Slashdot Mirror

Isn't the new Canon Eos dSLR capable of producing 22MP pictures? I'm sorry, bu only gigapixels impress me these days. http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm

Take a look at http://www.gigapxl.org/. They take a single photo with more then 1 gigapixel. They are now aiming at 4 gigapixels.

Take a look at The Giga Pixel project. It is not aerial but have a resolution better than 50cm/pixel.

http://www.gigapxl.org/

The camera isn't digital and it isn't hand-held, but it has some nice results non-the-less.

It's a FILM camera: http://www.gigapxl.org/technology-format.htm

If I scan a polaroid at 20,000dpi, it could be a gigapixel image (note I've not done the math, replace the dpi as appropriate).

Not to say the idea isn't impressive, and high res (it is/was a spy camera, after all).

This camera, http://www.gigapxl.org/ takes 4 Giga pixel in one shot .. now, that's cool.

Stitching 40 X 40 pictures together is just a lot of work.

Ahem. Gigapxl Project.

OK, this is cool. The pictures on the website don't look so great, but then I read about the page with the technical details and they're confident of getting over 1000 Megapixels in their prints. Of course, they use chemical film and scan the results, but the point is, the optics seem to be sufficient. Cool, and thanks for the link!

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm Hopefully cameras in general will transform into utilities that can take pictures like these one day! (A lot of the technical information in this site is pretty dense for the average enthusiast, but an interesting and informative read.)

There already is a man who makes 1000 megapixel prints, he uses a large format film originally developed for U2 spy planes (9 x 18inch and supposedly the largest so I dont know where the guy mentioned in another comment got 20inch polaroid film) and then scans it to produce files that are reaching the 1000 megapixel mark, he's page is here and there was a popular science article about him, heres a link to the article here.

Pictures will go upto 10 megapixels but it will stop there.

Fortunately, some people don't believe that "eight is enough". Check out not just the stunning gallery, but also the discussion of the issues and technology involved in capturing truly huge amounts of pixels.

Fortunately, some people don't believe that "eight is enough". Check out not just the stunning gallery, but also the discussion of the issues and technology involved in capturing truly huge amounts of pixels.

Fortunately, some people don't believe that "eight is enough". Check out not just the stunning gallery, but also the discussion of the issues and technology involved in capturing truly huge amounts of pixels.

I'm surprised no-one has linked here yet in this debate: The Gigapxl Project.

This is one cool site with gigapixel images.

Hubble is amazing and all, and has produced some fabulous images (and maybe, just maybe some actual scientific data), but isn't it time to retire the 1 megapixel bird and replace it with a 5, or 16 megapixel, or perhaps a 4 gigapixel satellite instead?

If it's resolution, well, check out The Gigapixel Project.

You do realize that the Gigapixel project uses a film camera, not a digital camera, right?

Read the FAQ on the site that you linked to. The images are exposed on large format film, and then scanned in with a high resolution scanner.

It depends on how you're trying to compete. If it's making a shot without a tripod, many relatively cheap digital cameras will beat the 10x8 for overall quality. If it's resolution, well, check out The Gigapixel Project.

Digital is pretty darn good these days, and is competing reasonably well in the 35mm world. Within five years it will likely be the better choice for all small and medium format users except those who specifically like to use chemical processes for that sake alone, or due to computer-aversion. As a photographer who does all of his own processing and printing, I may not like this, but I still don't see how black and white is going to do any better than analogue audio.

But I do suspect, in the long run, black and white might actually last longer than C41. Black and white is both much easier for a hobbiest to do and much more flexible. And it's fun. I can't see why anybody would bother with their own C41 processing, though they might possibly still have some interest in printing from colour negatives.

From the gigapixel FAQ:
"The facial expressions of an half a stadium of fans can be captured at passport resolution in a single instant..."
http://www.gigapxl.org/faqs.htm

Does this ring of privacy concerns for anyone else? What with passport facial recognition and all... Seems to me it could be an easy way to identify who was at the big game/peaceful protest/mall on sunday...

rather than stich a bunch of digital photos, they should have simply photographed it with a very large format camera, and had the resulting negative drum scanned at 8000dpi. These folks do it that way, and if you take a look, the resolution is amazing.

*Feh* At least I got to see the buggy! The site was so trending blazo.
Those were some awesome pix. Better than the Gigapixel ones I was browsing earlier today. That's some amazing shite too... It's good to be able to now see the beauty and the detail that the government has had for years!

Check out the Gigapxl project.

Slashdot has previousely written about Max Lyons' Gigapixel Grand Canyon and also TNO's 2.5 Gigapixel office park which were both generated by taking many digital images and stiching them togather. Film is not quite dead though, as the Gigapxl Project is using a customized 9"x18" film camera - read more in their FAQ and how they have to worry about issues such as atmospheric transmission. They have an impressive image gallery that shows some amazing detail in some crops. Since a Gigapixel uncompressed 16-bit RGB image would be 6 GBytes, they can be excused for not making that available to /. readers. They hope to be able to eventually generate a four Gigapixel image.

Slashdot has previousely written about Max Lyons' Gigapixel Grand Canyon and also TNO's 2.5 Gigapixel office park which were both generated by taking many digital images and stiching them togather. Film is not quite dead though, as the Gigapxl Project is using a customized 9"x18" film camera - read more in their FAQ and how they have to worry about issues such as atmospheric transmission. They have an impressive image gallery that shows some amazing detail in some crops. Since a Gigapixel uncompressed 16-bit RGB image would be 6 GBytes, they can be excused for not making that available to /. readers. They hope to be able to eventually generate a four Gigapixel image.

Slashdot has previousely written about Max Lyons' Gigapixel Grand Canyon and also TNO's 2.5 Gigapixel office park which were both generated by taking many digital images and stiching them togather. Film is not quite dead though, as the Gigapxl Project is using a customized 9"x18" film camera - read more in their FAQ and how they have to worry about issues such as atmospheric transmission. They have an impressive image gallery that shows some amazing detail in some crops. Since a Gigapixel uncompressed 16-bit RGB image would be 6 GBytes, they can be excused for not making that available to /. readers. They hope to be able to eventually generate a four Gigapixel image.

Slashdot has previousely written about Max Lyons' Gigapixel Grand Canyon and also TNO's 2.5 Gigapixel office park which were both generated by taking many digital images and stiching them togather. Film is not quite dead though, as the Gigapxl Project is using a customized 9"x18" film camera - read more in their FAQ and how they have to worry about issues such as atmospheric transmission. They have an impressive image gallery that shows some amazing detail in some crops. Since a Gigapixel uncompressed 16-bit RGB image would be 6 GBytes, they can be excused for not making that available to /. readers. They hope to be able to eventually generate a four Gigapixel image.

Slashdot has previousely written about Max Lyons' Gigapixel Grand Canyon and also TNO's 2.5 Gigapixel office park which were both generated by taking many digital images and stiching them togather. Film is not quite dead though, as the Gigapxl Project is using a customized 9"x18" film camera - read more in their FAQ and how they have to worry about issues such as atmospheric transmission. They have an impressive image gallery that shows some amazing detail in some crops. Since a Gigapixel uncompressed 16-bit RGB image would be 6 GBytes, they can be excused for not making that available to /. readers. They hope to be able to eventually generate a four Gigapixel image.

Check out Gigapxl.org. The guy creating the cameras for this project is a serious optical genious.

How About a Gigapixel Digital Camera? http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/1 0/1356212&tid=160
Breaking the Gigapixel Barrier http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/02/202720 7&tid=152
Gigapxl Project http://www.gigapxl.org/project.htm

These guys http://www.gigapxl.org/project.htm are using a specially designed camera and 9 inch by 18 inch file and a high resolution digital scanner to get 4 gigapixel images that they then print out at 5 feet by 10 feet.

I would like to zoom in on the beach on this image.

It won't live long. Not with Gigapixel cameras, anyway.
Frankly, I have to say I see the above exercise a waste in itself considering you can create a gigapixel photos without having to resort to stitching hundreds of photographs yourself.

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-1.htm

I'm much more impressed by this.