--- a/mrjunejune/src/blog/optimizing-grass-rendering/index.md	Sun Jan 04 11:38:44 2026 -0800
+++ b/mrjunejune/src/blog/optimizing-grass-rendering/index.md	Sun Jan 04 14:42:54 2026 -0800
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
 
 This is computationally the most efficient as there is no constraints on where it can be placed which mean it will often lead to clumping together.
 
-<div class="center"> <img src="/white_noise_grass.png" /> </div>
+<div class="center"> <img src="/public/white-noise-grass.png" /> </div>
 
 Above image is okay, but lacks realism. We can do better.
 
@@ -79,12 +79,12 @@
 
 As you can see from below image, this approach improves visual quality... 
 
-<div class="center"> <img src="/blue_noise_random.png" /> </div>
+<div class="center"> <img src="/public/blue-noise-random.png" /> </div>
 
 ...but at the cost of computational complexity. As the number of points increases, available space becomes limited, requiring more attempts to place a point. This can take several seconds, which isn’t ideal.
 
 <video width="100%" controls>
-  <source src="/slow_blue.mp4" type="video/mp4" />
+  <source src="/public/slow-blue.mp4" type="video/mp4" />
 </video>
 
 ** It takes around 8 seconds for 800 points in 1000 x 800 with 30 radius which means it should be able to add 100 more points in theory **
@@ -145,13 +145,13 @@
 ```
 
 <video width="100%" controls>
-  <source src="/fast_blue.mp4" type="video/mp4" />
+  <source src="/public/fast-blue.mp4" type="video/mp4" />
 </video>
 
 ** It only took 2 seconds or so. It slows down at the end since it probably needed to look for one or two points using random number **
 
 
-<div class="center"> <img src="/blue_noises_optimal.png" /> </div>
+<div class="center"> <img src="/public/blue-noises-optimal.png" /> </div>
 
 
 ### Conclusion