164 karma · joined July 14, 2011
One of the benefits of this is that you can get access to a metadata file that lets you know technical information about the image: It's at https://iiif.micr.io/TZCqF/info.json.
https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/policies-and-documen...
Museums in general have recognized that digital images don't replace the museum experience—and they'd rather provide good images of the art than have people rip off poor-quality ones. Not every institution, and artist copyright remains a huge barrier, particularly for contemporary art, but a LOT of artwork photography is out there in the public domain.
Things change, and the factory/tooling/people are long gone. Also, often the underlying tech isn't available. But the part needs to weigh the same amount, meet the same guidelines, and fit in the same hole.
It's cheaper to pay someone to spend the time to figure out how to make the replacement then to mothball the entire airplane—almost regardless of how expensive it might be.
Hopefully some day deep into my retirement.
If you want the driver to get more money, raise the price. Don't raise the price by making me feel guilty.
-- Jean-Paul Sartre
(I'm assuming that doing this doesn't get my dropbox account suspended for some reason...)
Some context for the picture—my father, Paul, was the business manager for the computer science department at Carnegie Mellon at the time, and is a fabulous record-keeper, so he kept all sorts of interesting things from that era.
He was also one of the founders of Three Rivers Computer as well as PERQ, which were tech transfer spin-outs from the CS dept in the seventies.
The other really useful tool is Tableau Public, if your data isn't confidential. GUI interface, but makes visualizing information really easy.
The other tool I use a lot is http://p5js.org. It's more a general-purpose drawing tool, but if all you want to do is put some boxes at (x,y) positions, it's a really good prototyping tool.
I believe we limited our model generation to selecting places that had outlines, and computed the centroid of that outline. One of the benefits of our technique is that we didn't need to be comprehensive—we can throw out lots of places and still have enough to be useful for the model.
The difficult part is that the search is not optimized to be RAM-efficient; each city takes between two and ten gigabytes of RAM. You also need to have several hundred thousand tile images, which are commercially available, but not free.
If you've got a hefty server and the images, then it takes about a computer-day to compute the features and create the search index.
The neural net was then trained to look for the things that make each one of those things distinct; what makes a playground different than a church? It could be patterns, it could be colors, it could be any number of things. (For more precise details, you'll need to talk to Aman or Kyle.) It compares lots of things to lots of things, makes some guesses, and then sees whether those guesses help it correctly determine what we told it was in each tile.
Once the model is trained, it's identified the 1024 "features" that are most significant in correctly distinguishing types of things from each other. We then run every tile of a geographical region through that feature determiner, which converts each tile into a point in our 1024 dimensional space. The search function then identifies a tile, looks up its location, and finds the 100 things closest to it within the 1024 dimensional space.
So, TL;dr: It's not looking for colors, it's looking for computable features, which may or may not be color-specific. (Actually, they're highly non-color-specific: the training model randomly "wiggles" the color to makes sure that it doesn't get too tied to a very precise color.)