1

Re:infinite? (1, Redundant)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396260)

there was a exclamation mark. 300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.

Re:infinite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396588)

just use lisp

Re:infinite? (3, Informative)

1729 (581437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396616)

there was a exclamation mark. 300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.

If you're computing an integer-valued function, the result should be an integer. In Python, which uses arbitrary precision integers by default, it's as simple as:

>>> import math
>>> math.factorial(300)
306057512... [truncated to get past the lameness filter]

Re:infinite? (1)

Etcetera (14711) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397246)

there was a exclamation mark. 300 factorial, 300 x 299 x 298 x 297x ... x 2 x 1.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to calculate that, you'll need to use a float, and probably a double-, or quadruple-precision (YMMV) one at that.

C1 = 300!

R1 = 3.060575122185 x 10 ^ 614

The joys of hypercalc :)

Re:infinite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396272)

3 E 614 is pretty close to infinite.

Re:infinite? (3, Funny)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396792)

But 41,000,000,000 is the largest number in Maths.

Some have speculated there may be a larger number: 41,000,000,001?

Re:infinite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396872)

What are birds? We just don't know.

Re:infinite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396278)

You forgot to include rotations. Its 1200!

Re:infinite? (3, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396334)

Not necessarily. There are 300! sequences of the pieces, but you also need to allow for a few more variables:
  • Rotation of pieces that are non-uniform in colour
  • Multiple arrangements - 15x20, 10x30, images etc.
  • Not using all the pieces - a 17x17 image for instance
  • Combining multiple sets of the same colour
  • Combining multiple sets of different colours

OK, the last two are technically cheating, and all but the first option would possibly require custom code since all the example images appear to be 15x20 portraits, but a suitable algorithm probably wouldn't be that hard to figure out. I saw this on Firehose last night and worked out a few likely routines this morning, so I'd expect some custom FL/OSS code (and cheap Chinese manufactured knock-offs) to be available in fairly short order. After that the race will be on to create the largest most impressive image before the fad inevitably passes.

Re:infinite? (4, Informative)

nneonneo (911150) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396502)

Assuming all pieces are used, and that none of the pieces are symmetric or identical (that is, all pieces are different, and each rotation is different), then the actual number of possible images comes out to:

9*(4^300)*(300!)

where 9 is for the number of possible rectangles (1x300 up to 15x20), 4^300 accounts for the rotations of each piece, and 300! accounts for their arrangement.

The result, according to Python, works out to around 1.143*10^796, which is large, but not infinite.

Re:infinite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396924)

where 9 is for the number of possible rectangles

This also assumes that you're building a rectangle.

Re:infinite? (1, Informative)

vikstar (615372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397040)

where 9 is for the number of possible rectangles

This also assumes that you're building a rectangle.

and that all your pieces are attached, if you allow arbitrary separation then the number of combinations is infinite.

Re:infinite? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397120)

Depending on your view on the infinitude and quantization of the universe...

Re:infinite? (2, Interesting)

itslifejimbutnotaswe (1173791) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397042)

Who says you have to use all the pieces? You'd also need include all the other sizes that one could produce with few pieces (and then the selection of that subset of pieces...

Re:infinite? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397156)

At worst that just doubles it (because every possible arrangement of a subset is going to be part of one of the arrangements of the full set).

For those without a decent calculator... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396542)

300! (factorial) ~= 3.06 x 10^614

That's how many combinations there are, if each piece is unique and is used in the same 15x20 grid each time.

To put that in perspective, there are only about 10^80 atoms in the universe. You would need 2042 bits to represent that number in binary.

So yeah. For all intents and purposes, that's limitless.

Re:infinite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396626)

Over 9000!

Re:infinite? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396632)

Assuming it's a standard 4-sided, 1 connection per side puzzle piece, and discounting gradient pieces (rotations), and assuming each piece is unique (since I don't know the number per colors)...

Piece 1 can go in 1 place.
Piece 2 can go in 4 places.
Piece 3 can go in 6 places.
Piece 4 can go in 8 places.
Piece 5 can go in 10 or 9 places.

Etc.

Maximum ridiculousness results in 600 place choices for the last piece. This gives a loose upper bound of 600*598*596...*4*1 / 4 (cardinal rotations) total layouts. ( = 300! * 2^297 layouts.) This is a loose upper bound because of the fact that when placing a piece you will often connect to more than 1 existing piece. Simply substitute 2^297 with x^299 / 4, where x is your average edge growth factor.

There are only 9 rectangular layouts.
300x1
150x2
100x3
75x4
60x5
50x6
30x10
25x12
20x15

We're looking at 9 * 300! sane builds.

We're looking at 300! * 300! * X^299 / 4 for free-layout builds, where X is the average edge-growth factor (and is between 1 and 2).

! indeed.

Re:infinite? (1)

NiteMair (309303) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396714)

Don't forget the whole thing can be turned over also.

Re:infinite? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396824)

Turning it over results in the same thing, as does rotating it.
You CAN'T flip the individual pieces though (they won't connect if you do).

I'm also assuming you use 300 pieces - no more, no less.

Sweet (5, Funny)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396104)

Now tell me the pattern for creating an image of unspeakable evil; like the Great Cthulhu.
Cthulhu fhtagn! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ia! Ia! Ia! The sleeper awakens!

Re:Sweet (5, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396330)

Impossible. Anyone who had seen the image would be a gibbering heap of insanity, and unable to tell you the pattern. At best you could hope to get enough clues to figure out the pattern yourself... but if you assembled it, you'd either off yourself or also turn into a quivering mass of human flesh.

The key here is to get someone else to assemble the image... you'd find a likely mark (some kind of paranormal investigator, for instance) and then mislead him into thinking the image he's assembling will *stop* the summoning of Cthulhu. Drop enough clues in the right places, use decoys to mislead him of your true intentions, let him be an ignorant pawn in your great game. With luck and skill, you can get him to do the dirty work for you. And the irony of him contributing to the Great Awakening by striving against it is quite delicious.

At least, that's the way I'd do it. Your way is too direct, and not worthy of true evil genius.

Re:Sweet (1)

Enleth (947766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397074)

You know a CoC game master when you see him.

However, you need some more experience to be able to truly become the one behind all the evil geniuses the investigators try to stop.

In this case, one of the investigators should become a shizophreniac due to past mental strain and suffer from terrible nightmares and symptoms of sleep deprivation even though he goes to sleep each night (or so he thinks), and at the very end it should be revealed (that is, if the other investigators are still alive and doing well enough to reluctantly let them win), Fight Club-style, that the evil genius and leader of the local Cthulhu cult was the investigator's secret second personality acting at night, and not only using himself (that is, his original personality) as an ignorant pawn, but also his friends who join the "investigation".

And this *is* true evil genius.

Re:Sweet (5, Funny)

CptPicard (680154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396506)

You must be new here, it should be obvious. Send the company a picture of goatse, and have your pattern...

Re:Sweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397314)

i wish i still had mod points!!!

Well... not infinite. (4, Funny)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396140)

And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures

Fixed that for you.

Re:Well... not infinite. (1)

VagaDragon (28522) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396266)

Actually it's 1200! (assuming every piece can be rotated 4 different ways to form a unique "pixel") or 6.35078909 * 10^3175

Re:Well... not infinite. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396406)

Isn't it 300! (number of complete board possibilities) * 4^300 (rotations of all pieces)

1200! implies after you place one a certain way, you have 1199 more possibilities, which is untrue; you have 1196.

1200 * 1196 * ... :)

Re:Well... not infinite. (1)

nneonneo (911150) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396528)

I'm not sure where you are getting 1200! from. It should be 300!*(4^300), because the piece rotation is independent of their ordering, and that works out to 1.27*10^795.

Re:Well... not infinite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396634)

Not quite. Assuming:

  • arrangements use every piece,
  • every piece is a different color, and
  • no piece has a gradient with rotational symmetry, then

there are 300! ways to select the pieces, times 4^300 rotations, times 18 possible aspect ratios.

Re:Well... not infinite. (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396656)

That's only if each piece is a gradient piece, and the gradient is directed across one of the cardinal rotations.

And only if each piece is also unique.

And it's still wrong.

You can place them in multiple layouts.
I did the math above, but in summary:

Assuming it's a standard 4-sided, 1 connection per side puzzle piece, and discounting gradient pieces (rotations), and assuming each piece is unique (since I don't know the number per colors)...

We're looking at 9 * 300! sane builds.

We're looking at 300! * 300! * X^299 / 4 for free-layout builds, where X is the average edge-growth factor (and is between 1 and 2).

Re:Well... not infinite. (2, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396394)

And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures

Most of which will resemble little more than random noise and have no value.

Re:Well... not infinite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397256)

And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures

Most of which will resemble little more than random noise and have no value.

I almost want to make a java version of said puzzle, and let people run random combinations on my website. It would be interesting (much like watching clouds) to observe "signal" being made from "noise"

Re:Well... not infinite. (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396710)

And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures

Fixed that for you.

Actually, your value is just an approximation (ignoring the rotation issue others have already brought up).

In terms of even an exceptionally long-lived human's lifetime, your value is equivalent to infinite.

Re:Well... not infinite. (1)

Zalbik (308903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396816)

And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures

Fixed that for you.

But many* of those pictures are quite rude, as evidenced by the puzzle I'm just completing...OMG...what are you doing to that poor kitten?!?!?

* many as in a large number as opposed to a large percentage.

Re:Well... not infinite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397134)

I wish I had that much cocaine

--the comicjk cocaine troll

JPEG (5, Interesting)

Quietust (205670) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396144)

Seems remarkably similar to how JPEG compression works. Not surprisingly, the resulting pictures look a lot like overcompressed JPEGs.

Re:JPEG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396354)

Whoa? Those puzzles enable to do a discrete cosine transformation and run length encoding with them?

Re:JPEG (5, Informative)

nneonneo (911150) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396686)

JPEG chunks an image into 8x8 blocks. An overcompressed JPEG contains so little information per block that the blocks devolve into simple gradient patterns (try this yourself with a grayscale image: save it with a quality near "0" and you will see the individual blocks clearly). If you think about it a bit, this makes sense: the block is being approximated by a combination of a small number of cosine waves (in the limit, it's a single wave along each image dimension), so the result is a gradient, because most of the coefficients have been thrown out by compression.

In this sense, the puzzle pieces can be thought of as representing these simple block patterns. With a 15x20 rectangle of pieces, by JPEG standards, this is essentially an overcompressed 120x160 image. You'll note that if you take your overcompressed JPEG and scale it down to around 25% (30x40), then, provided the original image shows only a single subject, it should still be reasonably recognizable, because the human visual system patches together the pieces to produce a coherent image, even if it is highly distorted.

120x160 (2, Informative)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397118)

Mod parent up.

It's the gradients on the pieces, and the principles of human vision that JPEG takes advantage of, that give this puzzle its cool effect, creating the appearance of a much higher resolution than the 15x20 "pixels" everyone else is referring to.

You can't make a (easily) recognizable Mona Lisa in 15x20 pixels. You can in 15x20 cosine gradients.

Re:JPEG (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397056)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Also, that it would be interesting to actually create a jpeg puzzle (monochrome, of course), with higher-order blocks than just simple gradients. Also, what would be the best distribution (vocabulary if you will) of blocks to fit certain kinds of pictures.

Square Root of 300 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396150)

The square root of 300 is 17.320508075689

a few pictures are worth a million words (5, Funny)

Bourdain (683477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396196)

a few pictures are worth a million words

Especially when the accompanying text is in Japanese and I can't read it

Re:a few pictures are worth a million words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396864)

There's an app http://translate.google.com/ [google.com] for that!

Re:a few pictures are worth a million words (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397020)

Moreover, not only their faces can also face other people. Even great men in history, even heterosexual love, even in the face of the pet ... "If life on Earth, even in the face any" I would make! What kind of mechanism and say something, but ... Well anyway, let's say that you actually try.

I happen to read Japanese fluently, but this was worth it.

Re:a few pictures are worth a million words (3, Insightful)

ELitwin (1631305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396974)

Why is this modded funny? The full quote is "This article is in Japanese, but as they say, a few pictures are worth a million words." Am I missing something?

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396200)

can it

$ make linux

?

Not quite. (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396232)

It appears to be monochromatic and it also used nearest-approximation algorithms... Which means that the extra pieces are inserted as "random noise" once the general shapes are mapped out. Clever, but... low resolution.

Re:Not quite. (4, Interesting)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396386)

It essentially has a fixed histogram. I wonder what you'd get back from them if you sent them an image specifically designed to be hard to fit into that histogram...

do not taunt happy fun puzzle (5, Funny)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396730)

It essentially has a fixed histogram. I wonder what you'd get back from them if you sent them an image specifically designed to be hard to fit into that histogram...

A squad comprised of a Ninja, a gradeschool girl with magical superpowers, a vampire, and a giant robot. On your doorstep. With a note that politely says, "Do not taunt happy fun puzzle."

Re:Not quite. (1)

rm999 (775449) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396870)

If the histogram is wider (higher variance) than your image, than they can "stretch" your picture out by upping the contrast. If it is narrower (less variance), than the noise approach is probably the best solution.

If your image has a totally different shape (e.g. a few white patches on a black background), find a new image :P

Error diffusion (1)

StreetStealth (980200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397178)

If your image has a totally different shape (e.g. a few white patches on a black background), find a new image :P

Even then, you'd probably get something basically recognizable -- I'd imagine the error diffusion just puts a lot of noise in a black area that's too big. Heck, it may even run an unsharp mask over the image to exaggerate details when the predicted output noise reaches a certain threshold.

I bet the algorithms for this bear a number of similarities to photomosaic systems as they're both working with a known set of "subpixel units."

Re:Not quite. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396396)

Simply increase the puzzle size, a small tweak to the algorithm (unless it accomodates) and the resolution is fine once again

Oh Come ON!!! (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396402)

Oh come on. I thought the people on this site were somewhat intelligent? Lets apply some slightly advanced algebra and come up with something better than " 300 pixels are worth an infinite number of pictures." The maximum number of ways you can arrange 300 things is 300!, or about 3.06 X 10^614. Granted a very large number, but definitely not infinite. Stop running dumbass shit like I'd expect to find on digg, and post things that actually make sense. We might not all be grammar geeks, but we are most likely math/science/computer geeks.

Re:Oh Come ON!!! (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396540)

The maximum number of ways you can arrange 300 things is 300!, or about 3.06 X 10^614. Granted a very large number, but definitely not infinite.

Okay but what if there were 301 pixels, would that be infinite?

And anyway, since pedantry loves company, I'll point out that 300! is the maximum number of orderings of 300 things, not necessarily the maximum number of arrangements. How many arrangements there are depends on what you consider the "rules" for a free-form puzzle like this. Since the pieces do have interlocking teeth I'm going to say that minimally the pieces have to be interlocked (otherwise the possible arrangements truly would be infinite to the extent the universe is), but beyond that does it have to have a specific geometry like 15x20? Does it even have to be rectangular, or can it more resemble a game of dominoes?

Re:Oh Come ON!!! (1)

LOLLinux (1682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396684)

Sure that isn't infinite. But our solar system will be long gone before all 3.06 x 10^614 different arrangements could possibly be all worked through.

Legos? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396476)

Is this really any different than using Legos to make pixel art?

Re:Legos? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396532)

Yes and No. If I assume you mean with a monochrome scale of pieces, it is still different, because each piece is not simply 1 colour. Each puzzle piece has a different pattern and shades to it. (Though some varying very very little).

Unless you meant Lego pieces with different patterns and shades on it, then yes it would be the same.

Anything? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396516)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I would seem that the word "anything" to you means "any monochromatic, low-resolution image".

It's just a bad compression algorithm (4, Informative)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396560)

but you can make anything with it. That's like saying you can convert any picture to a 15 by 20 pixel JPEG; technically you can, but the usually the result isn't worth looking at. That said, I'm sure a lot of people will send in pr0n to convert into patterns, just to see what it looks like in ultra-low resolution monochrome.

Re:It's just a bad compression algorithm (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397132)

Of course you can. As an example I've changed my signature to your portrait.

Re:It's just a bad compression algorithm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397220)

...just to see what it looks like in ultra-low resolution monochrome.

Ahhh... that takes me back to long nights with my old 14.4k US Robotics modem and alt.binaries.pictures.erotica

Rasterbator-like (1)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396574)

I think it would be (more) interesting if you could also order a set where the pieces are whatever size you want, ..., so that if you want to *sorta* recreate the mona lisa, but on a wall surface that's 4 feet wide by 5 feet tall; those (larger) pieces will be much easier to apply/fix to a wall, than a bunch of printed pages of paper.

wasgij puzzle (2, Interesting)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396582)

This is the opposite of a jigsaw puzzle, so I call it a wasgij puzzle. Jigsaw puzzles only fit one way and you use the picture to aid you in fitting the pieces. This wasgij puzzle fit any way you want and you fit them together to form the picture you desire.

Re:wasgij puzzle (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397192)

Except that you are sent a key, which only fit one way to form the photo you want.

Basically, the puzzle isn't the pieces, those are universal. The puzzle is the pattern that you get sent.

monochrome pipapics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396814)

www.pipapic.org

Pixelblocks (1)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396844)

I liked these better when they were called PixelBlocks [pixelblocks.com].

I have a FF1 Fighter and a DQ1 Slime on my desk. :)

Re:Pixelblocks (1)

xenocide2 (231786) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397226)

The difference is that these blocks have gradients, so there's a computational optimization aspect to it. Given a set of similar but gradient, how do you arrange and orient them to best reproduce an image? The gradient aspect leads to a better quality image than a simple grid of pixels.

love the name (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 4 years ago | (#30396970)

I love the name Jigazo Puzzle. It sounds like a Japanese guy saying "jigsaw" but with a thick Japanese accent.

Re:love the name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30397138)

I would think it's an English loanword, and hence your remark is pretty much exactly on point.

Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30396976)

lol, I was thinking writing something funny about how long it would take before we saw a puzzle of Obama. Then I clicked on the link... dammit.

Lego Mosaic (4, Insightful)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397092)

Seems an awful lot like the Lego mosaics that people make. Lego also did a mosaic product for a while where you could upload an image and they would send you parts and instructions for making the image with 1x1 Lego plates.

I believe there is even software now to make the 'maps' yourself, much like cross-stitch, etc.

If it was not japanese... (0, Troll)

mad flyer (589291) | more than 4 years ago | (#30397330)

It would be considered totally retarded... But as usual the 'japan' aura hide the fact that it's nothing more than manual rasterisation...

Yes you can use human to do machine (computer) work... is it always smart/usefull/entertaining in a non masochist way ? not often...

Next up on 'news from japan' two new devices who, when combined can perfectly replace your printer:
pen and paper...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...