89
edits
OCRing Music from YouTube with Common Lisp: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
OCRing Music from YouTube with Common Lisp (view source)
Revision as of 12:34, 5 January 2025
, 5 January 2025no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Article1.png|right|400px]] | [[File:Article1.png|right|400px]] | ||
There's a tune on YouTube I always really liked called "Supersquatting." It was written by Dubmood and Zabutom, two really masterful chiptune composers, but this track always stood out to me as sounding really full and "fat." For those who don't know, these kinds of chiptunes are usually written in "tracker" software which is a category of music composing program that was popular in the 90s and early 2000s-- they produce "module" files which are self-contained music tracks containing both the note data and samples, which could be played back quickly in a game, keygen, or just for listening. There's a culture surrounding music trackers that's inmeshed with the demoscene, video games, and software cracking, but I digress-- here's a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiILSgNt23E nice in-depth explanation video about it] if you're interested. | There's [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIEUnBYPtFM a tune on YouTube I always really liked called "Supersquatting."] It was written by Dubmood and Zabutom, two really masterful chiptune composers, but this track always stood out to me as sounding really full and "fat." For those who don't know, these kinds of chiptunes are usually written in "tracker" software which is a category of music composing program that was popular in the 90s and early 2000s-- they produce "module" files which are self-contained music tracks containing both the note data and samples, which could be played back quickly in a game, keygen, or just for listening. There's a culture surrounding music trackers that's inmeshed with the demoscene, video games, and software cracking, but I digress-- here's a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiILSgNt23E nice in-depth explanation video about it] if you're interested. | ||
The point is, this track Supersquatting in particular sounds really full, beyond normally what I considered to be possible with the (these days) rudimentary tools (FastTracker II), so I actually assumed when I first heard it that it must have been made in a more traditional DAW with VSTs and stuff. But then Dubmood himself put up an [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmfuUxfgfDA upload on YouTube of playing the track in Skale Tracker], and I saw that it's just an 8 channel FastTracker II tune. Damn. Maybe the channels have some EQ on them or something, but still, that sounds awesome for an XM file. | The point is, this track Supersquatting in particular sounds really full, beyond normally what I considered to be possible with the (these days) rudimentary tools (FastTracker II), so I actually assumed when I first heard it that it must have been made in a more traditional DAW with VSTs and stuff. But then Dubmood himself put up an [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmfuUxfgfDA upload on YouTube of playing the track in Skale Tracker], and I saw that it's just an 8 channel FastTracker II tune. Damn. Maybe the channels have some EQ on them or something, but still, that sounds awesome for an XM file. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
[[File:Article3.png|600px]] | [[File:Article3.png|600px]] | ||
Urghhh, kinda better than Tesseract, but still, wtf. Again I tried a bunch of methods to enhance the readability of this, but nothing really worked perfectly. It gets it right most of the time but then occasionally just goes nuts and puts something totally wrong. I guess that's what you get when you have "intelligence" interpreting visual data. I also tried Gemini, same situation. Looking back, maybe I should have cranked the temperature down, but regardless, this solution is a bit overkill anyway, since it's doing a separate HTTP request to a massive GPU-based model for every little chunk of text, | Urghhh, kinda better than Tesseract, but still, wtf. Again I tried a bunch of methods to enhance the readability of this, but nothing really worked perfectly. It gets it right most of the time but then occasionally just goes nuts and puts something totally wrong. I guess that's what you get when you have "intelligence" interpreting visual data. I also tried Gemini, same situation. Looking back, maybe I should have cranked the temperature down, but regardless, this solution is a bit overkill anyway, since it's doing a separate HTTP request to a massive GPU-based model for every little chunk of text, costs a (relative) fortune, and took forever. | ||
= Attempt 3: Oldskool Pixel Diffing = | = Attempt 3: Oldskool Pixel Diffing = | ||