Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fermilab Builds 500-Megapixel Camera

Posted by simoniker on from the quite-large dept.

heyitsme writes "Fermilab, a U.S. Department of Energy research lab, is part of a collaboration on an experiment to measure the properties of dark energy. The Dark Energy Survey would measure the history of the expansion rate of the universe more precisely than ever before, using the largest camera ever built with Charge Coupled Devices (CCD). The 500 megapixel Dark Energy Camera (DECam) would be placed on an existing 4-meter telescope located in north-central Chile at the National Optical Astronomy Observatory's Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory. The DECam together with the CTIO 4-meter telescope will allow for a survey of 15 percent of the sky to light levels faint enough to measure the colors of galaxies at redshift one."

180 comments

  1. Filesize? by FSWKU · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would hate to see how much space one frame from this thing takes up...

    --
    "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    1. Re:Filesize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The detector actually contains roughly 503,316,480 raw pixels, this amounts to slightly less than 500,000,000 effective pixels after initial processing.

      The data will, of course, be stored directly to a large SAN storage system, probably from EMC or Hitachi.

      The detector should generate single frame images of roughly 1.7G prior to post-processing, and roughly 700M single-frame image files after processing to TIFF or PNG format.

    2. Re:Filesize? by TrollBurger · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Rough approximations based from this:

      Uncompressed:
      2MP = 4.32 MB

      Thus
      1MP = 2.16 MB

      Thus
      500 x 2.16 MB

      Equals

      1080 MB

      So, I'd put it at basically over 1 gig for a single image. Then factor in things like compression etc, but that'd be my estimate.

    3. Re:Filesize? by BWJones · · Score: 1, Informative

      Although the article does say 500 megapixel, a simple calculation could answer your question. The CCD is composed of elements giving it a pixel array of 180k X 240k pixels giving us 28800000000 pixels! (Assuming each pixel holds one grey value in a 16 bit image ) Working from 16 bits/pixel and 8 bits/byte, we are looking at 2 bytes per pixel. So 2 bytes * 28800000000 pixels gives us 57600000000 bytes or almost 54 GB/image!

      If you were to take multispectral or even RGB images, one would multiply the file size by the appropriate dimension.....

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    4. Re:Filesize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...one could then turn a bunch of those images into a movie.

    5. Re:Filesize? by sdedeo · · Score: 0

      For the new generation of CCDs, data transfer is a big problem (especially since many telescopes are in rather isolated locations -- high in the Chilean mountains, for example.) I have heard that some sites are planning a huge SneakerNet (or, rather, JumboNet? CessnaNet?) and hoping to fly out stacks of DAT tapes of the unreduced data back "home."

      --
      Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
    6. Re:Filesize? by hyc · · Score: 4, Informative
      Interesting, the numbers you show don't appear anywhere in the article. Instead, I see:
      At the heart of the DECam are 60 rectangular (2k x 4k) CCDs, each with 8 million 15-micron pixels. The CCDs, developed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, are over five times more sensitive at near-infrared wavelengths than conventional CCDs currently used for astronomy.
      60 CCDs at 8 million pixels each for a total of only 480 million pixels. There's no mention of color filtration so grayscale is a safe assumption. There's also no mention of resolution but 16 bits sounds good as a guess.

      So 960 million bytes per frame, which is only 915.5MB (1M = 2^20).

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    7. Re:Filesize? by BWJones · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ummmm......I think it is too late and past my bed time. A quick rechecking of the numbers reveals a total of 960000000 bytes for each image in a 4800000000 pixel array giving us a much more manageable total of approx .9GB/image in raw form (again, assuming a 16 bit image).

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    8. Re:Filesize? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have heard that some sites are planning a huge SneakerNet (or, rather, JumboNet? CessnaNet?) and hoping to fly out stacks of DAT tapes of the unreduced data back "home."

      So, we here in academia are a bit spoiled in terms of bandwidth. However, companies and some in academics have to pay for lots of bits and bytes and are thus interested in costs to move these sorts of data. I was talking with Jim Gray a couple of weeks ago and he was telling me that a recent study revealed some of the true costs of moving lots of data. For instance: Lets say you are trying to move a terabyte of data from London to Los Angeles. It turns out it is cheaper (and faster) to put it on magnetic storage and fly it from London to Los Angeles than it is to try and move it over the Internet.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    9. Re:Filesize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never mind the file size.
      How long will it take to print on my HP inkjet?

    10. Re:Filesize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the link to some sample pictures?

    11. Re:Filesize? by CyberBill · · Score: 1

      wait wait wait...

      A 500megapixel camera has 500,000,000 pixels, not 28,800,000,000!!!!!

      So, its actually closer to 1GB than 54GB.

      -Bill

      --
      -Bill
    12. Re:Filesize? by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 3, Informative
      There's no mention of color filtration so grayscale is a safe assumption.

      Not in the article, but in their submission of proposal to Fermilab PAC, they state

      The total number of images over all bandpasses is 35.
      So, not more data per image, just more images.
    13. Re:Filesize? by jfern · · Score: 1

      That's one way to have an Internet connection.
      Airplane full of CDs.
      High bandwidth.
      High latency.

    14. Re:Filesize? by pahles · · Score: 1

      RTFA!

      The 500 megapixel Dark Energy Camera (DECam) would be placed

      --
      Sig?
    15. Re:Filesize? by hutkey · · Score: 0

      how come this creates 2.6gb of image file and 500Megapixel creates only 915.5MB of image file?

    16. Re:Filesize? by eraserewind · · Score: 1

      a lot, but the pictures of "dark energy" can be compressed to this: "0,500000000"

    17. Re:Filesize? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe that, but I've always had trouble with the cost of moving data around the Internet. I mean, it's not like fibre optic cable wears out faster the more bits you push through it. It seems to be more about supply/demand than any "real" factors.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    18. Re:Filesize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps a SETI@HOME style system would help do file type conversions and image processing ??

    19. Re:Filesize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more data you are transferring, the more fiber optic cables you need to build. So your initial costs go up, and your failures per month go up. As does the amount of datacenter space you need for the equipment, and the electric and a/c costs...

    20. Re:Filesize? by hildaur · · Score: 2, Informative

      In fact, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (in which Fermilab also plays a major role) transfers its imaging data from the the observatory to Fermilab (where it is reduced) by FedExing DLT tapes. I do not know what it planned for the DEC.

    21. Re:Filesize? by killmenow · · Score: 1

      true color vs 16-bit greyscale

    22. Re:Filesize? by viking099 · · Score: 1

      As Andrew S. Tanenbaum put it: "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of tapes hurling down the highway"

    23. Re:Filesize? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I call BS, I can get a gigabit pipe in any major city for 10k a month. Assuming I just have two points I need to move data to thats 20k a month and I'm staying on the same backbone provider so I have contractual levverage is I cant get the throughput inside the one backbone. I can move 1TB is 8000+ seconds aka less than 3 hours. It takes nearly a day to get from LA to London as well with a ticket cost of what 2k on expedia booked a month out for an overnight trip. If you have to move a TB a day thats 60k in flights. FedEX is cheaper by far but so is provisioning a lamda on fiber and runnign your own routers. A hundred meagabit pipe is only a couple k for the two ends and moves a TB in a day about the same cost as the one plane ticket.

      Tapes have there place and for this instance it might make sence not to dump the capital into running fiber out but I would think it would since a telescope isnt a short term project. Tapes are good at getting data to different endpoints since fedex goes just about everywhere. The other thing you have to consider is accademics writing papers generaly dont have a clue how to find a good price on bandwith most people dont, companies are still selling at the 200+ a meg pricepoint when they have competiors in the teens. Bandwith is an artificial market controled by telco's with a very low real costs.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    24. Re:Filesize? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I wonder if pngcrush works on a cluster system...they'd need it.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
    25. Re:Filesize? by thedillybar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you have to move a TB a day

      Well, sure. But what if you only need to move 1 TB? On 1 day?

    26. Re:Filesize? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Nice link.

      Chapter 4 covers the data acquisition requirements in detail. The detector is composed of 60 CCDs with the following characteristics:

      Resolution: 2048x4096
      Digitization Rate 240 khz
      Exposure Time: 17.5s
      Image Size: 1 gigabyte.
      Image Data Rate: 10 MB/s. (1 image per 100s)

      From those calculations, we see that each pixel is sampled with 1024 bits, or 128 bytes. It's rather more sensitive than most CCDs. (And that's a monochrome image. They will sample at different wavelengths--necessary, perhaps, for redshift calculation-- by using various filters.)

    27. Re:Filesize? by razmaspaz · · Score: 1

      Or for that matter 30TB everyday. 30TB * 3 hrs is 90 hrs. It can't be done with the mentioned configuration. 30TB will cost a couple hundred dollars to ship fedex and it will take 12 hrs. Cheaper and faster.

      --
      I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
    28. Re:Filesize? by Sdrawcab · · Score: 1

      Actually its 1024-bit greyscale.

    29. Re:Filesize? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      If it's a one off then it's a question of what you have at hand. If you have a 5k tape drive at each end and a pile of tapes that costs another grand use that. If you have a pile of DVD-RW's use that. This was in relation to moving data from a telescope I would hope they are moving data from every nights or at least most nights work.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    30. Re:Filesize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that was a station wagon.

    31. Re:Filesize? by tr0p · · Score: 1

      Damn dude u sound like a nerd. Bigtime.

      --

      My only regret... is that I have... bonitis..

    32. Re:Filesize? by V_M_Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

      TIFF or PNG? Who in the world uses anything other than FITS for astronomical images?

    33. Re:Filesize? by Cesare+Ferrari · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think this is what is going on. 1024 bits of resolution per cell? I don't think so.

      Most high end photographic CCDs are 12 bit, and I guess 16 bit will be available if you pay enough money. Remember, the CCD charge must be sampled, and you just don't get 1024 bit samplers. 24 bit samplers usually produce 18 or 20 bits max or signal, and the rest is just noise. I'm sure these guys have stuff an order of magnitude better than that, but that would be another 3 bits...

      I'm guessing the 1 Gig figure is for all 60 CCDs, so there is actually 1024/60 bits per cell, which works out around 17, so this is probably an approximate figure, and the CCD is read at 16 bit resolution.

    34. Re:Filesize? by barakn · · Score: 1

      (S)he assumed that 2k meant 2048 and 4k meant 4096. So both sets of numbers came from the same source and the difference comes from confusion over what 'k' means.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    35. Re:Filesize? by hyc · · Score: 1

      Yes, but 2048*4096*60 still only comes out to 503316480 (480M pixels, instead of 480 million). Not the "28800000000 pixels" that BWJones came up with. There is no 180k x 240k anywhere in the article, that's what I was having a problem with.

      A CCD that produced a single frame of 54GB would be somewhat impractical; you would need that much RAM to capture a single image and buffer it for writing to disk/tape. You could read it back in pieces for processing, of course...

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    36. Re:Filesize? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It turns out it is cheaper (and faster) to put it on magnetic storage and fly it from London to Los Angeles than it is to try and move it over the Internet.

      Until you remember that you have to pay someone to feed the hundreds of tapes into drives to copy the data to disk and that you'd have to buy and run well over 10 drives in order to get the bandwidth of a 10Gbit connection and a lot more into order to beat that bandwidth. I think if you worked out the cost and time disk-to-disk the result would be more favourable toward the network scenario.

    37. Re:Filesize? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Now that I think about it, 128 bytes is ridiculous. As you said, it's probably 2 bytes per pixel. Any thermal noise is limited by the liquid nitrogen cooling system.

    38. Re:Filesize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you have a medium with a sustained write speed of 1G/s, then it still takes 30000 seconds to just put the data on the medium. Say you can read it back in 15000 seconds, then you'd be spending 12 hours just to get it on and off the medium. There are opportunities for paralellization of course but that increases costs considerably.

    39. Re:Filesize? by Y2 · · Score: 1
      It turns out it is cheaper (and faster) to put it on magnetic storage and fly it from London to Los Angeles than it is to try and move it over the Internet.

      When you have your own wavelengths across the Atlantic, as from, say, Geneva CH to Chicago US, and can light them up at 10Gb/s, you're going to be far faster than a Concorde with that Terabyte!

      Fermilab is moving dozens of terabytes a day into and out of mass storage. It's the perfect place to handle this camera's output.

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    40. Re:Filesize? by cpadwick · · Score: 1

      The comment about the "largest camera ever built" needs to be changed to the "largest staring array camera ever built." What's the diff you ask? The Quickbird satellite (www.digitalglobe.com) regularly takes pictures of the earth that are 28000 pixels X 28000 pixels = 784 Mega Pixels. The largest image that QuickBird is capable of taking is a little greater than 10 times that amount: 28000 X 280000 = 7.8 Giga pixels. QuickBird achieves this through a pushbroom sensor design in which a linear array of CCD pixels is scanned or "swept" across the Earth to form an image. Was this type of design considered for the Fermilab camera?

    41. Re:Filesize? by Auriam · · Score: 1

      Yes.. but if somehow you were to foolishly assume that instead of 60 2k x 4k CCDs, you had 60*2k=120k by 60*4k=240k, you would indeed get 28.8 billion pixels, like our unfortunate parent poster did.

    42. Re:Filesize? by Tree131 · · Score: 1
      accademics writing papers generaly dont have a clue how to find a good price on bandwith

      However, Sysadmins that work for those academics generally have some sort of a clue how to find a good price on bandwith, especially if you're at a large university with a large department of information technology to help you out

      My 2c

    43. Re:Filesize? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's artificial "supply" - since some companes keep fiber dark on purpose so as not to upset this supply/demand balance out of their favor.

  2. How long... by macshune · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anyone taking bets on how long until the pr0n industry uses this to measure the expansion of people's naughty bits?

    1. Re:How long... by UltimaL337Star · · Score: 1

      Eventually it will be at the extent that we'll be jacking off to magenfied shots of pores without knowing it.

  3. I'm glad by toddhunter · · Score: 5, Funny

    That they were able to save money by using an existing telescope.
    Because the compact flash cards for this thing cannot be cheap.

    1. Re:I'm glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what's worse is they chose a proprietary format (Sony Memory Stick), so they're paying 20% more right there.

    2. Re:I'm glad by jensen404 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You could fit a few pictures on this 12GB CF:
      http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052601pre tec12 gb.asp

      Only $14,900

    3. Re:I'm glad by KevetS · · Score: 1

      Sucky link don't work.
      A working version: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052601pretec12 gb.asp
      More info at the manufacturer's website: http://www.pretec.com about this, also.

      --
      This is my United States of whatever.
    4. Re:I'm glad by KevetS · · Score: 1

      Sucky link don't work.
      A working version: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052601pretec12 gb.asp
      More info at the manufacturer's website: http://www.pretec.com about this, also.

      --
      This is my United States of whatever.
  4. wow! by ResQuad · · Score: 1

    Wow... 500 megs.. Niceeeee.

    I want one of these, too bad I just bought a new nikon d70. Its almost as good as having 500 megspx.

    --
    snowulf.com
    1. Re:wow! by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 1

      I want one of these, too bad I just bought a new nikon d70. Its almost as good as having 500 megspx.

      I think you mean your Nikon is almost as good as having 500 millipixels ;-)

    2. Re:wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nikon? Oh, I'm so sorry.

      /pets Canon EOS 1-D Mk2

    3. Re:wow! by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      too bad I just bought a new nikon d70. Its almost as good as having 500 megspx

      Er... what? In terms of sheer performance the Nikon d70 is 6 megapixels isn't it? That's like saying 'Ooh, the new Porsche 911 Turbo S is nice, but I just bought a shopping trolley, it's almost as good'.

      OK, the Nikon d70 is a bit more portable than a 500megapixel camera attached to a 4 metre telescope, but in terms of impressing with numbers...

    4. Re:wow! by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      If I bought my girlfriend one of these, she wouldn't be too impressed since the portability is low.

      OTOH, she said that if I bought her a D70, she'd be my slave for a week.

      Winner: D70.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  5. but by trs9000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    cool but does it fit in my pocket?
    im going to japan soon and i need a good camera......

    1. Re:but by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Funny
      im going to japan soon and i need a good camera......
      Buy one there on the cheap :)
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:but by trs9000 · · Score: 1

      Stay the fuck away from Roppongi, you fat-assed piece of shit!

      oh man....
      i was actually going to go to roppongi...
      well i guess ill go cancel my trip....

    3. Re:but by supergiovane · · Score: 5, Funny

      I dont't know that, but I heard that it has quite good lenses and an amazing zoom. You really don't need to go to Japan with it: you can take detailed photos of Japan directly from home!

      --
      Signatures are for stupids.
    4. Re:but by supernova87a · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, the camera you get will be smaller and more efficient...

      Right now this camera probably sits in a LN2 cooled dewar about the size of an oil drum. Good luck taking spontaneous candids with it! :)

    5. Re:but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just buy a camara in Japan

    6. Re:but by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      im going to japan soon and i need a good camera......

      Buy one there on the cheap :)

      Been to Japan; learned something: You can't get Product X cheaper in Japan than in the west. The plus is that you get newer versions/models much sooner there than the west.

  6. 500 megapixel?? by fodi · · Score: 5, Funny

    I dont EVER want to be photographed in that much detail !!

    1. Re:500 megapixel?? by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      yea, and I thought flourescent lighting was bad enough.

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    2. Re:500 megapixel?? by Epistax · · Score: 1

      500-Megapixel

      That's nothing. My camera has 8x optical zoom.

    3. Re:500 megapixel?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't worry.

      As long as you keep your clothes on, the terror alert won't have to be raised.;-)

  7. Deja Vu by Nerd+With+Nalgene · · Score: 1

    I saw this headline and was like, whoa, I could have sworn there was an article about this yesterday. But this one is much cooler than yesterday's enormously high-resolution camera--it's in space. Pretty good progress for 24 hours.

    --


    "as if nothing were solid...and that would be the end of the world, not fire and brimstone, but goo."--Rand
  8. Ah to open this bad boy... by Xuranova · · Score: 2, Funny

    in Photoshop, it be a sight to behold. Or even better, embed one of these pics in a pdf file and EMAIL it to a friend. Ah yes good times for admins, systems, and users everywhere to enjoy!

    --
    "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
    1. Re:Ah to open this bad boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine the new have of email viruses that can take advantage of the fact that normal attachments would be 2gb in size? Yep, you got it, these viruses INCLUDE a linux ISO and a mozilla install.

    2. Re:Ah to open this bad boy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work with gig images all the time.

      Lot's of film effects are done with filmstrip files, which basically convert all the frames of your film clip into a single layer image in Photoshop. Optimizaitons aside, it's really no different than working with a big video clip in Premiere.

      It can be done if you have the beef in your box, there's just a lot of sitting on your ass while things render.

  9. Just Think... by gr3g · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The digital zoom on that would be immense. You could take a picture in a city environment and just spend the next couple of days looking at everything you would miss at first glance. Kind of creepy, but the "neat!" factor overwhelms here.

    --
    "It has always been this way and it won't change, god bless the fucked up USA" The Briefs
    1. Re:Just Think... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Informative
      Probably not. Digital zoom is useless because it just magnifies part of the picture without increasing resolution. It may be useful for video (especially if the CCD has a higher resolution than TV) but it's essentially a "marketing feature" for still photography.

      Anyway, with 500MP you're going to be severely limited by the resolving power of the lens. It's quite difficult to get even 100 line pairs per mm with the best 35mm photographic lenses (lenses for larger formats tend to be much worse because it's harder to maintain accuracy over a large glass area, plus it's not as necessary with lower enlargement factors). A 500MP sensor needs a pretty exceptional telescope in front of it.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    2. Re:Just Think... by fabs64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... if the camera is 500MP then yes the digital zoom would in fact be useful, being that the resolution is so massive you can keep zooming in and zooming in for a very long time before there's any noticable degradation in image quality (assuming a perfect lense etc here which is not possible). what i'm pretty sure he meant was, say take a photo from 200m above a busy city st, and u could sit there for hours and hours just zooming in on that photo looking at cracks in the sidewalk or the hairs on peoples heads.

    3. Re:Just Think... by baritono · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Keep in mind, however, that this is going to be used with a reflector telescope. And that this telescope has a 4-meter aperture. The primary mirror in a telescope of this size costs millions of dollars, and is machined to an incredibly precise level of accuracy. The question is, when do we get parabolic reflector handheld digicams?

    4. Re:Just Think... by troon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not really. If you're looking for a decent A4 print, you need at least 5MP. A raw image from this beast contains 100 of those images, so you could use "digital zoom" (actually, just cropping) to concentrate on specific parts of the image at perfectly acceptable resolution.

      You're right about the general uselessness of digital zoom on low-end digicams, but this is a different beast.

      --
      Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    5. Re:Just Think... by neurojab · · Score: 2, Informative

      >youu can keep zooming in and zooming in for a very long time before there's any noticable degradation

      I think a better way to put it would be that here is that if you want a smaller image( less information) you can selectively crop it out. If you're targeting 1-2 megapixels final size, you could be quite selective in finding the perfect picture in a 500 megapixel image.

      Digital "zoom" is badly named because it's not really a zoom, it's a crop, followed by a resample. In practice most people find that they want to take full resolution pictures all the time, and save the cropping for later, on their PC - where they can have tighter control. I imagine that the buyers of this device would have a huge storage device to attach to it, and still do the same thing.

  10. why you need 500 Mpx by sdedeo · · Score: 5, Informative

    (Not an expert, they're all fast asleep right now.)

    One of the things Fermilab is trying to do is get a measurement of the so called weak lensing effect. Matter distorts spacetime, and light is thus bent as it passes nearby a big cluster. This is gravitational lensing.

    Famously, it is seen as "strong" lensing -- when the source is very close on the sky to the cluster, and the light gets bent enough that there are multiple images. Nobody really believed it could happen, but then in the last decade or so it's become an accepted and popular thing to play with and observe.

    Weak lensing is when there are no multiple images, and instead only a slight distortion. Much harder to see and measure -- you basically look for a whole bunch of galaxies that are slightly distorted.

    That means you need a very wide field of view -- to get enough galaxies quickly enough -- but also a very good resolution -- to be able to measure the slight distortions. Hence the need for such an insane[ly cool] device.

    Why go through all this trouble? Well, weak lensing is one of the view ways to measure all the matter in the universe on very large scales. Because nearly all the matter is supposed to be invisible, in the past people have used various "tracers" that we can see. But there's a huge amount of debate as to how good the various tracers are, and, of course, you need a direct measurement to be sure you're not off in la-la land.

    Weak lensing measures it all because all matter, regardless of how bright it is, bends spacetime in the same fashion. So, if you can get a good weak lensing measurement, you can theoretically create an unbiased map of the matter distribution. No need to cross your fingers and hope that some tracer is behaving properly.

    It all fits into dark energy because dark energy is supposed to alter the extent to which matter can cluster (roughly speaking, dark energy behaves like antigravity, and pushes things apart, stopping them from falling together.)

    Of course, weak lensing is just one of the things this guy is meant to do -- there are lots of other neat things that hopefully someone more awake than I can describe.

    --
    Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
    1. Re:why you need 500 Mpx by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 0, Funny

      (Not an expert, they're all fast asleep right now.)
      Remember what the topic is. The experts aren't sleeping. They're busy working. Maybe when the sun rises they'll have time to post comments to Slashdot.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    2. Re:why you need 500 Mpx by CowboyNick · · Score: 1

      How do they know it's not actuall fuzzy in real life?

      --
      -CowboyNick
    3. Re:why you need 500 Mpx by Genda · · Score: 1

      This critter is so cool it's almost scary... I'm waiting for the astronomer to say cheese, and after accounting for weak gravitational lensing we get a picture of God smiling back!

      One of the other things this big camera will do, after it get's a baseline for the original matter density once the universe became transparent to radiation, will be to look at changes in the matter density over time. With this we'll have a very direct measurement of the space between cosmic structures over time and an excellent picture of just what's happening to our universe.

      If this doesn't get your intellectual juices flowing, you should check your pulse, you might have passed away sometime over night.

      Genda

  11. why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just build an array of 250 2-Mpixel cameras, and point them all at the same place? That whould be cheaper and easier. You could use a bunch of camera phones.

    1. Re:why not... by zackeller · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but imagine the phone bills...

  12. Finally!!! by Eberlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally something that has higher system requirements than Longhorn!!!

    1. Re:Finally!!! by NemesisStar · · Score: 1

      I'm going to come back to this comment in 10 years and see if it's still funny. Like space, computer specs are relative to time. :)

  13. I bet.. by platypibri · · Score: 5, Funny

    Even at this level of digital imaging, it has a weak, useless flash, intolerable low light noise, and sucks batteries in no time. Actually, I'm really looking forward to seeing the images this thing captures

    --
    Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    1. Re:I bet.. by xutopia · · Score: 1

      it's pretty heavy too I heard.

    2. Re:I bet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the others are probably true, but if it is for astronomy, the one thing it won't have is a high low light noise...

    3. Re:I bet.. by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Its a CCD, not a full camera. No flash. And for this application, you better bet its got good light noise.

    4. Re:I bet.. by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      The flash is weak, but even worse: because it is so close to the lens, basically all the pictures it takes will have really bad redeye. Have you ever tried to correct redeye on a 1GB file?!! it isn't easy!

      --
      HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
    5. Re:I bet.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh! There it went. You are luckey, it almost hit your head.

  14. My Scanner.. by ResQuad · · Score: 1

    My Scanner can scan at 5mgpx per sq inch. So if you just take a normal picture big enough, and scan it... It would be about the same.

    It would be a hell of a lot cheaper, seeing is how my scanner was 100$. This 500mgpx camera is probably a big on the pricy side... not to mention what it is attached to.

    --
    snowulf.com
    1. Re:My Scanner.. by funkdancer · · Score: 1

      Your "normal" 35mm wouldn't be anywhere near the resolution required.

      --
      ISO certified == THX certified
    2. Re:My Scanner.. by platypibri · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, your scanner lacks the light gathering ability of a 4 Meter telescope or we'd be set!

      --
      Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
    3. Re:My Scanner.. by tasinet · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmm.. Attach a pair of 5$ binoculars to your 106$ scanner and you have your personal deep-space telescope!
      Now attach that to a $1 paper airplane and you have DIY Hubble! yay!
      total cost: 106$
      Makes you wonder how NASA managed to spend
      so much on Hubble!

    4. Re:My Scanner.. by azi · · Score: 1


      My Scanner can scan at 5mgpx per sq inch. So if you just take a normal picture big enough, and scan it... It would be about the same.

      And that normal _big_ picture you are talking should be 100*100 inch with resolution of 5MDPI at least. Now, how did you think to take the picture and more importantly, how to process (like printing) it for scanning that with your scanner.

      Yes, you still need something like that camera.

      -AZi

      --

      bash: sig: command not found

    5. Re:My Scanner.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be 10*10 inch?

    6. Re:My Scanner.. by azi · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would. =)

      It really doesn't make much difference for producing that picture.

      --

      bash: sig: command not found

    7. Re:My Scanner.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In space everything is weightless so you wouldn't even need the paper airplane.

    8. Re:My Scanner.. by magefile · · Score: 1

      Using the same math that says 106+5+1=106 (hint: the original scanner was $100, not $106).

    9. Re:My Scanner.. by PIBM · · Score: 1

      Well, if you try scanning a 35mm negative at 5MDPI per inch, it's ok, since they are about the equivalent of 18-20 mpx. But if you print that 20mpx 35mm negative on a let's say 8x12 sheet and try to scan that one at the 480mpx -- you will get those 480mpx but they will only represent those 20mpx actually "stored" on the negative.. plus noise :)

    10. Re:My Scanner.. by tasinet · · Score: 1

      Damn! no wonder I got a D in Maths again.. but isn't 100+5+1 = 107? or 7? oh i dont know. and where am i? i meant to go to forums.barbie.com!

  15. DECam? by spare.dave · · Score: 2, Funny

    Time to dig up the old Digital icon?

  16. CCD? by Pflipp · · Score: 1

    And here I was thinking that CCD technology was inferior to CMOS and that other thingy, and that the actual sample rate is only half or somethingabout of the given number of Megapixels?

    Could be wrong, though, having a hard time finding my way to the megapixel forest.

    --
    "We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
    1. Re:CCD? by CyberBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      CMOS is cheaper and can transfer the image faster off of the chip, but CCDs offer lower dark noise and lower reading noise, which means that your pictures are clearer and more scientifically usuable. CCDs are also INCREDIBLY more sensitive than CMOS, with the newer chips able to get upwards of 85% efficiency.

      -Bill

      --
      -Bill
    2. Re:CCD? by Genda · · Score: 1

      It's not surprising... there's so dang much hype it's hard to separate the pepper from the fly shit. So here are some basic threads regarding imaging devices you're likely to find in consumer products.

      1. CCDs have been around longer and are slightly more advanced that CMOS imaging devices at the level of simple function.

      2. CMOS is less expensive on a price performance basis

      3. The new Foveon chip allows a single maskless imaging chip to image all three colors simultaneously (this means no interpolation artifacts, low noise, super high resolution, absolutely fantastic color fidelity.) If these chips get around in a big way, they'll make it very hard to compete at a lot of levels.

      4. Though the new 8 Mp imaging chips have higher resolution than the 5 Mp chips, there are a number of tradeoffs. These chips are dramtically smaller than the 5 Mp, add the higher pixel count and the indivdual imaging cells are TINY! This makes them poorer in low light situations (they light buckets are just too small), they are noisier, and they have a smaller latitude of workable illumination. So the rule of thumb is, if you're shooting in geat light, mid day snap shooting, and good solid flash photography, go for the 8 Mp cameras. They'll be wonderful in their results. If you're an art photographer, who needs a little more latitude to get the rich colors, or interesting images in low light, stick to a camera with a 5 Mp CCD or Get your hands on a Sigma with one of the newer Foveon imaging chips.

      Genda

  17. Nice piece of kit! by Paul+Townend · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article mentions "The five-year DES hopes to generate about 100 terabytes of data" that will be released to the public at regular intervals....

    This kit is probably one example of why the world needs more 92 Tbs routers; sharing the data generated by this baby will probably be a task not unlike that faced by the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. You're going to have to have a really nice architecture and set of protocols to be able to efficiently pass around these images - possibly this is where Grid Technology comes in to play....

    Of course, then you'll need something to actually process the images on! I guess Intel and AMD still have a rosy future ahead of them...

  18. Nice, but... by Bill_Royle · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is there Linux support for it?

    1. Re:Nice, but... by Wolface · · Score: 1

      and SATA compatible??
      I want to se the pics NOW

    2. Re:Nice, but... by bobhagopian · · Score: 3, Informative

      Though parent is (+5, Funny), the answer to his question is most likely yes. In all the time I've spent in various physics research labs, I've never seen anything *but* Linux. The story would be different if the CCD was being launched (in which case it would probably run on a specially written variant of VAX). But the drivers/utilities for land-based devices are written almost exclusively by the scientists themselves (not engineers), and most of them stick with Linux.

    3. Re:Nice, but... by andrew+cooke · · Score: 1

      the telescope/instrument control systems are/will not be linux, as far as i know, but the data will be archived and reduced on linux (some reduction might also be on suns and max osx).

      i work at ctio, writing iraf software for noao - iraf is multi-platform, but we develop on linux (currently red hat, about to move to fedora, although i also have it running in debian on my laptop - well, i did until yesterday, when i messed up a kernel recompile/install and lost linux completely (it's an x31, so i need to do a network boot to get it back etc etc) :o)

      --
      http://www.acooke.org
  19. depends on the pocket...? by lingqi · · Score: 1

    Last time I drove by some highschools, I located some pockets that could fit rhode island...

    Probably off topic, but if you need a good camera, AND going to japan - it might be a wild thought and all, but maybe you should consider buying one in japan where most of the major camera manufactures are based...

    (in case you actually do this: haggle the yodobashi-camera guys. more likely than not, they WILL negociate)

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:depends on the pocket...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Last time I drove by some highschools, I located some pockets that could fit rhode island...
      SO this was yesterday .. Right?

      YOU DEVIANT!!
  20. All I know of Science I learnt from HHGTTG by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 1, Interesting

    And just like the "scientists" used the FINITE Improbability Generator at parties to "simultaneously shift all the atoms in the hostesses undergarments 12 inches to the left", I'm dead-set certain there's some scientists out there thinking up "alternate uses" for this technology:

    Lower-Echelon-Science-Geek: "mmmm, high-resolution pr0n".

    from the womens toilets , no doubt, as even astronomical geeks don't get "any"

    And I know for absolute certain what all you (well, us) SlashDOTerS were thinking:

    How-TO: Instantaneous Infallible SlashDOT Effect -> Post ONE image from this camera online.

    An alternate title for this article could have been:

    FermiLAB Scientists seek to prove Theories behind the Origins of The SlashDOT Effect

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  21. Imagine a be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ..autiful picture this thing can take.

    Oh, I can't take it! BEOWULF CLUSTER! There, I said it!

  22. Taking a rule of thumb too far... by supercytro · · Score: 4, Funny

    [Person A]I told you before, megapixels don't matter... [Person B]But it's 500 Megapixels... [Person A]500 megapixels, 5 megapixels... it doesn't matter. Everyone knows that. It's common knowledge that megapixels is just a marketing trick. [Person B]But... [Person A]Look I read slashdot and everyone says the same. [Person B]ok...

    1. Re:Taking a rule of thumb too far... by revin · · Score: 1
      Indeed, the more pixels, the smaller the pixels. And the less light they capture.

      But you should read the article : we talk about a one-halfmeter-diameter DECam , so the pixels (15-micron) arent that small as in your pocket camera ;-)
      quote:

      At the heart of the DECam are 60 rectangular (2k x 4k) CCDs, each with 8 million 15-micron pixels. The CCDs, developed at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, are over five times more sensitive at near-infrared wavelengths than conventional CCDs currently used for astronomy. The improved near-infrared sensitivity is critical for the science of the DES, as it allows the survey to obtain galaxy redshifts out to one. The one-halfmeter-diameter DECam will be the first large-scale use of the LBNL CCDs.

  23. But I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    5 Megapixels would be enough for anyone?

  24. Meanwhile, in telescope control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Scientist: Shouldn't the telescope be pointing into
    deep space rather than at that satellite with the
    big mirror on it?
    NRO guy: Nah, this is good.

    1. Re:Meanwhile, in telescope control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe for catching a nude sunbather, but if a person is standing up, indoors, etc. you won't get diddly.

  25. All this camera tech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and we still can't make a camera that takes a decent driver's license photo.

  26. Export Compliance for 500 Megapixels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would hate to fill out the paperwork for the US. Export Compliance paperwork. Oh, it is my government doing it. There's no paperwork req'd.

  27. LOL!! ^_^ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one shift, two shift, red shift, blue shift!!!

  28. you don't need a zoom by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    at that resolution, just crop it...!

  29. In other news.... by RedShoeRider · · Score: 1
    ...It's been reported that Nikon is changing their company's logo from their traditional red to a beautiful shade of Green (with envy).

    --

    Chris Knight is my hero.

  30. Re:Porn ramifications please.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to masterbate furiously, not efficiently.

  31. flimsy info! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just one note: why is information hosted on ANY
    particle physics labarotory page always so vague?
    it's a 500megapixel CCD, that's about the only
    interessting info in the whole page.
    what a bore ...

  32. Better for shuttle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means that when the next shuttle goes up, that they'll be able to take better pictures of the damage before it comes down crashing.

  33. Search for Dark Energy by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Funny

    How can they tell a picture of dark energy apart from a picture where they just forgot to take the lens cap off?

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  34. Waiting on the Nikon DSLR version by AwesomeJT · · Score: 1

    That's nice. But I'll wait on the Nikon or Canon DSLR version of the 500 Mpx. CCD. I really like the interchangeable lense -- really, who wants to tied down to one telescope or lense. :P

    --
    SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
    1. Re:Waiting on the Nikon DSLR version by mph · · Score: 1
      That's nice. But I'll wait on the Nikon or Canon DSLR version of the 500 Mpx. CCD. I really like the interchangeable lense -- really, who wants to tied down to one telescope or lense. :P
      Well, it probably wouldn't be too hard to put it on the Kitt Peak 4m, which is basically a twin of the CTIO 4m, but that's more a change of subject (the northern sky instead of the southern) than a change of lens.
  35. If you build it ... they will come.... by telstar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't take long for somebody to come up with a use for that Cisco router...

  36. they should wait by lordmoose · · Score: 4, Funny

    I heard that the 502 mega-pixel camera is coming out in six months.

    1. Re:they should wait by Dr.Knackerator · · Score: 1

      Yeah and it will be half the price and come with a free docking station.... :)

  37. Meantime... by rozz · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia the "scientists" came up with a dog which could sniff the dark-enery and describe it's caracteristics in barking-code.

    Total Cost : 3kg high-quality bones and 2 packs of cigarretes for the dog-trainer

    --
    "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
  38. high res images are not new by vijayiyer · · Score: 3, Informative

    There seems to be a lot of interest all of a sudden on slashdot on super high res images (yesterday there was an article on a large film camera which was by no means revolutionary or record setting). It's really not that cutting edge. If you go to www.betterlight.com, they're releasing a 4x5 back capable of 10200x13800 pixels soon, and already have one available that's about 100 Mpixel. Granted, these are slow, but they've been available for a long time and are used daily by product photographers. I shoot 4x5 myself on film and make 550 MB scans. It's relatively cheap and very high res.

    1. Re:high res images are not new by whitis · · Score: 1

      Yes, but those are scanning backs. A linear array (actually three for color) is swept across the field of view. Each pixel integrates only for a very small portion (under 0.025s) of the total exposure time (335s). Even if your sensor had 100% quantum efficiency, the camera would have an effective quantum efficiency of less than 0.001%. Add in the the 4 fold difference in resolution and the 4 year sky survey would take 160,000 years. During which, all the objects would have moved substantially, thereby invalidating the survey.

      Also, the better light camera has trouble shooting moving objects (and over 6 minutes, trees move like Ents :-)). However, with a scanning exposure, motion tends to be captured with a lot less bluring than you would expect at the expense of distortion (you photograph objects on the left side at time t and objects on the right side where the were at time t+335); a person walking at the right speed could exhibit some very serious time dilation.

      Of course, if you like taking high res digital photos, have a limited budget, and don't mind the blurring/distorting effect of motion, you could always take an ordinary flatbed scanner, rip off the lid, mount it in the back of a box 1 foot cubed, and mount a decent lens and iris on the front. Depending on the scanner optics, you might need a difuser at the focal plane. Use a scanner with tricolor CCD as opposed to one with tricolor illumination. You can't control the exposure time unless you hack the scanner, so you will have to adjust exposure using the iris or neutral density filters.

  39. Astroid Hunter? by BurritoJ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, if this thing can see 15% of the sky at a shot, can it be used to look for incoming 'Global Killers?'

    1. Re:Astroid Hunter? by DoubleEdd · · Score: 1

      No, it won't take 15% of the sky in one shot. 15% of the sky is about 6200 square degrees, or 8 x 10^10 square arcseconds, according to 'units'. That's roughly a pixel 13 arcseconds across if it did, which is pretty much useless for the kind of science they'll want to do with it I expect.

      What it will do is take a large number of shots of small bits of sky over a long period of time until it has covered 15% of the sky.

      It'll probably pick up the occasional asteroid as part of its survey, but I doubt it'll be efficient at spotting them at all.

  40. Question is... by squidfrog · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...how to combine it with these previous projects: Hmmm...
  41. Will we see many results? by thegsusfreek · · Score: 0, Troll

    I bet that you won't here very much about the results of the pictures they take. They would HATE to reveal any evidence that disproves the big-bang theory and evolution. ;D Though I guess they could probably find some way of twisting things around to try and support the big-bang. Like the idea of a "Red Shift" for which there are several other possible explanations. And the Hubble and the so-called "Hubble Constant" that changes all the time (should be called the "Hubble Variable").

    1. Re:Will we see many results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you people come from? Is there a country that takes peoples brains out at birth and replaces them with cotton?

    2. Re:Will we see many results? by thegsusfreek · · Score: 1
      Yes. It's where you come from. I come from a country that actually takes a look at ALL possible options... not just ONE SINGLE possibility that some scientists force on everybody. ;D

      I also like to thing logically. Example:

      How did cell-division evolve into male-female reproduction? Ummm... seems to me that splitting yourself would be easier.

      How come the Big-Bang cannot be emulated on a small scale at all? (Have you ever blown something up and gotten complete and perfect order?)

      All the dust in the universe came together into a dot that spun really fast and exploded. 1)Where did the dust come from? 2)Why did it come together? 3)Where did the energy to spin come from? 4)If something spins and blows apart, it's particles all spin in the same direction. Why then do moons, planets, even galaxies spin in opposite directions?

      1)The earth is moving away from the sun. 2)That means the earth used to be... closer to the sun! 3)Millions of years ago, the earth would have been burnt to a crisp by the sun. How did the dinosaurs survive?

      1)The moon is moving away from the earth. 2)That means the moon used to be... closer to the earth. 3)At some point in history, earth would have flooded twice a day. Most dinosaurs could only drown comfortably once a day. How did the dinosaurs survive in boiling water?

      etc... etc... etc...

    3. Re:Will we see many results? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh, how nice it must be to be totally innocent of modern physics. (GMm/r^2 is pretty popular in "scientific" circles...you should try it someday)

  42. Dark matter in far away galaxies... by new+death+barbie · · Score: 2, Funny


    so... what kind of flash do I need?

    --

    It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    1. Re:Dark matter in far away galaxies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A really big one, with an amount of energy comparable to the entire universe... and considering how slowly light travels on these scales, you would have to have triggered the flash over 13.7 billion years ago to get any results. The conclusion is that such a flash is physically impossible, you'd better just try it without one.

    2. Re:Dark matter in far away galaxies... by mengel · · Score: 2, Funny
      Well...
      • Really Big
      • Way Back in Time
      Of course, that last one is the hard part :-)
      --
      - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
  43. But... by pedrop357 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Does it work with Linux

  44. cost of storage by pablo_max · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That actually would not cost to much more to store when compared to the cost of getting your film done at a 1 hour photo.
    Considering I payed 10 bucks for a 50 pack of cd's which is about normal. So * that by 700 meg and /by 1.7gig and you've got 20.5 pictures @ 49 cents a pic.Now to develope a single 25 picture roll of kodak APS film is 10.00 (9.99 actually). so thats 40 cents a print.
    Yes I know it would be hard to break the image between three disks but im just saying cost wise its not much at all.

    1. Re:cost of storage by chasingporsches · · Score: 1

      add in the cost of a few-terabyte SAN storage system, and recalculate. they aren't going to be dividing 1.7GB pictures onto 700MB CD-Rs.

    2. Re:cost of storage by Psymunn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Better Yet, Why don't you just register coolAstroPicture_210@gmail.com and store your picture there. Total cost per gig of storage, nothing. Thanks google!

      --
      The Neo-Bohemian Techno-Socialist
  45. RHIC isn't pure linux... by caveat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i did some work at Brookhaven National Lab a while back; i hooked up with a cute chick who was into physics and got to slum around the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider quite a bit (mostly the STAR detector, for those who care). i almost choked when i saw a win2k workstation humming away, but that was just the interface computer (there tend to be a lot of interns and such working, so a windows frontend is handy, cuts back the learning curve quite a bit). the rest of the lot was a hodgepodge of unix kit; the really really mission-critical hardware (the stuff that actually ran the collider) was running Solaris, at least as near as i could tell, along with quite a few linux and sgi boxes around for data processing and visualization (if you want pretty posters, get the gold ion collisions from the website).

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  46. Damn by hkb · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was expecting red shift .5 capabilities...

    --
    /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
  47. are you getting confused by Dr.Knackerator · · Score: 1

    with 640K? That is enough memory for anybody, surely :)

    (sorry to anybody under 25 who probably has no idea why i said that)

  48. This sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was all excited that I was about to buy a Canon EOS Digital Rebel... now, it's just not worth it. There's no way I'd feel even the least bit satasified now.

    6MP SLR... *sigh*

  49. pixel size < cell size by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you're 6 feet tall and we use the long dimension of the image (240k pixels), that's 7.62 microns per pixel. A typical cell is 10 microns, so we've got a pretty detailed picture of you.

    --
    HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
  50. First quick look 500-Megaton ... by j_dot_bomb · · Score: 1

    When I first read the thing I thought it read
    500-Megaton as in h-bomb.

    1. Re:First quick look 500-Megaton ... by j_dot_bomb · · Score: 1

      All you need is two of these and you can destroy the Shadows largest city :)

  51. photo software by cabazorro · · Score: 1

    what is chiefly needed is software that recognizes
    photos that are sideways and automatically rotates them...including the Adam West's picture of Batman rope-climbing a building with Robin.

    --
    - these are not the droids you are looking for -
  52. Dark Info by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Dark matter, dark energy... what about dark information? This kind of information is experienced by humans as "nemory": events that never happened, and are not remembered. It is estimated that the vast majority of information in Universe is "dark", and most memories are nemories. At the Borges Institute of Forking Paths, we are applying the science of schneidics to process the "queebs" of dark info as we explore the vaster Universe beyond our ken.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  53. But for the flash, the Sun has to explode. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...because it's a disposable.

  54. thumbnail gallery? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    700MB files is all? Well trim those down to 70MB thumbs and post a gallery link on slashdot.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  55. Funny Story by Tesla+Tank · · Score: 1

    I went to Fermilab once when they had a open house. I brought back a ruler that says Fermilab on it. When I used it during school, a few of my friends thought it's a sperm bank. That was a good class.

  56. Bandwidth costs money (was re: Filesize?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > I can get a gigabit pipe in any major city for 10k a month.

    No way. Or did you mean you can get a gigabit connection with 0 (or low) CCIR? Because, my friend, no where in the world does a gigabit of bandwidth cost only $10,000 per month. We (company I work for) do 800 Mbit/month in the US and 800 Mbit/month in Korea, we get just about the best rates possible, and we are so far from your mythical $10/megabit that it's not even funny. At $100/megabit, sending a terabyte (ignoring secondary considerations like 95th percentile or unused committed bandwidth), you're talking about approximately $320 in bandwith. So I don't know what other costs the parent was lumping in, by claiming that flying a terabyte was cheaper than transmitting it. Maybe the parent's bandwidth costs him $500/Mbit (more typical for a low-volume user).

    But you're smoking something to claim that it would be $32 instead.

  57. CORRECTION: Queefs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was supposed to be Queefs... Sorry

    Please re-read.

  58. ladies perspire by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Ah, if only queefs were mere nemories: never happened, not remembered.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  59. A Quick Overview of Common Joke Responses by Auriam · · Score: 1
    Response from recurring /. character Person Who Never Gets Jokes:

    "But hey! You can't see Japan from the US because of the curvature of the Earth!"

    Response from Person Who Has To Make Another Joke To Piggyback On First Joke:

    "Yeah, you could reduce the price of japscat pr0n by getting around the import duties!"

    Response from smartass: see above ;)

  60. A beowulf cluster of phones! by Moocowsia · · Score: 1
    Just what every chatter box ever wanted! A beowulf cluster of camera phones!

    Imagine the amount radiation that would give off. :P

    --
    Moo!
  61. Kepler space telescope has 100 megapixels by peter303 · · Score: 1

    This 2007 space telescope will observe a 100,000 stars of tiny region space for years to look for rare planetary eclipses of the parent star. They expect a couple hundred events based on best-guess statics of numbers of planets, orbital inclinations, sizes of planets and orbits, etc.

    Venus makes its "twice in a century" such eclipse of our Sun on June 8, 2004.