Comment by makeitdouble
1 year ago
Thanks for the clarification.
My family library is around 1Tb, the weakest device is an iPhone SE, and the most used access is through a web browser.
Does on-device machine learning (provided you're syncing inter-device) work in that scenario ?
Embeddings (and other derived metadata) will sync across all your devices e2ee. So you could use our desktop app[1] to import and index your existing library. Newer photos will get indexed during upload on respective clients.
Search is yet to be implemented on web and indexing is turned off by default on devices with < 4gb of RAM. You can opt-in from Settings > General > Advanced > Machine learning.
[1]: https://ente.io/download/desktop
Why should people not turn to https://permanent.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that that claims to care about your photos even after you die?
I can’t see any evidence of encryption on their front page. I can see evidence of storing your data in multiple third party clouds (this is advertised as a feature, data redundancy).
If I can interrupt..
Wow, 1TB of photos? This is just astonishing to me. What is the use of so many images? As an ex semi-pro photographer, one of the things I realized is that what makes photographs special to people, even family photographs, is the rarity of them.
So I just cannot understand taking and holding on to this many images. I would find just managing the images would take away time and money from my family.
A combination of taking photos for just any purpose (from memos to remember posters, events, or even store prices, to notes) for 2 decades now, enough interest in photography to have played with raw for while and still keep a bunch of them for my favorites, to our kid happening, and a lot of traveling around, which meant additional deluges of pictures.
Google Photos makes it a no-brainer to manage, which largely contributed to the size inflation (which is also why searching and indexing have become critical to us)
PS: I declared bankruptcy on photo management a long time ago. Reducing my library to a decent size is totally possible but would take months of sifting through near duplicates.
You have a to take 1TB of images to be able to take 1GB of images, or something like that (am a semi-retired pro photographer myself).
>What is the use of so many images?
For me the problem is that I'm not a great photographer. I take loads of bad photos. It would take me far too much time to go through all of them and decide which ones to keep.
Also, my wife and I sometimes look at old photos for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of the photo or even with reminiscing. Instead, we may look for some specific fact (mole, dental issue, dress, haircut, domestic repairs, flooded footpaths, etc). The more photos we keep, the more likely it is that we can find what we're looking for.
In this day and age, dealing with that amount of data even to archival standards may well be cheaper than you’d rate your labor to sort all the wheat from the chaff…
[dead]
[dead]