Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How About a Gigapixel Digital Camera?

Posted by michael on from the eye-spy dept.

vcullen writes "Ever wondered where digital cameras will end up? What about a 1 Gigapixel digital camera? It would certainly beat the latest array of new digital cameras - the biggest of which only has an 8.2MP sensor! The 1 Gig Digital Camera might not quite fit in your pocket but the thought of it does make one's mind spin a little. The European Space Agency is building this massive camera (actually it's made from 170 cameras) for its Gaia space telescope, due for launch in 2010. Why? They want to map the entire universe 'down to a resolution one million times fainter than the human eye can see.'"

14 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. Pixels don't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All that matters is the lens. By Allah, an 8.2MP camera with a quality nikon lens is better than a 1GP pixel camera with a plastic lens. When will people learn?

    1. Re:Pixels don't matter by Barsema · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hm, but an 8.2MP camera with quality nikon lens is not better than a 1GP pixel camera with a quality nikon lens. zo I guess they do matter somewhat?

  2. How about fewer, but faster by Rufus88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rather than try to fit a billion pixels in a handheld camera, why not try to make sensors that operate much faster. If you could capture a hundred images at current resolutions in the same amount of time as it takes to capture a single image, you could rely on vibration-induced motion of the camera, and use motion estimation techniques to calibrate the images. Then you could use a splatting technique to sum up the images on a higher resolution grid to create an effective 100-fold resolution increase.

    Of course, you wouldn't want to use a tripod with this, or perhaps you'd need a special tripod which intentionally generates random vibrational motion. Sorry if this is stupid, I'm just brainstorming here.

    1. Re:How about fewer, but faster by PatrickThomson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      foiled again! cool idea though, isn't that what the human brain uses to increase eye resolution?

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
  3. Simply amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Lately, the ESA has really shown itself to have the innovation and can-do attitude that brings successes like these. What makes it all the more suprising is that they rely on a budget that is a fraction what NASA spends. Their cooporation and teamwork should be an inspiration - and a lesson - to the NASA, and US Gov't, buraucracy, who seem to thik technological and scientific advancement come by magic if you throw your money at a private company. When will they understand that blind faith in the capitalist system can only lead to their slow decline?

    Put another way, it's not how much money you spend, it's how you spend it.

  4. Been there, done that... by 't+is+DjiM · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gigapixel photography using several camera's is not nearly new.

    --
    --Use ant to make .war
  5. Nitpicking by KilobyteKnight · · Score: 3, Informative
    It would certainly beat the latest array of new digital cameras - the biggest of which only has an 8.2MP sensor!

    Not quite right
    --
    When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
    1. Re:Nitpicking by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, that's not new by any definition.

      Second, these Kodak cameras have larger sensors (although in this particular case larger != better quality).

      Finally, there are such things as digital backs for larger format cameras. Check this one out.

      Canon is nice, but it's not an end-all-be-all in photography.

  6. What are you talking about, 8mps? by AllMightyPaul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can already get 14 megapixel cameras from Kodak. And as other people have said, the pixels aren't important, it's the sensor and the lenses you use.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs14n/

  7. "Only" 8.2MP by rawgod0122 · · Score: 2, Informative

    OK there are a few things that need to be said about that number.

    First you can get cameras that have 25 MP sensors. They are called medium format. Only problem is you will be looking at tens of thousands of dollars (US) up to about $30k.

    Second I have a ~6MP Nikon D70. I can print 8x10" just fine and if I had a printer large enough 11x14 with a little bit of interpolation. One just does not need that many pixels to get good prints, and even less for a computer display.

    If you don't beleive me go check out
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/sho otout .shtml

    and for what 3MP gets you
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cam eras/ d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

  8. Right... by El · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So what's to stop them from pointing this fancy new camera back at the Earth? Perhaps it is not extra-solar objects that they are interested in...

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  9. How about FOUR of them? by dbirchall · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Pan-STARRS will have a gigapixel Orthogonal Transfer CCD array on each of its four telescopes.

    (The site surveys are going on right now, and I work at one of the sites being surveyed.)

    If you can put one of something in orbit, you can probably put a whole lot more of something on the ground for a whole lot less money. ;)

  10. Pixels don't matter - CCD size does by DoctorRad · · Score: 3, Informative
    The best quality optics in the world won't get you past the diffraction limit, so the physical size of the CCD matters too. The diffraction limit imposes the condition that cramming ever more pixels into the same area eventually becomes fruitless: there's no more information to be had in that area. You want more information? Increase that area.


    That said, I have no handle on how the cost/benefit curve looks assigning funds to improving either the optics or the CCD in different proportions.


    Matt...

    --

    Save the Bottom Line
    1. Re:Pixels don't matter - CCD size does by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2, Informative

      The best quality optics in the world won't get you past the diffraction limit, so the physical size of the CCD matters too. The diffraction limit imposes the condition that cramming ever more pixels into the same area eventually becomes fruitless: there's no more information to be had in that area. You want more information? Increase that area.

      It's actually the size of the aperture, not the image plane, that imposes diffraction limits. On the image plane, the limit is imposed by the size of the beam waist you can get given the focal length of the lens and its aperture (which give the angle at which the beam converges, which gives the beam waist size for any given wavelength).

      In the best possible case, you get a pixel size comparable to a wavelength of light (say one micron, for visible light). This requires a lens (or mirror!) with a diameter comparable to its focal length.

      Typical pixel dimension is something like 5 microns. This is imposed by fabrication constraints (which change as process technologies get better) and by the fact that you have to have enough light falling on the pixel to produce a useful and low-noise signal (S:N improves as the square root of photon count, as long as circuit noise is low; more photons = less noise). There is a limit to how much light you can concentrate into a small region of a detector before damage occurs.

      (For more information than you ever wanted to know about at least one type of image sensor, see our research group's web page.)