It's very impressive technically, despite terms like 'visual photos' and 'visual cameras', but I don't think you need to be disturbed. I don't expect you'll be forced to contribute your pictures to it against your will (they are still copyright after all), and your pictures' intended use and context remains as long as you preserve it.
The presenter didn't mention anything about time, which is an important part of how we see a photo. A picture represents its subject matter in a small fraction of a second, but the composite of Notre Dame is not built from pictures taken in the same fraction of a second, so it represents something that never existed. At best it's an approximation of Notre Dame (as any picture is, of course). I wonder how it deals with times when there's scaffolding on the building, or rainy days versus sunny days, or pictures taken in 1943 versus pictures taken this morning. If Google takes a photo from space of Cotty lying naked in his garden, and this software merges it with a picture taken a couple of years ago of the previous owners lying naked in the next spot, what will people think they're seeing? It should raise some interesting questions. Bob > > I'm finding this somewhat disturbing. Your hard won > photographs are now > nothing more than data. Your intended use and context is forgotten... > Maybe that doesn't disturb anyone else... > > Bong Manayon wrote: > > Here's another link that caught my attention... > > > > > http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2007/06/05/ted-2007-microsoft-sead > ragon-and-photosynth/ > > > > "Metaverse...!?!" > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
