Interesting UI --- wants a full-screen mode and 2-up view and a way to remove all the chrome/UI....
An earlier example of this sort of thing was Bill Gates' purchase of the Codex Leceister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Leicester which was then digitized and released on a CD-ROM by Corbis:
If you get an opportunity to see them in person, it’s worth it because the fine details are that much more impressive up close. Every photo I’ve seen is not as good. Also the illustration is tinier than you would think.
The same author who wrote some other famous biographies. I know some people prefer other DaVinci's biographies. I didn't read others to be able to compare, but I really enjoyed this one.
Nitpick: "da Vinci" wasn't our homeboy's name. That just means "from Vinci". He was "Leonardo", like many other people, so we added "da Vinci" to clarify which Leonardo we meant, just like you might say, "Jessica from church came by," to clarify that you didn't mean Jessica the ex-girlfriend. Surnames weren't very widely used in Italy then.
It's like "Jesus of Nazareth"; you wouldn't talk about "other OfNazareth's biographies". Ain't grammatical.
It's fine. John Smith once meant the John who works as a blacksmith etc. Whatever the original meaning we now widely take da Vinci to be the last name if we don't speak Italian.
Does this also apply to DiCaprio? His name seems to translate as "the deer's Leonardo", or maybe "the goat's Leonardo". Possibly "son of a goat".
Wikipedia says that Leonardo da Vinci was properly Leonardo son of Piero from Vinci son of Antonio son of another Piero son of Guido. I'm not sure that moving to surnames was a mistake, you know.
But at some point back in time, when an ancestral DiCaprio was first referred to as just "DiCaprio", that was an error, right? He should properly be called Quello Figlio di Caprio, that son of a goat. It's not too late.
Thanks! On my cellphone not even enough of the UI was working for me to discover those URLs. I suspect a certain amount of error recovery is in order for wgetting all 2238 images. 2000 seems to be the maximum resolution available, which is under 100dpi. A few of the images seem to have been uploaded to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Codex_Atlanticus.
I'm done downloading now (with a sleep of 1 second between pages), and I have 1064125470 bytes of JPEG files, a very reasonably torrentable size. I'll see if I can put together a torrent and upload to the Archive and Commons...
In this case presumably the main difference is not PowerShell vs. bash but iwr vs. wget? Because I think this is roughly equally bad (untested):
for page in {1..1119}; do
iwr "https://codex-atlanticus.ambrosiana.it/assets/2000/000R-$page.jpg" -OutFile "000R-$page.jpg"
iwr "https://codex-atlanticus.ambrosiana.it/assets/2000/000V-$page.jpg" -OutFile "000V-$page.jpg"
done
Also until recently bash didn't have {42..53} syntax. You had to use `seq`. There was an alternative name for `seq` in Unix Power Tools, `jot`, because it wasn't standard: https://docstore.mik.ua/orelly/unix/upt/ch45_11.htm. This section was by ORA author and sysadmin Linda Mui (https://www.oreilly.com/pub/au/268), but I don't know if she wrote `jot` or just popularized it.
I usually do what rarely doesn't work well for you, but it works decently for me. You get 1 page per image and the image isn't compressed or touched at all.
Maybe what rarely works well for NoMoreNicksLeft is having a gigabyte of JPEGs in a single HTML chapter inside the epub? In that case you could do something like divide the files into 373 "chapters" of 6 pages each?
One of the fragmentary editions I linked on the Archive uses the .cbr Comic Book Reader format; perhaps that is a better format than .epub for high-resolution scans of every page?
amazing! The categorization is nice, but I would love to see some sort of "tag cloud" that would allow use to view more specific content. How long until someone creates a tool to RAG the hell out of this? :)
It's a bit bananas, but probably just because he could. He also wrote his personal notes in "mirror writing":
> The notes on Leonardo da Vinci's famous Vitruvian Man image are in mirror writing. Leonardo da Vinci wrote most of his personal notes in mirror writing, only using standard writing if he intended his texts to be read by others
> We use it to express mild surprise that one person could use both their left and right hemispheres equally well.
When did this myth become so perpetuated? It's infuriating. I blame university administration. I can't think of any other reason to so firmly distinguish different areas of thought.
An earlier example of this sort of thing was Bill Gates' purchase of the Codex Leceister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Leicester which was then digitized and released on a CD-ROM by Corbis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci_(video_game)
which was quite engaging, but sadly trapped in the technology of the time --- anyone know of an updated version of it?
reply