Show HN: I made a tool that turns screenshots into dramatically angled photos

You could do more interactive stuff, like the common interface of moving a slider on the "before" image to reveal the "after" image. And that's nice, but it should be supplemental to the two images.

But take this advice with a grain of salt - after all, the video did cause me to spend more time on your site than if two images had immediately answered the question I was curious about.

Wow! What a great find! I wish more documentation looked like this. There are a few other (feature-rich) command line utilities that could benefit from a similar approach.

This is a good idea to add visual novelty to images, especially plain ones.

The problem is the moat is very low: as low as 1 30-second YouTube video on using the transform tool in the case of Gimp.

Doesn't seem very defensible - but maybe if you add versioning & various other features (links for images, etc.) it could be.

One thing I played around with because I needed it myself was turning pictures into things that look like they've been scanned. Made for documents, but I suppose one could use it for screenshots as well. :) https://photocopy.fuglede.dk

Because more monies.

Could also make it hard to unsubscribe. Like swedish insurance, where it needs 3+ hours waiting on the line to get to some supporter who can unsubscribe.

Then I realized I don't know what DPR is.

Or what the device toolbar is (is it the device button you push to emulate different devices?).

And ctrl-shift-P didn't do anything.

Ah well.

:screenshot --dpr 3

Add --fullpage if you want a full page screenshot. Add --delay 4 if you want a four second delay to close the Developer Tools.

And yes - same comment; awesome tool, but lol - not worth paying for.

If they really want to monatize: Enforce account sign-up, go on a token system for each use, and give a few free for trial maybe.

There are a whole bunch of repetitive comments about this already and it's not, by itself, all that on-topic in a Show HN, especially with the added meta.

It takes an image as input and produces a "dramatic" copy of that image in which "dramatic" is defined as being angled away from the viewer on two planes and having a blur somewhat consistent with it having been photographed with a shallow depth of field.

My bet is that selling "10 pro edits or something like that" would nearly completely cannibalize any subscription sales. Thus, I think OP is probably likely to make a lot more money by only offering a subscription than by offering one-off pricing that kills subscription sales.

Individual bloggers. Too cheap to pay sub. Also too cheap to pay a $10 onetime.

Hackers. Would happily spend whole day implementing the same with a less polished npm package and would never pay for anything anyway.

Professional designers. Can get the same or even better results in the tools they already use with both hands tied behind their back. They don’t need this even if it’s free.

Now to the last and only viable market. Journalists who are lacking tech skills and no designer to back them up. They don’t care how simple the tech behind is, as long as it gives them value. It’s just cheap enough that they don’t have to blink and the recurring revenue from these will offset any non-existent $10 one-off purchases from individuals.

https://snipboard.io/teiXnd.jpg

Yours looks better, but mine is 120FPS with zoom/spin and gravity :)

I'm also not sure if this is the only effect the app can do.

Typical HN comment lol

And sure, most people here can replicate it, but you are the 1%, the other 99% is out there potentially looking and willing to pay for a tool like this.

[1] https://www.screenstab.com/editor/resources/demo.gif

Even when the .PNG downloaded I thought for sure it’d be an animated PNG.

If I’m doing some content creation, I probably already have an image editor, in which case I can create this effect myself or would prefer an integrated plugin to do it.

Motion graphics is much harder, and there’s more demand there to add some sparkle to a static image. OP, have you considered that angle?

That said, given this is on HN, I'm sure a dozen free versions are already in the works.

> Image processing is done in the browser. No image data is stored or transmitted.

Not eveything has to be free, and people are willing to pay for things. You just need to know the audience.

I think one issue I have with comment sections is that a lot of people only speak from their personal point of view, and don't consider e.g. companies or other individuals.

Sure, it looks like the underlying process is a perspective shift, a gradient, and a blur, but making the UI usable deserves some credit.

If you don't feel like paying, you can repeat the process in any free image editor for a fraction of the cost.

Perhaps the value add will be bigger if the service gets expanded, for example when it also works with videos and allows for transitions. You can throw together a product demo video a lot quicker by combining that with some captions. It won't be much, but in many areas, it may just be enough to stand out in the crowd.

If I needed one of those "camera panning across a rotated screenshot" videos for a product, I wouldn't know where to begin. Maybe automate imagemagick? Teach myself Blender? I imagine for many tech illiterates (and there are a lot of those, especially these days) will have the same problem with plain images.

It also didn't end up being very useful, and they removed it in 2016.

:sadface: