video: Photosynth + Seadragon = "All your photos are belong to us"

Holy Christ! That’s amazing. I don’t know if I am shocked or awed or both. The ramifications of this software in our personal and private and public lives will be absolutely astounding.

Take for instance, the recent hullaballoo about the google earth photos of peoples’ streets and communities in cities. "Webcams" (webbed cameras?) watching your street? How about some software bot putting together a model of your backyard from the various and sundry photos you may post on flickr. That sound appealing to you?

On the other hand, the demonstration of the Notre Dame pictures just floored me. Do you know how many photos have been taken of the Eiffel Tower, for instance? How about Times Square? Speaking of which, I wonder how the software would handle non-static images in its computations of a model of a place… Would flickering billboards and people standing in the way of landmarks give it pause? Judging by the demonstration, it doesn’t look like it stuttered too much.

What a wonderful and scary time we live in. I think I’ll just go and take all the pictures of my friends off of myspace and photobucket, and close my windows. Turn on my computer and wait to virtually visit some street cafe in Amsterdam.

"AnonGoo" wrote in message

A presentation at the TED2007 (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference demoing integration with Seadragon (acquired by M$ in Feb 2007), now Photosynth is one step closer to rulez all our photos… At http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/06/photosynth-seadragon-a ll-your-photos.html

AnonGoo wrote:

A presentation at the TED2007 (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference demoing integration with Seadragon (acquired by M$ in Feb 2007), now Photosynth is one step closer to rulez all our photos… At http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/06/photosynth-seadragon-a ll-your-photos.html

My god, can that guy slow down a bit? His voice sounds like IT is computer generated.

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:25:51 -0400, No One
wrote:

AnonGoo wrote:
Holy Christ!

My god,

Idiots – who do you think you are talking to:-(

"Noah Stevens" wrote in message

Holy Christ! That’s amazing. I don’t know if I am shocked or awed or both. The ramifications of this software in our personal and private and public lives will be absolutely astounding.

Take for instance, the recent hullaballoo about the google earth photos of peoples’ streets and communities in cities. "Webcams" (webbed cameras?) watching your street? How about some software bot putting together a model of your backyard from the various and sundry photos you may post on flickr. That sound appealing to you?

On the other hand, the demonstration of the Notre Dame pictures just floored me. Do you know how many photos have been taken of the Eiffel Tower, for instance? How about Times Square? Speaking of which, I wonder how the software would handle non-static images in its computations of a model of a place… Would flickering billboards and people standing in the way of landmarks give it pause? Judging by the demonstration, it doesn’t look like it stuttered too much.

What a wonderful and scary time we live in. I think I’ll just go and take all the pictures of my friends off of myspace and photobucket, and close my windows. Turn on my computer and wait to virtually visit some street cafe in Amsterdam.

"AnonGoo" wrote in message

A presentation at the TED2007 (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conference demoing integration with Seadragon (acquired by M$ in Feb 2007), now Photosynth is one step closer to rulez all our photos… At http://geekvideo.blogspot.com/2007/06/photosynth-seadragon-a ll-your-photos.html

wonder if they are paying royalties on all that intellectual property they are using???
MS sure want their royalties for music, movies, etc
they are not very sharing in reverse of their stuff
will they ask our permission to "bot search" all our web shots?

the software is mind boggling
and very incredible
I am sure we will all have fun using it
BUT it is very big brother

Having software to eliminate having to tag images with words will be useful I was wondering if it will be any use on portrait pictures or maybe it will do face recognition?
and reconstruct us humans from bits of photos too??
o so weird

Copyright issues aside. Personally I was impressed enough that if they used any of my images the wow factor they created with that was enough I would let it slide. Frankly, I haven’t been that impressed in quite sometime. What most companies call ground breaking lately has been more of a yawn that wow. Kind of like the Shock and Awe of the Iraq war. Well, I guess it was shock and awe. Socked it was so poorly planed and awed that it still isn’t any better planned.

Anyways it will be interesting to see what if anything this technology comes to for the consumer. If it going to be limited to only services like Flicker, Google, etc. then I am much less impressed. However, if Microsoft puts out software for the rest of us that lets us use this on our computers and our own web sites then I will be even more wowed.

=(8)

And lo, =(8) emerged from the ether
and spake thus:

Copyright issues aside. Personally I was impressed enough that if they used any of my images the wow factor they created with that was enough I would let it slide. Frankly, I haven’t been that impressed in quite sometime. What most companies call ground breaking lately has been more of a yawn that wow. Kind of like the Shock and Awe of the Iraq war. Well, I guess it was shock and awe. Socked it was so poorly planed and awed that it still isn’t any better planned.

Anyways it will be interesting to see what if anything this technology comes to for the consumer. If it going to be limited to only services like Flicker, Google, etc. then I am much less impressed. However, if Microsoft puts out software for the rest of us that lets us use this on our computers and our own web sites then I will be even more wowed.

=(8)

Just remember that every time you give up a right in the name of wow factor, security, or anything else, you’ll be hard pressed to ever get it back.

That said, I think Microsoft will be cognizant of copyright issues. Certainly Flickr provides internal support for copyright and if PhotoSynth uses their API, that data will be right there. As for scraping the web… Isn’t that the risk you take by placing any image on the web? Another reason to either watermark or stop caring or both.

You can’t have exposure without risking… You know, exposure. If you only want people to look, have gallery shows and nothing else. It’s not unheard of. Or post ridiculously small images. Or my least favorite option, plaster them with watermarks like you’re a stock agency.

—
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

"Aaron" wrote in message

And lo, =(8) emerged from the ether
and spake thus:

Copyright issues aside. Personally I was impressed enough that if they used
any of my images the wow factor they created with that was enough I would let it slide. Frankly, I haven’t been that impressed in quite sometime. What
most companies call ground breaking lately has been more of a yawn that wow.
Kind of like the Shock and Awe of the Iraq war. Well, I guess it was shock
and awe. Socked it was so poorly planed and awed that it still isn’t any better planned.

Anyways it will be interesting to see what if anything this technology comes
to for the consumer. If it going to be limited to only services like Flicker, Google, etc. then I am much less impressed. However, if Microsoft
puts out software for the rest of us that lets us use this on our computers
and our own web sites then I will be even more wowed.

=(8)

Just remember that every time you give up a right in the name of wow factor, security, or anything else, you’ll be hard pressed to ever get it back.

That said, I think Microsoft will be cognizant of copyright issues. Certainly Flickr provides internal support for copyright and if PhotoSynth uses their API, that data will be right there. As for scraping the web… Isn’t that the risk you take by placing any image on the web? Another reason to either watermark or stop caring or both.
You can’t have exposure without risking… You know, exposure. If you only want people to look, have gallery shows and nothing else. It’s not unheard of. Or post ridiculously small images. Or my least favorite option, plaster them with watermarks like you’re a stock agency.

—
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

You are of course correct as the Bush administration has proven. You give the a rights inch and they go and take a mile behind your back. However, in this case in the computer world these days especially there really is so little that wows that I don’t think we are in much danger. Nothing Apple, Intel, AMD, Adobe or any other company has done for the last 10 years has been wow. Sure the updates are fine, but not oh my god wow type things. If this technology from MS is ever released for the consumer it would be a wow type thing on a major scale. If it is released for use by Google, and companies like that then not so much.

=(8)

And lo, =(8) emerged from the ether
and spake thus:

"Aaron" wrote in message

And lo, =(8) emerged from the ether
and spake thus:

Copyright issues aside. Personally I was impressed enough that if they used
any of my images the wow factor they created with that was enough I would let it slide. Frankly, I haven’t been that impressed in quite sometime. What
most companies call ground breaking lately has been more of a yawn that wow.
Kind of like the Shock and Awe of the Iraq war. Well, I guess it was shock
and awe. Socked it was so poorly planed and awed that it still isn’t any better planned.

Anyways it will be interesting to see what if anything this technology comes
to for the consumer. If it going to be limited to only services like Flicker, Google, etc. then I am much less impressed. However, if Microsoft
puts out software for the rest of us that lets us use this on our computers
and our own web sites then I will be even more wowed.

=(8)

Just remember that every time you give up a right in the name of wow factor, security, or anything else, you’ll be hard pressed to ever get it back.

That said, I think Microsoft will be cognizant of copyright issues. Certainly Flickr provides internal support for copyright and if PhotoSynth uses their API, that data will be right there. As for scraping the web… Isn’t that the risk you take by placing any image on the web? Another reason to either watermark or stop caring or both.
You can’t have exposure without risking… You know, exposure. If you only want people to look, have gallery shows and nothing else. It’s not unheard of. Or post ridiculously small images. Or my least favorite option, plaster them with watermarks like you’re a stock agency.

—
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

You are of course correct as the Bush administration has proven. You give the a rights inch and they go and take a mile behind your back. However, in this case in the computer world these days especially there really is so little that wows that I don’t think we are in much danger. Nothing Apple, Intel, AMD, Adobe or any other company has done for the last 10 years has been wow. Sure the updates are fine, but not oh my god wow type things. If this technology from MS is ever released for the consumer it would be a wow type thing on a major scale. If it is released for use by Google, and companies like that then not so much.

I thought that OS X was "wow."

—
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

Dear Dave,

I am sorry if I gave offense with my opening, and I am not trolling for a flame war or anything, but calling anyone an idiot offhand is not appropriate or courteous, I think. I will be wary of pseudoreligious exclamations in the future. Thanks for your forbearance and understanding in these matters, and for the lively discussion you brought to the group. I hope to hear from you in the future and will try to keep from offending you or others down the road.

Yours,

Noah

"Dave" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:25:51 -0400, No One
wrote:

AnonGoo wrote:
Holy Christ!

My god,

Idiots – who do you think you are talking to:-(

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:21:50 -0500, "Noah Stevens" wrote:

Dear Dave,

I am sorry if I gave offense with my opening, and I am not trolling for a flame war or anything, but calling anyone an idiot offhand is not appropriate or courteous, I think. I will be wary of pseudoreligious exclamations in the future. Thanks for your forbearance and understanding in these matters, and for the lively discussion you brought to the group. I hope to hear from you in the future and will try to keep from offending you or others down the road.

Yours,

Noah

"Dave" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:25:51 -0400, No One
wrote:

AnonGoo wrote:
Holy Christ!

My god,

Idiots – who do you think you are talking to:-(

Hi Noah,

Can it ever be appropriate or courteous to address human beings and use Names like you did? As if you are talking to the Lord? Can you insist on courtesy in a reply to your first letter?

It is obvious that you do understand and I really appreciate your attitude to it. It is only that I find it difficult to see how somebody that can write a friendly and intelligent letter like you posted here, could have written the first one:-)

Thanks for saying you will be wary… I am sure we can be friends. I contribute very little to this group and absorb much more from it and hope to see you here more often. You will find it valluable.

Thanks for understanding.

Dave

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:21:50 -0500, "Noah Stevens" wrote:

Dear Dave,

I am sorry if I gave offense with my opening, and I am not trolling for a flame war or anything, but calling anyone an idiot offhand is not appropriate or courteous, I think. I will be wary of pseudoreligious exclamations in the future. Thanks for your forbearance and understanding in these matters, and for the lively discussion you brought to the group. I hope to hear from you in the future and will try to keep from offending you or others down the road.

Yours,

Noah

"Dave" wrote in message

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:25:51 -0400, No One
wrote:

AnonGoo wrote:
Holy Christ!

My god,

Idiots – who do you think you are talking to:-(

Hi Noah,

Can it ever be appropriate or courteous to address human beings and use Names like you did? As if you are talking to the Lord? Can you insist on courtesy in a reply to your first letter?
It is obvious that you do understand and I really appreciate your attitude to it. It is only that I find it difficult to see how somebody that can write a friendly and intelligent letter like you posted here, could have written the first one:-)

Thanks for saying you will be wary… I am sure we can be friends. I contribute very little to this group and absorb much more from it and hope to see you here more often. You will find it valluable.
Thanks for understanding.

Dave