On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 16:50:48 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 2:10:48 PM UTC+2, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 28 September 2022 at 00:36:01 UTC+1, sobriquet wrote:
> > > For a long time I've been collecting art online.
> > > The easiest thing is probably to just grab a bunch of torrents that archive
> > > images from Christie's, Sotheby's, etc..
> > > But I also like to manually collect images, although it's quite frustrating
> > > to obtain the best quality version of images.
> > > Here is a typical example.. you might find an image like this:
> > >
https://i.imgur.com/SeeZsCa.png
> > >
> > > It looks a bit fuzzy, so you reckon, hmmm there should be a better quality version.. and pulling the image through tineye or bing yields a better quality version:
> > >
https://i.imgur.com/5BZMSgu.jpg
> > >
> > > But this is a bit laborious.. surely in this age of AI it should be possible to
> > > have a website that scrapes the web and only presents you with good quality
> > > search results?
> > First you'd need to define what is meant by good quality.
> Images that are not blurred/artificially inflated with low jpg compression settings.
> As well as more user control to exclude unwanted search results (like watermarked
> images that people might want to avoid).
Doesn't sound like a very good description of good quality image.
> > Then you'd have to decide whether the creator of the image wants everyone to have a free copy.
> Part of the problem is indeed the copyright myth that causes people to share crap
> versions of artworks which should somehow motivate people to buy art. Or they
> make it difficult to save an image. People can decide to share art or not, but if they
> do share it, it's generally not very effective to try to prevent people from downloading
> the art.
Then whats the problem ?
Maybe it's because you don;t understand copyright.
> > >
> > > Why do companies like google come up with so much inferior garbage search results, given that there are obviously superior images available
> > > that are not that difficult to find?
> > If they are not difficult to find, why do you need 'google' or anyone else to find them for you ?
> Google offers a service to find things online, so I think it's fair to criticize them if they
> do a lousy job.
What do you mean by a lousy job..
If yuo can do a better job of it then do it and stop complaining.
>In other respects google does a good job, like when I use google maps,
> I like the way street view offers pictures to see what it looks like in a wide range of
> locations on the map.
It's not perfect I can;'t see most street door numbers and the picture of my friend sitting outsiude a pub is almost unrecognisable.
I expect each image to be perfect and at least the quality of medium format digital camera can do.
>
> I guess google just shows pictures that they happen to find without any quality
> control, so ultimately the blame is also with people who share inferior quality
> images.
Maybe they shouldn;t share them then is that whayt you are saying.
> Maybe in the future AI can differentiate between good and bad quality images with
> minimal computational resources, so it becomes more cost effective to provide a
> free image search service that yields the best possible quality images in the search
> results.
Again depends what you mean by quality.
How about some of the original footage of the moon landings , in ultra hi def.
They could add an alien or two to the video.
Would that make the moon landing images better quality ?
> In any case there is a lot of amazing and awesome art available online, it's just that
> I wish they wouldn't make you go through unnecessary effort to obtain good quality
> images for an art slideshow on the computer.
Then do something about it, create you're own search engine and make it availible to everyone.
why don't you do that.
> >
> > I'ts not difficult to find gold just pan some dirt with water, so why don't people send me gold for free when I ask them to ?
> Yeah, it's all relative.. I'm just a bit puzzled why google provides inconsistent services
> (some good and some not so good).
Because that's how life is, some people are good some are shit.
People have differing options on what is good or bad too.