Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Breaking the Gigapixel Barrier

Posted by michael on from the sweetness dept.

megas writes "Max Lyons has just posted on his site what seems to be the first 1 Gigapixel picture, created from 196 separate photographs taken with a 6 megapixel digital camera, and then stitched together into one seamless composite. According to Max, he has 'been unable to find any record of a higher resolution photographic (i.e. non-scientific) digital image that has been created without resizing a smaller, lower resolution image or using an interpolated image.'"

5 of 538 comments (clear)

  1. Relatively static? by SpaceRook · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The guy said he needed a subject that was relatively static. But shadows on a canyon wall are not static. He says it took him 13 minutes. I wonder if there was any noticeable movement in the shadows in that time?

  2. another large image by Harald+Paulsen · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's worth to mention the WTC ground zero photo. It doesn't look to be stitched together, and it's a whopping 9372x9372, or 87 megapixels.

    (using freecache to not toast my own webserver)

    --
    Harald
  3. Re:Yar by Speare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, if you wait a few days for the site to calm down, you can READ his site to get a LOT of information about his processes.

    • Use a tripod and a pano head to rotate the camera around the nodal point.
    • Take 196 images that overlap slightly in grid formation.
    • Use a GUI to assign several control points for each pair of images: image[N]@x1,y1 == image[M]@x2,y2 (He uses his own GUI called PTAssembler for Windows. Others exist, and Hugin works on Linux and Windows.)
    • Use an engine to optimize the distortions, and to render the distorted images onto a final image. (He uses Helmut Dersch's panotools, as does PTGui and Hugin and other front-ends.)
    • He had additional challenges due to 2GB address limits in Windows (and most 32bit Linux builds would have similar challenges).
    • He had additional challenges due to apps breaking with images bigger than 16bit signed coordinate space (and a few Linux tools break on this too).

      • The free-as-in-beer panotools libraries itself is closed-source, and not supported anymore. IPIX(tm) apparently was one of several companies chasing Helmut for patent issues, the resolution of which I am not sure. New work is being done today to open the process up with Open Source equivalents. Otherwise, it's the top tool since it can stitch images taken from any orientation into several projections into several image formats with high quality.

        I use (and help develop) the Hugin tool for my front-end; I've done a few 25 MP images, but nothing so large or as diverse as Max Lyons' works.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  4. How many pixels are enough? by GCP · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Which makes me wonder how many pixels would be necessary to reach a point where no additional sharpness could be obtained by additional pixels.

    The definition in this case is completely filling my field of view (wrap around screen or retinal scanner), allowing me to move my eyes without redrawing, so every point would have to be as sharp as my full center of view (foveal) vision, but without allowing me to move my head (either changing its angle or moving closer to the image).

    I can imagine many uses for an even higher resolution image that would allow you to zoom in on interesting spots, but I'm curious about how many pixels the full view scenario above would require. If we just had that, then we could refresh the screen in response to head movements (I wouldn't want to do it for eye movements) and cover pretty much everything, I would think.

    --
    "Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
  5. Re:How do you print it? by xpccx · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I downloaded an archival quality (200Meg) image of a map from the Library of Congress that I wanted printed. Since the Library of Congress charges $200-$300 to print the maps I called the local Kinko's, or maybe it was Sir Speedy. Anyway, I asked them how large of a print they could do and the guy told me the largest he had done was something like 20+ ft by 20+ ft. They printed the map on thick, almost vinyl, paper and it came out to something like 4ft by 3ft. Not only did it look amazing, but it cost me less than $50.

    I'd bet any decent frame shop could frame a very large image. I'd guess they'd charge you several hundred dollars for the custom frame though.