"Universal Jigsaw Puzzle" Hits Stores In 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."
Looks familiar (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Racist!
Re: (Score:2)
It's 300 pixels total. I don't think I've ever seen a cellphone with an LCD display with a resolution lower than 17x18 pixels.
infinite? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:infinite? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If we still assume rectangular layouts, this is still not too hard to do. We simply sum d(n)*(4^n)*(n!)/2 for each n from 1 to 300, where d(n) is the number of divisors of n.
Dividing by 2 eliminates the upside-down variant of each image, since we don't care about the orientation of the whole image (however, we do distinguish the horizontal and vertical orientations).
The result of the full summation, again according to Python, is 1.1432*10^796, which, comparing with the previous result of 1.14299*10^796, is
Re:infinite? (Score:5, Funny)
The result, according to Python, works out to around 1.143*10^796, which is large, but not infinite.
37 minutes.
As I read "infinite" in the summary, I thought "OK, let's see how long it takes for one of these yahoos to calculate how many combinations there really are", since it is of course not infinite. The post went up at 6:02pm, and the parent of this post went up at 6:39pm. Congratulations :)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
if you allow arbitrary separation then the number of combinations is infinite.
+3 Interesting? Really?
It could only have been worse if it was Informative.
For those without a decent calculator... (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
More like 300! I'd say.
Thats pretty damn close [wolframalpha.com].
Re: (Score:2)
300! combinations at 300x1
300! combinations at 150x2
300! combinations at 100x3
.
.
.
Re: (Score:2)
You could probably get more than that if you rotate 90 degrees on the same spot those pixels that have a color gradient.
Re:infinite? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:infinite? (Score:5, Funny)
Also, he could have meant the bitwise operation. Which means it could have been interpreted as "300... NOT!".
Broaden your horizon, dude.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
306 057 512 216 440 636 035 370 461 297 268 629 388 588 804 173 576 999 416 776 741 259 476 533 176 716 867 465 515 291 422 477 573 349 939 147 888 701 726 368 864 263 907 759 003 154 226 842 927 906 974 559 841 225 476 930 271 954 604 008 012 215 776 252 176 854 255 965 356 903 506 788 725 264 321 896 264 299 365 204 576 448 830 388 909 753 943 489 625 436 053 225 980 776 521 270 822 437 639 449 120 128 678 675 368 305 712 293 681 943 649 956 460 498 166 450 227 716 500 185 176 546 469 340 112 226 034 729
Re:infinite? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At first I thought the number was wrong because of all the zeros at the end, then it quickly dawned on me that with all the 10s and 5s you should expect a bunch of zeros. However, trying to verify the quantity of zeros, I'm having trouble figuring out where they come from (I double checked with perl's Math::BigInt library, and your number is correct...or at least the quantity of zeros is).
There are 74 zeros there. Obviously we can expect 1 zero for each multiple of 10 we multiply by (so that's 30 zeros), pl
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It figures....I thought about this a long time before submitting and couldn't come up with anything. As soon as I submit, it dawned on me that each multiple of 25 actually counts as an extra 5, though the multiples of 100 already exhibit the extra 5. So we get 25, 50, 75, 125, 150, 175, 225, 250, and 275 giving 9 more zeros. 2 left to go. 125 and 250 also count as a third 5, so that's our last two.
That was a fun and pointless exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the whole thing can be turned over also.
Re:infinite? (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
But 41,000,000,000 is the largest number in Maths.
No way. 24 is the highest number. Fugeddaboutit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkP_OGDCLY0 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the majority of the pieces are solid monochrome, making their orientation irrelevant
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at this [trend-news.jp] it seems most if not all of them do have a gradient, just a majority have a subtle one.
Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Cthulhu fhtagn! Cthulhu fhtagn! Ia! Ia! Ia! The sleeper awakens!
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 e
Re: (Score:2)
All through '43, we had separate puzzlers each working on a single piece, for safety. One time, a puzzler saw the piece of another and had to be hospitalized for three weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
All through '43, we had separate puzzlers each working on a single piece, for safety. One time, a puzzler saw the piece of another and had to be hospitalized for three weeks.
What did the Germans come up with? I bet it was so well documented that it couldn't send anybody mad.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We couldn't find their puzzle among the puzzle pieces of Berlin. We did find the documentation, but unfortunately that's enough to drive men mad also.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here, it should be obvious. Send the company a picture of goatse, and have your pattern...
Well... not infinite. (Score:5, Funny)
And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
And 300 pixels are worth 3.060575122 * 10^614 pictures
I'd consider that a sufficiently small value of infinite.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
300 pixels are worth 64 words (Score:2)
which we can encode in 2042 bits, or 64 words (assuming 32 bit word size.)
(Adjust answer as needed to account for rotations, duplicate pixels etc etc.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
JPEG (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Rats, you beat me to it, but yeah, that's exactly what I thought when I saw their pics. Wikipedia has a good intro to how JPEG compression works. [wikipedia.org] Basically, images are cut into 8 pixel by 8 pixel squares, each of which is a kind of gradient, and when you look at all these blocks together, it looks like a real image--kind of like how you can take a bunch of 1-inch line segments, arrange them end-to-end into a shape, and from a few feet away it looks like smooth curves.
Re:JPEG (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] explains it fairly well, though it is still a bit technical. The Huffman coding details are not important to the main idea; what is important is the concept of using the Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) and a subsequent quantization step to reduce the precision, and therefore size, of the high-frequency components.
At extreme compression levels, only a few of the patterns in this image [wikipedia.org] will end up with non-zero coefficients: specifically, those which are low-frequency (in the top left corner). You'l
a few pictures are worth a million words (Score:5, Funny)
a few pictures are worth a million words
Especially when the accompanying text is in Japanese and I can't read it
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:a few pictures are worth a million words (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Not quite. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Not quite. (Score:5, Interesting)
do not taunt happy fun puzzle (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 wi
Re: (Score:2)
Simply increase the puzzle size, a small tweak to the algorithm (unless it accomodates) and the resolution is fine once again
Re: (Score:2)
There's different ways you could match the pieces to a given photo.
One way would simply to map from the levels curve (pixel brightness vs # pixels plot) of the "puzzle" pieces to the levels curve of your photo. i.e divide the area under your photo's levels curve into 300 squares and assign them in black-to-white order to pieces from the "puzzle" also sorted in black to white order. This would work best if the levels curve of your photo is not totally lopsided compared to the curve of the pieces.
Another way,
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Legos? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What makes this different from Legos, pixelblocks, ASCII art, or even a JPEG image, is that the selection of pixels/pieces is predetermined, limited, and they must all be used to make the image. For all those other forms you're allowed to pick the closest color value for each pixel.
With this puzzle, supposing you did it manually, scanning row by row, and picking the best-fitting piece for each pixel. It'll look great at first, but soon you'll be running out of good matches and having to choose less and less
Anything? (Score:2)
I would seem that the word "anything" to you means "any monochromatic, low-resolution image".
It's just a bad compression algorithm (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
\'.'/
Locke2005 == Macaulay Culkin [gstatic.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to sound like I have way too much time on my hands. Which was true till I got into even more twisted uses of my time.
I can testify that there is a market for low res mono-chromatic pr0n. My website is dedicated to it. While ASCII art pr0n doesn't pay that much it has opened the door to paying gigs that have netted me thousands of dollars in commissions. Rule 34 for fun and profit.
Rasterbator-like (Score:2)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Where does one find a wasgij for cutting out one such puzzle?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Pixelblocks (Score:2)
I liked these better when they were called PixelBlocks [pixelblocks.com].
I have a FF1 Fighter and a DQ1 Slime on my desk. :)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Colorblind (Score:2)
love the name (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Jigazo" means "self-portrait" in Japanese. Clever naming.
Lego Mosaic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Ken Knowlton's mosaics (Score:2)
Given that the pieces tile exactly as if they were squares, I'm not that impressed.
I'm much more impressed by what Ken Knowlton manages to do with seashells. [knowltonmosaics.com]
Is it just me... (Score:2)
Or does the product sound like Mickey Rooney's character in Breakfast at Tiffany's saying "Jigsaw Puzzle".
It's a "jigazo puzzle".
All i know is: (Score:2)
I would like to buy one! I think it's unique and cool. I probably would buy a couple for friends. Unfortunately, i coul not get babel fish to translate for an address. :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Google Translate (http://translate.google.com/#ja|en| ) seems to work well enough
(except for the text embedded in images). The price is 1890 Y ; but as far as I can
determine they don't ship outside Japan.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn! :-(
Thanks anyway. I'll see if i have a friend on the side to see if they get me one. :-)
But it's not a puzzle anymore! (Score:3, Interesting)
There are no differing nipples and holes anymore, so you can’t fail anymore. Which means that you can put it together in a wrong way without noticing. Oh, wait, there is a list of how to put it together, killing the whole point of putting a puzzle together.
I don’t think that that way it will have any chances, after this little hype is over.
Translation (Score:3, Informative)
FWIW it says take a photo with your cell phone, send it in and the response arrives.
They have variations in sepia, wine red, midnight blue, and a puzzle game -- but all are sold out.
By the way JIGAZO actually is how you read the three character name, which means "your own image" or maybe "self portrait image".
Here is what the separate white panel looks like:
here [amazon.co.jp]
And here is a blog, showing the process: "I made the Jigazo puzzle!" [artiro.com] ;)
I'm not going to translate it entirely, but he says the pieces are nice and thick, and well formed. Also there is a guide image on the back of each piece and also, a light version of it is shown on the front of the piece as well so it's easy to understand.
It comes out looking quite good, the key is to look at it as if looking far away, with squinty eyes.
It took him 90 minutes to make his first one, then the second time he got faster.
Translation..
Use the 300 pieces in the box and you can make anybody's face.
First in the World, a jigsaw puzzle that can do your face!
Jigazo Puzzle
Can you believe it?!
All the sample images shown here were made with the same 300 pieces.
In order to make your own face...
When you send a photo by cell phone email a response image will be sent back immediately.
Just put the pieces together the way it shows and voila!
By repositioning the same 300 pieces you can make images as varied as these!
1. Send your image to the email address printed in the included instruction manual
2. A response image with the answer arrives in your cell phone
3. When you line up the 300 pieces according to that, then your face is complete. You can use anyone's face!
(small print)
Sending your photo, and receiving the response image will incur packet communications charges according to your cell phone service provider's contract.
If you are going to be using it repeatedly, we recommend you use your service provider's fixed price unlimited packet plan.
Note that the creation of the response image by our company is without cost no matter how many times you use it.
Set contents
300 piece puzzle. Color of pieces differs depending on the set type.
Piece set-up tray
Starch adhesive and applicator spatula (or something like that)
Manual. Includes instruction images for the Mona Lisa, Girl with Pearl Earrings, Natsume Soseki (the author [wikipedia.org]), Kennedy (JFK), President Obama, Beethoven's face. You can immediately start playing with these faces without using a cell phone.
Other things you need:
A cell phone with camera functionality, from NTT DoCoMo, AU, Softbank Mobile (Disney Mobile and iPhone also included).
* When displaying your finished puzzle, please use separately sold 300 piece (white) panel specially for JIGAZO puzzles.
Price is 1890 yen, a bit over 20 bucks.
JIGAZO FAQ
Q1. When I send in a portrait photo with my cell phone, do you mail me back a finished puzzle?
A. No, that is incorrect. Your face is created only out of the 300 pieces in the box.
Q2. How do you do that?
A. There are 300 pieces in the box with slightly different tones.A program finds the tones closest to those of your face and sends back to your cell phone a response image specially for your face.
Q3. How quickly does the response image get sent back?
A. It depends on the state of the communications network, but in about 10 seconds it should be sent back and then you can immediately start playing.
Q4. How do you put the puzzle together?
A. Each of the pieces has a hint image on it, so you position the pieces as shown by the response animation. Enjoy watching your face gradually start to appear.
Q5. Can I only put the pieces together once?
A. No, you can redo it any number of times, and make anyone's face.You can pl
Re:puzzle? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:puzzle? (Score:4, Insightful)
Puzzles require thinking and solving.
This is a cardboard version of pixelblocks.
http://www.pixelblocks.com/ [pixelblocks.com]
Re:puzzle? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:puzzle? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd swear that it almost looks like a tool to teach someone about basic JPEG encoding.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be interesting, but these don't look much like DCT blocks used in JPEGs. here's an example [digitalmedianet.com]. It works in a similar way though, presenting enough of the right cues to allow our eyes and brains to fill in the gaps.
The puzzle is what they send to you . . . (Score:2)
you know, the pic. with the puzzle pattern.
Re:puzzle? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Oh Come ON!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
And anyway, since pedantry loves company
And on that note:
Plus, some of the pieces are identical, so swapping them doesn't create two unique images. Some of the pieces are gradients, so that they can be rotated in any of four directions to create a unique image. Others, on the other hand, are a solid color, and since the pieces are both vertically and horizontally symmetrical, the rotation doesn't matter. Both of those need to be taken into account to figure out how many permutations there are that create distinct images.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer to your question is: "yes"
I know you phrased the question as either/or, but you see, if you have a larger picture, and you look at it from farther away, it seems to me that it would appear to be higher resolution, wouldn't it? If you looked at it from the same distance, however, it would, I suppose, just look larger.
So, "yes".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, this is Sparta