Picblock fix

[Mopar]

Are you going to be posting regular updates for us to test?

Computations of large images really fills up RAM quick. One nice thing about Picblock was that it ajusted its pixelation to the image size.

Is it possible not to have a button displaying even though you cannot disable it?

[rob204]

Are you going to be posting regular updates for us to test?

Not sure what I should be working on. Tweaking Nudity Blocker, modifying Web Cleaner or even merging them. I've only made Nudity Blocker and Web Cleaner faster now and work on the Web Cleaner pixelation. Is someone even interested in testing gradual improvements? Not sure where I should publish them.

Computations of large images really fills up RAM quick. One nice thing about Picblock was that it ajusted its pixelation to the image size.

Oh, what does that mean? The pixelate.js you posted always produced equally sized blocks of pixels. I didn't like that because on high resolution images you could still see everything while small images were just a uniform color. I changed it so that the number of blocks is about the same for each image. That doesn't impact on the ram usage though since the amount of real pixels doesn't change.

Is it possible not to have a button displaying even though you cannot disable it?

I'm not sure if I understand. We could either remove that button or make it work or leave it broken. In case we want to merge with Web Cleaner a button could make sense. But not much. You wouldn't want to change options every few minutes probably.

[Sissy Elise]

I am interested in seeing/testing gradual improvements. Your scripting and idea's are really good

nude.js doesn't like darker skin tones or grey scale. So merging both extensions together would work a lot better.

Your idea about putting a css filter over the top of video's is a good solution to the slowness problem

[Mopar]

You could publish them here or PM us links.

Oh, what does that mean? The pixelate.js you posted always produced equally sized blocks of pixels. I didn't like that because on high resolution images you could still see everything while small images were just a uniform color. I changed it so that the number of blocks is about the same for each image. That doesn't impact on the ram usage though since the amount of real pixels doesn't change.

Yes, that is exactly what Picblock does. In HD images, it has to compute a large amount of pixels and store that in memory. That results in high RAM usage. I hope we solved two problems here with your tweaks.

Merging the two could work great as a two-pass system.

A button makes uninstalling and editing the settings too convenient. That is why I think we should remove it.

[Morangra]

How do I get the .js files to work? What do I do with them? Where do I put them?

Been following this post. I would be happy to support the cause. PayPal is fine.

As for testing the programs, I will be more than happy volenteer.

So far I have tried them all except the .js file. I'm at work now, so I will give a review later today if you like.

[rob204]

You could publish them here or PM us links.

Okay, great. Well, I didn't have much time today but I've uploaded all my changes for Nudity Blocker so far to this version control thing there. Maybe tomorrow I can upload my version of Web Cleaner and then start to merge them. Probably I won't have much time at this weekend either.

Merging the two could work great as a two-pass system.

Yes, I also hope it's possible to make everything configurable. Then it's easier to find the best combination of filters and parameters etc.

How do I get the .js files to work? What do I do with them? Where do I put them?

I'm not sure which .js files you are talking about. I think the only .js file mentioned is pixelate.js, which is just a jQuery plugin. You cannot do anything with it on its own but I included it in the Nudity Blocker extension. Actually I don't have no idea how to install those extensions either, I've loaded them unpacked in developer mode. But there must be a regular way.

[Mopar]

I have downloaded the latest zip and none of the images are being analyzed or unblured.

[Sissy Elise]

Actually I don't have no idea how to install those extensions either, I've loaded them unpacked in developer mode. But there must be a regular way.

To install .crx files outside of the chrome store, you open your extensions page on chrome and drag the .crx files across on to it.

for those who don't know how to open the extensions page copy and paste this: "chrome://extensions/" (without quotes) into your address bar

I have downloaded the latest zip and none of the images are being analyzed or unblured.

Same here

[rob204]

none of the images are being analyzed or unblured.

Oops.. Sorry, there was an error in the code. I really thought I tried the latest version.

[Mopar]

Oops.. Sorry, there was an error in the code. I really thought I tried the latest version.

Thank you for the fix! The newer version is a lot more stable for testing HD images.

The extension does not want to analyze any images it has encountered for a second or third time. It keeps those images blurred. The CSS tags are not being inserted on those images.

When this is fixed, we can leave the extension on all the time. Then focus on merging the two.

Same here

A lot of thumbnails pass the nudejs-check but the full sized images do not.

[rob204]

The extension does not want to analyze any images it has encountered for a second or third time. It keeps those images blurred. The CSS tags are not being inserted on those images.

Hmm.. That might depend on the website you're testing it with. Once the extension finds an image element it first marks it as nudejs-detected, then checks it for nudity and finally marks it as nudejs-checked. If it contained nudity it's also marked as nudejs-nude.
As long as an image isn't checked it's blurred. And if it's nude it's pixelated.

The only time the extension should get confused is when a website changes the image src or css class.

So when an image stays blurred that would mean that either the check doesn't complete, or something removed the nudejs-checked class from the element.

A lot of thumbnails pass the nudejs-check but the full sized images do not.

That might either depend on the nude.js algorithm or my scaling. I added some checks to exclude small images when it wouldn't really change much to pixelate them.

[Mopar]

Hmm.. That might depend on the website you're testing it with. Once the extension finds an image element it first marks it as nudejs-detected, then checks it for nudity and finally marks it as nudejs-checked. If it contained nudity it's also marked as nudejs-nude.
As long as an image isn't checked it's blurred. And if it's nude it's pixelated.

Lookup porn on Google Images. Once the images are pixelated, refresh the page or open the same URL in a new tab. None of the CSS tags are added in this case.

Same HTML attributes for the images.

If you wait long enough, then it resets itself.

[rob204]

Lookup porn on Google Images. Once the images are pixelated, refresh the page or open the same URL in a new tab. None of the CSS tags are added in this case.

Ooh.. that google.. Now I see what you mean with "encountered for a second or third time". It seems like it doesn't work when the image is cached sometimes. I think I fixed it now.

Unfortunately I'm not finished with the Web Cleaner yet. The pixelation stuff is still missing but I've uploaded my current version already here. I think it will get pretty difficult to combine all the text filtering with the image filtering correctly.

[Mopar]

Unfortunately I'm not finished with the Web Cleaner yet. The pixelation stuff is still missing but I've uploaded my current version already here. I think it will get pretty difficult to combine all the text filtering with the image filtering correctly.

Not sure what the problem would be with the text filtering. That just means we need more classes right?

If we can get the two-pass working then with configurable options, that would be great.

This is a second and third case where the same problem happens.

http://imgbox.com/g/G3Aau5RqQs
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox

It also fails when sites try to shorten or shortcut the img src attributes with a //images/image.jpg URL.

Google Images also does not like its images replaced and keeps reverting back.

[rob204]

This is a second case where the same problem happens.

http://imgbox.com/g/G3Aau5RqQs

Set the sensitivity in the options to something lower than 47% to make it work with Web Cleaner.

Google Images also does not like its images replaced and keeps reverting back.

Google didn't revert them when I tested it. That's interesting. Maybe it works now.

Not sure what the problem would be with the text filtering. That just means we need more classes right?

Oh probably it's not a real problem. Only I thought the solution would be much simpler. But when there is an image you first check if there are forbidden words in the url, title etc and only then analyze the image data. If any of those tests has a positive result then the image gets replaced by the pixelated version. But it's not so easy since this Web Cleaner extension also wants to rescan anything that changes dynamically. So we have to cache all results in a pretty complex way.

Anyways I've updated the Web Cleaner now with better handling of dynamic images like on google. And I've removed some problems with the text blocking. Some scripts didn't work properly when Web Cleaner replaced things like variable names and base64 encoded data. It should work almost perfectly now.

I've changed so much I think we have to test everything again. Then next we could start with combining the extensions.