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.
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?
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.
> John Smith once meant the John who works as a blacksmith etc.
Yes, modern surnames largely evolved from descriptive epithets added to distinguish different people of the same given name, but that doesn't retroactively transform the descriptive epithets of commonly applied to people who lived in the past into surnames for those people.
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.
Descriptive linguistics, how stuff is actually used, is a lot more useful in practical real-life communication vs prescriptive.
Da Vinci is a shorthand that everyone will understand vs just calling him Leonardo. Writing Leonardo da Vinci will be more explicit but will come off much more formal and stilted.
Nobody who knew Leonardo called him "da Vinci", any more than you would call Jessica "from church" ("Hey, is From Church coming over tonight?") or Venezuelans would call Hugo Chávez Frias "Mr. Frias". "Descriptive linguistics" is not a magic trump password that makes all erroneous utterances correct. If you haven't studied 16th-century Italian, you're going to make errors when you name 16th-century Italians.
> any more than you would call Jessica "from church" ("Hey, is From Church coming over tonight?")
That's not in common use, so wouldn't fall under descriptive linguistics. No English speaker was puzzled at whether Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code was about someone else from Vinci's code. It's an established convention at this point.
The established convention is to use the given name "Leonardo", just as with Raphael, Michelangelo, and little Donato ("Donatello"). Dan Brown is also not an authority on the descriptive linguistics of 16th-century Italian.
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
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? :)
> 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.
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:
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?
https://codex-atlanticus.ambrosiana.it/
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.
Excellent work — reminds me of similar projects built with the same tech stack:
– Coins: A journey through the Münzkabinett Berlin collection (one of the largest in the world). https://uclab.fh-potsdam.de/coins/
– Theodor Fontane Marginalia: A visualization of Fontane’s marginalia and notes in his personal library. https://uclab.fh-potsdam.de/ff/
This is beautiful! I am having some difficulty with the UI; is there a torrent? Images like https://codex-atlanticus.ambrosiana.it/assets/500/000R-1.jpg are too low in resolution for good archival; you can't even read the writing.
Manipulate the URL for a higher resolution:
You don't need to depend on others to create a torrent, as bestowed upon you was the power of wget!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.
There are a couple of scans of a 43-page Italian edition published by Ulrico Hoepli on the Archive: https://archive.org/details/codex-atlanticus-leonardo-da-vin... https://archive.org/details/codex-atlanticus-leonardo-da-vin... but they seem to be of very poor quality.
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...
Or in PowerShell on Windows:
Some people around me swear PowerShell has better user experience than unix shells, but then I keep seeing examples like these. How on earth could people prefer this compared to `wget https://codex-atlanticus.ambrosiana.it/assets/2000/000V-{1.....`?
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):
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.Any idea on how to best compile it to an ebook? Just stuffing the jpgs into a pdf rarely works well...
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.
wouldnt this mess up the order? I think you are supposed to view it like R1, V2, R2, V2, etc
Yes, this was just an example. Using wildcard expansion will give you whatever order the your current shell seems fit. Bash does alphabetical order.
More like
I haven't that done this in some time, but templating some markdown code for pandoc and creating an ebup might be a viable avenue.
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?
Oooh... I have even less luck with epub, when the pages are an image-per-page.
Easy way would be to just drop them in a zip and label it .cbz. Most readers handle CBR/CBZ just fine.
Oh, is .cbz that simple? Does it use the file order of the zipfile members or some other order? (https://acbf.fandom.com/wiki/ACBF_Editor_-_Creating_Metadata says it uses alphabetical order, which is the wrong order in this case.)
It may be useful to use zip -Z store. JPEG data isn't going to get much benefit from another layer of LZ77.
Calibre comes with a ebook-convert command, that one might work
ocrmypdf (rocks!)
How much talent can fit in a person? This is how much.
indeed! The biography of Leonardo was an amazing read. Highly recommend it
Can you recommend the author?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci_(Isaacson_bo...
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.
> John Smith once meant the John who works as a blacksmith etc.
Yes, modern surnames largely evolved from descriptive epithets added to distinguish different people of the same given name, but that doesn't retroactively transform the descriptive epithets of commonly applied to people who lived in the past into surnames for those people.
I agree that the error is common. Try to make new errors instead of repeating common errors.
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.
Nope, that's his actual surname. He wasn't born in the 16th century.
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.
Probably not, no, and AFAIK Leo is a nice guy who doesn't deserve to be deprecated in that way.
Descriptive linguistics, how stuff is actually used, is a lot more useful in practical real-life communication vs prescriptive.
Da Vinci is a shorthand that everyone will understand vs just calling him Leonardo. Writing Leonardo da Vinci will be more explicit but will come off much more formal and stilted.
Nobody who knew Leonardo called him "da Vinci", any more than you would call Jessica "from church" ("Hey, is From Church coming over tonight?") or Venezuelans would call Hugo Chávez Frias "Mr. Frias". "Descriptive linguistics" is not a magic trump password that makes all erroneous utterances correct. If you haven't studied 16th-century Italian, you're going to make errors when you name 16th-century Italians.
> any more than you would call Jessica "from church" ("Hey, is From Church coming over tonight?")
That's not in common use, so wouldn't fall under descriptive linguistics. No English speaker was puzzled at whether Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code was about someone else from Vinci's code. It's an established convention at this point.
The established convention is to use the given name "Leonardo", just as with Raphael, Michelangelo, and little Donato ("Donatello"). Dan Brown is also not an authority on the descriptive linguistics of 16th-century Italian.
The Dan Brown mention was about descriptive, showing it's popularly understood using a popular book, not prescriptive.
Why are some of the pages upside down?
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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_writing
Da Vinci was showing off.
just rotate your monitor
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? :)
> 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.
I'm training a model based on this /s