Smithsonian Releases 2.8 Million Images Into Public Domain (smithsonianmag.com) 24
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Smithsonian: For the first time in its 174-year history, the Smithsonian has released 2.8 million high-resolution two- and three-dimensional images from across its collections onto an open access online platform for patrons to peruse and download free of charge. Featuring data and material from all 19 Smithsonian museums, nine research centers, libraries, archives and the National Zoo, the new digital depot encourages the public to not just view its contents, but use, reuse and transform them into just about anything they choose -- be it a postcard, a beer koozie or a pair of bootie shorts. And this gargantuan data dump is just the beginning. Throughout the rest of 2020, the Smithsonian will be rolling out another 200,000 or so images, with more to come as the Institution continues to digitize its collection of 155 million items and counting.
What are they up to? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
You sound like the kind of fun guy that, when greeted by a jovial "Good morning !" by one of his neighbor, silently asks himself: "Good morning ? What the heck is he up to ?".
Not everyone has an ulterior motive, and not everyone is out to get you. Get help.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think someone is being particularly magnanimous just for saying "good morning" to me. It's polite, welcomed even, but it does not actually make any difference to how good the morning objectively is going to be for me or for them, so there's no reason to suspect they are saying it with some kind of ulterior motive.
So, yeah... nice strawman there.
Re: (Score:2)
it does not actually make any difference to how good the morning objectively is going to be for me or for them, so there's no reason to suspect they are saying it with some kind of ulterior motive.
That there is no perceived objective utility is exactly the reason to suspect that there is some other less obvious reason that the ritual is being engaged in. In other words, when you lack an understanding of something, you don't understand it.
Perhaps they're communicating a disinterest in combat? Or a willingness to communicate?
Re: (Score:2)
What are they up to? Their job. Doing this kind of thing is very literally their job. Paranoid much?
Re: (Score:2)
"It can't be just me that's wondering this..."
They just want to fuck up commercial photo services.
Re: (Score:2)
This is indeed a factor in my decision not to try and earn a living through photography.
I could spend weeks and months producing stock photography but really there's already plenty out there, much of it better quality than I'd manage.
Their job (Score:5, Insightful)
Wording (Score:2)
Actually just about 174 yrs for 32 megapixel image (Score:5, Informative)
> Like high-res 2D adn 3D images have been possible for the last 174 years.
Actually that's just about right. The daguerreotypes I've been able to find data on are about 32 megapixel - certainly high-resolution images.
This article claims a higher resolution for one from 1848, which, is 172 years ago.
It was shortly before WW2 that it became CONVENIENT to take high-res pictures, with the introduction of flexible roll film. Film ia very roughly around 200 MP. Obviously there are a ton of variables.
http://www.rochester.edu/news/... [rochester.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
For almost the entirety of mainstream photographic history, silver based photography has been capable of far higher resolution than anything but the very latest digital sensor. Even then, no digital camera available for purchase can exceed what large format (4x5", 8x10") film negatives are capable of in terms of resolution and tonal quality.
Good lord (Score:2)
2.3 million images- that's almost half the size of my porn collection!!
Re: (Score:2)
archive.org is way ahead of you
Re: (Score:2)
2.3 million images- that's almost half the size of my porn collection!!
That's what is in a video of about a day...
That's great! (Score:1)
But where's the torrent?
Wow ... that Smithsonian website sucks (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I saw none. Adblock and noscript are your friends.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I should add, no ads seen even on my wide-open browser with no adblock either.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I should add, no ads seen even on my wide-open browser with no adblock either.
And that it my normal browsing experience. But last night something was going on with that one particular site. Browser is not quite wide open, and no extensions.
They are all pictures of emplyee's cats (Score:2)
Search is.... lacking (Score:2)
I figured, hey it's the Smithsonian, they gotta have something on woolly mammoths. Started typing a query and it suggested "Woolly mammoth", so I selected that.
Got 3 results, all for some obscure plants in their Botany collection.
D- Needs massive improvement
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.si.edu/search/sear... [si.edu]
The image search failed, but on the right side was a "site search" which gives pages with Woolly pictures.
So yes, D- sounds about right.