Re: [textualcriticism] BL images online
- On 09/27/2010 06:51 AM, Scott Freedlun wrote:
> Unfortunately these images are divided up into 20-30 smaller images.ImageMagick is your friend...
> It is similar to Zoomify viewed images. Unless you have a very
> advanced stitching program, grabbing those images from your internet
> cache will not help.
> The easiest way ti save an image is to take a screen shot. The higher
> res your monitor is the better. Hitting f11 to maximize your browser
> will help a bit.
> If you then resample the image up to 300 dpi you have a decent image.
> All the same it is awesome that these are online at all.
- Imagemagick is a wondrous piece of software, true, and it's the first thought that occurred to me. But for the less technically-inclined--who are using Firefox browser--the screengrab add-on might be quite helpful: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1146/
--- On Mon, 9/27/10, Robert Relyea <bob@...> wrote:
> From: Robert Relyea <bob@...>
> Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] BL images online
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: "Scott Freedlun" <scottfreedlun@...>
> Date: Monday, September 27, 2010, 1:04 PM
> On 09/27/2010 06:51 AM, Scott
> Freedlun wrote:
> > Unfortunately these images are divided up into 20-30
> smaller images.
> > It is similar to Zoomify viewed images. Unless you
> have a very
> > advanced stitching program, grabbing those images from
> your internet
> > cache will not help.
> ImageMagick is your friend...
> http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php ...
> > The easiest way ti save an image is to take a screen
> shot. The higher
> > res your monitor is the better. Hitting f11 to
> maximize your browser
> > will help a bit.
> > If you then resample the image up to 300 dpi you have
> a decent image.
> > All the same it is awesome that these are online at
> > Scott
- Scott Freedlun wrote:
> Seems like nice little addon, but it seems you need to right-click to
> get to the context window, but right-click looks to be dis--abled in
> the viewer.
> Any thoughts?
Mr. Freelun and others,
(1) I use "Snag It" (it uses special hot key combinations, as the right click feature is often disabled). I use it on all editions of Windows. Still the capture needs to be rezzed to be sharp. So some (in fact a lot, if 200 images are needed!) effort is required and the whole situation is very time consuming. This is by design.
(2) The folks in Britain, their Bible departments and their librarians have a very elitist attitude. Their intent is to make money. You want good images of codex 01, BUY their publication(s). It is obvious to all users worldwide, that these folks do not want to share openly and freely as do other scholars in other nations. They can easily make it easy to copy and print the images, so that scholars can collate off-line and do offline research. They have consistently refused to. Their behaviours are despicable.
The British library especially has a LONG history of making life hard for earnest scholars. Why they even hesitate to share manuscripts they stole!! Or bought under questionable circumstances. Some of their acquisitions were outright robberies, (White monastery materials for example). Who wants to collate off of a computer screen?? Shame on them!! They will not change, I for one vote to ostracize the BL and Museum and perhaps the Universities of Oxford, London and Cambridge. Censor them. They do not really contribute. They use the labors of others, but do not freely share. Such is my opinion and experience with the BL. The films they sell (at premium prices) are quite poor.
Does anyone else want to share their horror stories from the BL?? Or of other holding institutions? Several others are difficult, Sackler, Harvard, Yale, the Vatican and Berkeley are testy. Others??
Mr. Gary S. Dykes