Programming Puzzles & Code Golf Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for programming puzzle enthusiasts and code golfers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It's well known that corrupted JPEG files or NTSC/PAL streams will appear as distorted versions of the true images, or versions covered in random-looking blocks of pixels.


Consider the below image (from here):

Pontigny Abbaye

If we run it through this filter (with settings 44, 7, 21, 83, for anyone who wants to reproduce it), it ends up looking like this:

Pontigny Abbaye glitched up

Your task is to build a program that takes the pixels of a given image and mutilate it in some way to make it look like a computer processing error like above.

Your program will take an uncompressed bitmap file (in the format of your choice) and return a "glitched" file of the same uncompressed format.

Your program may not make any use of existing image processing libraries. (This is to make sure that the algorithm does not simply flip a few bytes in the file and let the image decompressor do the rest, like JPEG glitch programs usually do.)

Your program must also visibly transform existing pixels, rather than simply overlaying noise on the picture.

As this is a popularity contest, the program with the highest votes is the winner.

share|improve this question

closed as too broad by Downgoat, quartata, Alex A. Dec 31 '15 at 18:00

There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
Too broad? How could I make it more specific? – Joe Z. Dec 31 '15 at 18:00
5  
I don't think it's perfectly clear what counts as a "glitched" image, popularity-contests should still have a specific spec to avoid loopholes, etc. – Downgoat Dec 31 '15 at 18:02
    
True. I'll think about it a little more. – Joe Z. Dec 31 '15 at 18:03