Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday January 20, @08:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the fine-art dept.

AI turned a Rembrandt masterpiece into 5.6 terabytes of data:

A high-resolution image of Rembrandt's Nightwatch is now online. 717 gigapixels (yes, giga) to a claimed resolution of .0005-millimeters.

Last week the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam posted an AI-constructed, ultra-high-res image of "The Night Watch" by Rembrandt. The original piece is nearly 15 feet long and more than 12 feet high and has been under intensive restoration since the early 1900s.

They've actually reconstructed some parts that had been destroyed over the ages, based on historical records.

Is a pixel size finer than the hairs on Rembrandt's brush enough detail for you?

(2020-05-23) Revelations About Rembrandt's Masterpiece Captured on Camera

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday January 21, @05:35PM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday January 21, @05:35PM (#1214544)

    I don't know that NFTs are entirely pointless - I will say that they are mostly pointless for the majority of people, and even people that find value in NFTs won't need or want NFTs for the majority of what they do.

    For people who are proud of their patronization of the arts, NFTs make a lot of sense. It makes me throw up a little at the thought, but NFTs are also a potential way to implement DRM.

    On the happy side: if a local indie band puts out a song that gets really popular, they might issue a million copy NFT of the song for $0.99 per copy (NFTs aren't restricted to 1:1 you can have 1 of N like limited edition prints). If the NFT happens to sell out, they've made a million bucks - less commissions - and everybody knows it. Those million NFTs aren't terribly useful, unless: the band offers NFT holders concert ticket discounts, or early / backstage access, free downloads of future music, etc. If you bought this NFT for 0.99 and you get sick of the band / song, you might be able to resell it on the open market. You'd get maybe 90% of the proceeds paid by the buyer and the band / NFT hosting site would skim the remaining 10% off the transaction, future income, and the buyer gets the rights that come with owning the NFT that you just gave up. The value of the NFT floats on the market, when the song is popular and the associated rights are in demand, like for early access to better seats at concerts, you might resell for a profit, other times it's probably worth little or nothing - much like a used CD.

    On the dark side: DRM interests legislate away people's rights to hold copies of copyrighted works and demand that all legally protected content be streamed, and the NFT is your key to streaming access. Right this moment I'm listening to mp3 files from my 50GB collection, NOT streaming anything. The rise and success of streaming is the resurgence of the copyrighted works industry that they swore would never happen when digital copying started. Hopefully Mickey Mouse remains tame and doesn't start going after individual ownership of locally held data.

    Oh, and there's no reason the content owners can't issue multiple "limited edition" NFTs for a single work, tweaking supply and demand like Disney putting films "in and out of the vault". Every NFT individually trackable, individually revokable for whatever fine-print terms they come up with. It can get worse from there, but only if consumers put up with it. I'm hoping they don't.

    Україна не входить до складу Росії.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2