Slashdot Mirror
Largest Digital Photograph in the World
thrill12 writes "Dutch research institute TNO has unveiled what it believes is the largest digital photograph in the world. The image contains 2.5 gigapixels or 7.5 gigabyte worth of data. It is composed of 600 single images shot by a computer-controlled pan-tilt unit in 7 second intervals. Afterwards, all photos where stiched together (compare: panorama tools) using the capacity of 5 high-end pc's in about 24 hours time."
Dutch research institute TNO has unveiled what it believes is the largest digital photograph in the world.
And now this image is slashdotted! I thought it was bad when some guy posted his high rez, true colour, photo album on Slashdot... but this is crazy! And how long is it going to take me to download that picture anyway? I've got 10 gigs kicking around here that would love to have that puppy!
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
A new record for the hardest Slashdotting has been set as well...
I wanna DL this, and 7.5 GIGS is DEFINTELY gonna /. a server.
Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
Where's the .torrent?
So now I suppose this is a new silly field that people will compete in. Every 6 months we'll have to hear about the latest largest digital image in the world. Maybe slashdot should make an icon... or maybe would should just ignore it.
They proudly introduce The World's Biggest Printer (and toner catridge)
all those pixels and not one nipple! What a waste...
How big would the thumbnail of this image be?
Pretty cool site, the Zoomify btw...
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
I blinked! Aw, man.
....and it involves needing a lot more storage for pr0n.
I hope the land around you yields, a crop like all the other fields, and then your waiting might make sense...
Odd, I seem to see the same guy's face popping up in 600 places.
Fiat Lux.
About a week ago, an "Ask Slashdot" featured a question on high performance web serving. Now we know why.
Not the week I am stuck on dial-up!
(not a very fast, but currently still working) mirror here: http://spider007.net/ext/tweakers.net/niews_35069. html
Thank heaven for torrents!
I'd hate to see this guys internet bill if he puts up a download link!
May the Maths Be with you!
I guess this guy is going to be somewhat disappointed when he hears about this.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
So...it'll be finished this time tomorrow? Or is the submitter simply pointing out that hours are a unit of time?
Eitherway, I can just see the MASSIVE, high resolution billboards now...
The guitars sound good, now give me about 10db more on the cow bell.
I don't know if its just me, but (600 pics * 7 second intervals) = (4200 / 60) = 70 minutes. Wouldn't the sun have changed position or changed its intensity in that ammount of time? I know within an hour where I live, the sun will have gone between clouds, start going down -- changing the intensity of where it is shining. I remember another article posted like this a while back, but it all seems kind of iffy to me....
Seriously what is the point in monster photograph that only a handful of people will ever see in its 7.5 GB fullness. This is nothing more than a crappy PR stunt and Slashot is rapidly turning into advertising central.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
They claim its 2.5Mp. Its closer to 2.3Mp.
I stumbled across this link last year - this guy was basically doing the same kinds of things. See more at: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm
I saw a huge billboard in Times Square Nikon made from a 3 Megapixel Coolpix camera. It was a shot of a dinosaur on a set, for Universal's Jurassic Park DVD launch back in 2000. This thing was like 45 x 65. Sounds like this image is much higher resolution, but if you're going to print it, you wouldn't see much of a difference at equal distances... Seems like a waste of a lot of pixel power just to make a point...
I can just see porn folks saving all their images in at this rez. It would prevent copying of their data.
Hard drive and RAM makers will love this as well. It will drive demand for larger disk drives and more RAM.
I work in remote sensing and GIS, and we make alot of seamless aerial photos (for multiple entire states).
Unless I just totally missed the boat, Windows and Linux have a file size limitation of around 2 gigabytes. Therefore, my suspicion is that the images are stored in separate tiles that when viewed all at once make a large mosaic.
If anyone knows of another way to store this much data all in one file, please enlighten me! The closest I've been able to come is storing all the image data in ArcSDE, a GIS product that allows you to store geospatial data inside an enterprise database.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
2.5 gigapixel pictures? We're still a long way off from having digital cameras that can pull this sort of thing off in one shot, rather than stitching one together from composites.
Life is like an analogy
That was 45 feet by 65 feet (sorry left that out!)
I'll save you guys the suspense: It's a closeup of Tara Reid's boob.
I got there before the slashdotting. I can almost see my house in the picture. I live about 12 km away from where the picture was taken from (by bike, so probably about 10 km as the photon flies). Actually my house is tucked away behind some taller building, but you can easily count the windows on the new Ministry of Education that is just a bit farther down the road.
Maybe
I'm much more impressed by this.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
For all the stories about them, a bunch of EE's get together and the take a picture of ugly buildings?
Then if these were the EE's I knew in college, that would have been the most detailed gynecological ever. They were mad for the hi-res porn.
... let me know when they incorporate this resolution into a mobile phone with a crappy lens.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
I'd like to take this time to point out the lunacy of the 'megapixel' ratings for cameras
A number determined from the multiplication of length and width in pixels of an image has about as much to do with the quality of a picture as the size of your passenger cabin has to do with the speed of your car. Yes, you can print larger pictures without seeing pixels if you have a higher megapixel count, but chances are it's not the resolution of your photos that you'll notice.
A major factor in the quality of any image is the quality of the optics used to take it. That means the lens, the glass used to focus and point the image onto the sensor. Quality glass, such as low dispersion glass (I'm preferential to Canon's "L" glass) will create images with sharp edges, crisp focus, and good bokeh. Use cheap glass and you'll get the opposite. Effects like soft focus, purple halos, light leaking, and distortion will all still be present if you use poor optics, no matter what the MP rating. I wonder how many people have upgraded from a 3 mp to a 4, 6, or 8 mp camera and still found lackluster results.
My point, a camera has many more features that determine quality than just the megapixel rating, when you choose one, consider these as well and you'll be happier. And here's a plug, dpreview.com does some awesome camera reviews (I'm in no way affiliated with them).
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
...I'll look out of the window. Sure takes less time than downloading the image!
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
http://www.kortal.dk/ is a database of aerial photographs covering all 43.000 sq. km. of Denmark, at ca. 40 cm resolution. That would be around 270 GPixels. I'm sure there are larger civil and military databases around (think satellite imagery).
Afterwards, the single photo was uploaded to their webserver and slashdotted in about .00023871 seconds time.
Depending on what you consider a "single picture," I think SDSS (see http://sdss.org/) has them beat. SDSS scans aren't generally stored in a single file, but they are taken in a single exposure (sort of; see http://www.sdss.org/dr3/instruments for more information on drift scanning), and have vastly more pixels than the one presented in the article. The pixels are stored in many files for convenience, but I think it unreasonable to claim that a stripe is not a single picture, but that a single file constructed by stitching together many files is.
If having all the pixels stitched together, but not in a single file, is enough for it to be considered a single image, an argument can be made that the entire survey is a single picture!
-Hil
In a way, this is funny. The best way to handle huge images is by tiling them. I like to play around with maps and satellite images (see here with and without grid) and have learned the lesson that to put that type of large images on a web server, you better cut it into tiles.
Flash based zoom/pan/tilt viewers do the same thing. A bit more advanced, but you download only the part that is currently in view. Even when you open a PDF in your browser, just the page in view is downloaded. And think about those huge video walls.
So, the funny part is now that you take many, many pictures, then use a lot of processing to stitch the results together, and then cut it into tiles again to display the resulting image. Wouldn't it make more sense to put some more effort in that robotic camera control device and make that so accurate that it can take the pictures, still touching, but with zero overlap? That would be cool!! I suspect that making the high precision optics for such a camera would be really, really expensive. Which is probably why TNO did it the way they did.
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
This really is stretching the definition of a photograph. It would be trivial (in the sense the process is already know) to top this by using a camcorder(s) to capture the data, moving the images to 3-d space then projecting the image to 2-D. It would take a bit of CPU time, but it would be just as much of a photo as this is.
Burn Hollywood Burn
and Slashot is rapidly turning into advertising central.
/. isn't all about the ads.
/. for "IPod" or "MP3 Player" and you'll get another batch of examples.
/. follow up story about the work Thinkgeek did to survive the /.otting they got as a result of their first ad on the site.
Turning????
Look at this "Article" and me (Looking at ThinkGeek's rank as one of the Slashdot Sponsors) that
And yes, I went that far back because it was the first example I thought of. Search
By the way, I'm too lasy to look up the
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
...is when Apple will upgrade the photo iPod to accomodate this.
Why not make the icon 7.6 Gigs?
freeminimacs, just becau
It's true that the file size of our imagery is smaller than theirs, as we use Mr. Sid format for better compression, but our pixel count leaves them in the dust.
I don't believe this image is in any way extraordinary or special - pretty much every local government across the country maintains digital imagery of their jurisdiction that is comparible in resolution.
Imagine what'll happen to my HP Photosmart when I try to print this sucker!
Can anyone lend me some paper? I need...oh...say a few crates or so.
Dutch research institute TNO has unveiled what it believes is the largest hosting bill in the world!
Let's rewrite that intro shall we?
Most Boring Picture Ever Taken
Dutch research institute TNO has unveiled what it believes is the most boring picture ever taken. The image contains 2.5 gigapixels or 7.5 gigabyte worth of pictures of the roof of some office park. It is composed of 600 single images shot by a computer-controlled pan-tilt unit that was incapable of actually viewing anything of any interest to anyone. Afterwards, all photos where stiched together using the capacity of 5 high-end pc's in about 24 hours time. Three graduate students died of boredom; services will be held somewhere exciting, like a morgue. Never have so many, downloaded so much, for so little...
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
also it is apparently the slowest digital photograph in the world!
His is just about the same idea and he got it first.
Sindri Traustason.
7.5 gigs? This better be some quality porn
this guy has a bit of bad luck
Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
http://www.earthetc.com/ecwearth/asps/ecwearth_fra me.asp?Image=geodetic/world/landsat742
Breaking the Gigapixel Barrier
Posted by michael on Tuesday December 02, @05:06PM
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.'"
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I know it's risky (risk of slashdotting, of course...), however among the things I do for research there are also the so-called "digital slides", which are digital copies of pathology glass slides. We acquire them with a motorised microscope, at 40x magnification, which means about 0.3 micron/pixel. The maximum area acquired was about 21x45 mm, for a total of 28340 images, each one is 699x572 pixel (analog camera). This corresponds to about 11.3 Gpixels. Usually we remain well under this value, but anyway around 1-2 Gpixel on average.
Please be very kind with our test server: http://www.telemed.uniud.it/eslides/.
(anyway, I never thought this kind of things could become a news item).
... but viewing over the web, and it somehow loses the quality :-]
There is no 2GB file size limit in linux for a long time, and I think NTFS also has a big max file size (64TB or so).
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
You know, some people are Millhouses and some people are Barts.
So where is the link to the picture so he can have people downloading for days?
Okay, is it just me or was anyone else totally expecting to see a 2.5 gigapixel image of goat.se?
/. was becoming predictable they go and pull a fast one...
Just when I though
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
Those of you with massive digital images might be interested in the IIPImage system for viewing large images over the web: http://iipimage.sourceforge.net/
There's an impressive demo with an image of (only) 3.6GB: http://iipimage.sourceforge.net/IIPDemo.html
Not only because of its optics, but because the improvement in image quality I have with the pictures having nearly four times the resolution of my old camera.
More pixels with bad optics might mean more pixels to render noise, but I didn't upgrade my camera because of extreme artifacting or light noise.
I wanted more bits per flick. The benefit of buying a (just widely dropped to $199) Canon PowerShot A75 is not only the ass-kicking feature set, but because they use higher quality components - plastic, glass, paper, cardboard, etc., than some other manufacturers that have a 3.2 or 4MP camera for equal or less money.
Birds like shiny things, Joe and Joann Consumer like quick, flashy numbers.
"Just like a 'megahurt', but 'pixel' is so much more fun to say?! Don't you think Honey?"
It's how they shop - and if they're smart, they also look beyond the number and consider what's inside their purchase. The old adage applies well to digital cameras - 'buy the one that costs 1/3 again more than you want to spend' to get a higher quality product, that you're likely to be more satisfied with.
i made the largest baby photo using 2500 digital photos each one at least 4.0megapixels in size and some as large as 6 megapixels.
exposure started june 2002 and ended early november 2003.
i used MacOSaiX to put it together on a two year old powerbook, and it took about 12 hours.
it's not seemless, but the mosaic effect is cool.
for a minute there, i lost myself...
The scary bit is that enough people bite to make it profitable to serve up that shite...
http://www.novell.com/documentation/suse91/suselin ux-adminguide/html/apas04.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_sy stems
And I would hardly call what ESRI uses to store data, MSAccess, an "enterprise database".
This was cool the first time we saw it and, while not an exact dupe, this is just a group of people doing exactly what Max already did... only this time it's 2.5gigapixes instead of just 1 gigapixel.
Are we going to keep posting every time someone takes a 2.5megapixel camera and stiches the results together into an even higher resolution print?
how big in megs???
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
its a jennicam shot?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
It might also be because you can then do cool stuff, like zooming in on windows, or streets, or faraway clouds... erm, or, er... buildings...
When are they going to put micro-positioning mechanics on the image sensor in a digital camera. You could specify the area you want to photograph and let the camera take the necessary shots. It get's stitched back together and you have a shot much larger than what the sensor alone can take.
... it's going to happen.
I suppose you might need some inertial sensors to track any movement but that could also remove any blur. You would also need some pretty good optics.
Just a thought
10 to 30 hours on a functional high speed line on a good day
50 to 60 days for you folks still on dialup
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Is the "so what" factor lost on anybody? If I stand in one spot and move slightly, snapping a shot each time I twitch, I bet I can photoshop it all together an top this. But really, who cares? It's NOT one picture taken with some fabulous technology; it's just a some art piece.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Torrent please.
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey. 8,216 square degrees imaged and over 6 terabytes of data collected to date, and counting.
Yuck.
Plastic surgery grossness.
The company I work for takes images that size and bigger on a daily basis...
:)
'course we do it from space
You are in a maze of twisty little pasages all alike.
That's fascinating. So what is it a picture of?
You know you're reading "News for Nerds" when the most exciting aspect of a photo is the number of pixels.
Bokeh comes from the number of aperture leaves and their shape(there are some non-straight-edged aperture leaves). It has -absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the glass-.
Furthermore, Canon's $60 50mm/1.8 is plasticky, cheap, blah blah- but it's just as sharp as the faster, metal (heavier) L-series lens, and it doesn't suffer from the mild barrel distortion the L-series lens does. It has fewer aperture blades, so bokeh is not as great- which is pretty much the only reason pros buy the L version. Consumers buy it because they want a red ring around their lens and they don't want to be caught dead with a plastic lens.
You can stare at lens charts until the cows come home and argue about image quality. The L-lenses are slightly better in most image quality categories since they do generally use the very best of Canon's technology, but their chief advantage is that they are built with stronger but heavier materials, aimed at professional users who don't mind that the body is thick metal. Phil Greenspun claims he's dropped his 70-210/2.8 IS on the floor and it worked fine. I'm not about to try with mine, but I can tell you that the thing is built like a goddamn tank, and designed to be modular for easy servicing. Even the tripod mount screw is replaceable...
Please help metamoderate.
from a guy who calls himself "theMerovingian".
We have to take it again. The U.S. had its eyes closed and it looks like Antartica is making a face. Nobody told us it was class picture day!
Damn, hate to be a grammar nazi, but this one always annoys me. There's no apostrophe in PCs. And it's sad to see in almost every flyer from PC retailers they're continuing this mistake.
Correct Usage:
I installed XP on my five computers and now all my PCs are on fire.
or
I installed XP on my only computer, and now my PC's on fire.
Incorrect Usage:
All your PC's are belong to us.
I hope this helps.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Where is Wally ?
anyone got a link to where /.ers can download the full image to see for ourselves? ;)
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
Oh I absolutely agree with the zooming in function. I think that you will start to see serious efforts by cartographers and the military to creat precision images like this. And to your quote at the end of your post you can add, And Friday is the last day of the week, so TGIF!
They went to the trouble and time of doing this project, and the best subject they could find was some rather boring urband area?
Seeing as how they're nerds, I went to the site fully expecting to see some telephoto shot of a girls' dorm room. sigh.......
nt
http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-1.htm
I've been looking into working with panoramic images with my digital rebel and ran across this site. There are some really beautiful panoramic photographs of Washington DC landmarks in the gallery. Max also created a gigapixel image of Bryce Canyon using 196 photographs taken with a 6 megapixel digital camera.
Look at the link in the previous posting. Those people have a single exposure camera of higher resolution. They explain the lens issues. They also have better images, including naked people.
If you look at one of the pictures at 40x magnification, you can very clearly see the borders between the tiles, there seems to be no panorama software or similar involved. I'm not sure this would qualify as one big picture...
"7.5 gigabyte worth of data"
Putting a link to something like that on slashdot....just seems like an excuse to get a new server!
SIGFAULT
If by Windows you mean the Fat32 filesystem you have a filesize limit of 4GBytes, but if you use NTFS (Standard if partitioned from Win2k/XP) you don't have an upper limit.
Buy all your crazy japanese videogames from
"Don't download that picture! We'll exceed our bandwidth for the next three months!"
Here's a mirror, everyone.
The problem is that MP is a sham when you have CCD's that are not all built the same.
Lots of CCD's you see right now have simple RGB filters, and adding up all those filtered pixels gives you an MP rating.
But what happens when you have sensors like the Fuji that rotate the photosites by 45 degrees? It has a real apparent affect on resolution that is not really measured by the raw MP rating.
Or consider the foveon sensor, a stacked array of sensors which has the pixel output of a 3.6MP array but 10.2MP when considering photosites.
Or even the newer Sony sensor with RGBC (Cyan) color filter arrays. I'm not even sure how they measure that.
Then add in the difference in noise levels with larger or smaller sensors, and you have a large range of things that can affect the image quality independant of the MP rating alone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well,there's joined arial footage of my entire country stored on raided hdd's that takes up tera-bytes.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If anyone is looking for a great viewer/tiler for high rez images check out Zoomify. I've been using a copy I recieved for free with a bundle from Erain and it rocks, but there is also a free lite version on there site as well. and it easily integrates into flash. http://www.zoomify.com/
I've been looking for some kind of OSS that let's me take a picture and print it on multiple pieces of paper. Many digital cameras can take absolutely huge pictures these days, and I'd like to be able to make my own panorama style prints. I've been looking for months for such an animal but no luck.
Anyone here have suggestions?
-- I have fans? Wow.
The big picture is that, of course, anyone can do this now.
tinfoil:7.5gigs a day, of a conveyor belt, something like 40,000 'commuters' or 'passengers', some DSP, and you've got Big Brother.
future-creative: 7.5gigs of daily stats on the fisch-farm, independently attended-to feedstock, on automatic around the feeders..
sci-fi: what if suddenly, at such large capacities (7.5gigs) we suddenly start seeing things we weren't expecting
hey-yo: hey, at least we can still all go buy the parts at Fry's at 2am in the morning on a Saturday if we wanna, yo!?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
If the criteria for making the largest digital picture ever entails combining multiple snapshots than this company needs to get b&tch slapped. There are companies that have "taken" far larger pictures using this method. Try 50 GB for starters. This is small potatoes in the photogrammetry industry.
Nice media ploy though, it even worked on slashdot.
Are you intolerant of intolerant people?
Me too, damn it. I'd just gotten a bunch of panorama tools stuff, and was learning exactly how the toolchain worked, etc. And I was so sure I was gonna get a two-gigapixel image of a snowy hillside, or something like that, and become famous on slashdot.
Oh well. The three-gigapixel barrier awaits!
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
...make an image so big, even s/he couldn't download it?
Why hasn't someone pointed this at the moon yet?
Hook it up through a telescope, and map the surface.
Since nasa wont...
Mostly green pixels. I'll stick with film for my important stuff where any pixel can be any colour.
Of course there are limits on NTFS. Googling reveals the filesize limit to be a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes.
Fine, fine, I suppose that's effectively unlimited, and I'm just a pedant. (There's a nifty page with a table about the maximum filesizes in Linux filesystems too.)
--grendel
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Your moment has arrived!
ENHANCE! ENHANCE! Ahh, there's our suspect...
Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
off on the far left are two cyclists. One has a red backpack. If you follow the road up, and take a left past some trees - there he is again, this time without his friend.
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
If you zoom in far enough you can read the license plates off the cars in the parking lot. That's pretty damn cool.
A camera with range enough to take a shot of my entire ballsack.
My company Aperio builds systems for scanning microscope slides. We routinely create slides over 40GB in size. Please see http://www.aperio.com/View/gallery.ksh for some examples.
W=UH
Stitching single images together to form the largest digital picture in the world is not that big a deal. What would be impressive is if that digital picture was shot that way and not stitched or manipulated in any other way to get it there.
As always with hight resolution pictures, you can find some creepy stuff - near a bicycle sign at the middle of the right side you can see a zombie energing from under asphalt.
I'm sure he's in there.. somewhere.
Sorry but I was at a GIS conference recently where they had a 5 terrabyte image of the planet. It was a bunch of satellite photos stiched together. Can't remember which company had it though.
"we're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine and the machine is bleeding to death" - gy!be
It's quite cool, you can read the number plates of most of the cars!
Firstly, quality of glass certainly has a bit to do with EVERY ASPECT of the image created. Use shitty glass, you'll get shitty images, it's that simple. Note that I didn't say the L glass is the only glass that produces quality image.
Bokeh is absolutely affected by glass quality. Especially when dealing with numerous small points of light, such as cityscapes and reflections on choppy water, using low dispersion glass will create smoother but still "contrasty" bokeh.
I own the 50mm 1.8 that you're talking about and use it very often, it's a great lens. Yes it feels like a child's toy but it takes amazing photos. Already it's got a bit of a "stick" in the focusing ring, but for $60 I could just as easily replace it if I found that to be an inconvenience.
I also own a wonderfully terrible Canon 75-300 f4-5.6 III, and I have used on several occasions Canon's 100-400 f4 L (I am also preparing to purchase this lens for myself). I understand that this is comparing bottom-of-the-line to top-of-the-line glass here, but the difference between the lenses is incredible. Yes, there are numerous factors that make L lenses great besides the actual glass, but that still doesn't take away from the quality of that glass.
I'm not trying to start a flame war here, I don't think many people got the impression that L GLASS IS TEH AWESOMES IF YOU DON'T USE IT YOU WILL GET PWN3D!!!! I was just saying that the optics mean a lot more when you talk about image quality than the number of meg-uh-picksuls. Next time I'll make sure to not be a "fanboy" by not mentioning any brand, make, model, country of origin or color or any item that I talk about.
Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
"
Mod down. Pimping Crappy mosaic with dupped images all over made with software that any dick can download. You aren't impressed? They did a lot more than you did you pompous prick. Go back to Deviant Art with your lackluster photography.
Here's a link to a montage of a Dolphin Brain that was assembled with a 10x objective on a microscope.
Dolphin Brain on Neuroinformatica.com
Once you get to the page, zoom in about ten times using the + magnifying glass icon.
The file is 135,000 pixels wide by 200,000 pixels high which would take 77.25 Gigabytes to store uncompressed. The compressed size on the server is 3.912 Gigabytes.
Celebrate Excellence!
Either the Dutch have weirdly shaped cars, or the image of the parked cars on the far right side is distorted...
I know the location where this photo was taken very well. It is from way up in (or on top of) the electrical engineering building (now EWI) of the Delft University of Technology. The church tower in the center of the image is the nieuwe kerk (New Church). This is NNW from the standpoint of the photographer.
...that comes with a half full bucket of ink ;)
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
While the Dutch are to be commended, we Americans have already been creating artistic 4 gigapixel photos in ONE exposure. I refer to "The Gigapxl Project" at http://gigapxl.com/. I have seen a huge print of the San Francisco skyline at the Albuquerque Museum and the detail was so real, it was surreal. I know one of the team members and briefly the camera is custom built and uses 9x18 inch Kodak's Aerocolor III type 2444 film. The vacumn film back is from a surplus U2 spyplane camera. The film is digitized using a mil-spec aerial film scanner. The Prints are from a very large format ink jet printer (Epsom I think). The lenses were custom designed, manufactured and individual lens element matched for an astro camera. Check out the Balboa Park scene sequence. Will blow you away.
Hi.
. html
The following website, assocaited paper and movies demonstrates a system for acquiring, mosaicing and rendering very large mosaics. Although the dataset in the paper is 800MB, the system can scale to much larger sizes.
The acquisition phase acquires multiple images per position at varying apertures to generate high dynamic range images (24bpp). This process is mechanized and programmable lending itself to scalability. The mosaicing takes advantage of distributed computing to compute a nonlinear optimization across many machines (enabling scalability). The rendering software adaptively manages the images in memory using visibility and other methods to enable interactive viewing. The interactivity can be traded off for rendering quality (the progressive rendering can be seen in the movie). Furthermore, the renderer decompresses the high dynamic range from a logarithmic scale to a linear one based on either user input or heuristics for optimal viewing.
The effect is that you can acheive much higher resoltion and dynamic range than previous mosaicing methods or sensors.
Shortcomings are the acquisition times (limited to the mechanical apparatus).
http://graphics.lcs.mit.edu/~neel/omnivis/omnivis
it was taken about 5 minutes after 3.
(two sources in the picture - are there others?)
Keyhole clearly has the largest stitched-together panorama. They have the whole planet.
My favorite part of the picture is the fine example of Dutch parking. Look for the small grey car in the center right of the picture parked perpendicular to the curb. The parking places are angled of course.
The resolution is so good that we can read the car's number plate. Now what can we do with that?
1.21 gigapixels?!
How am I going to display an image of that size? It can't be done, can it, Philo?
So, where's Waldo? :) Couldn't resist
This won't do at all, I can still see some aliasing in the cracks in the asphalt of the parking lot!
I've got to agree here. I was pretty impressed with the write up- using a computer driven servo to snap the shots... then I saw what it was they took.
;)
I mean, really- it's a building.
Its is NO WHERE near the quality of what people like Max Lyons have done, by HAND. They wrote a script and attached a few servos.
That isn't to say what they accomplished isn't impressive- it is. But it lacks the flavour and the art of someone that's striven for a better capture method. I salute them for driving it with a servo- thats grand. Now take that setup out to some impressive scene and photograph that (Say the Tetons of Gigapixel fame) and lets see what it can do.
And if I can drive that servo with my palm pilot, plus some 26aH batteries, then I'm even more interested
But until they photograph something worthy of being captured at that resolution, it'll be no different then sticking a couple of webcams out the window.
Just my opinion.
I haven't found him yet
i didn't bother to rtfa, but that must have been 1 giant camera... :)
Get your torrents...
They didn't even blur out the licence plates on the Cars in the Lot. I mean isn't that common curtosy? Where is the first place YOU zoomed in on?
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
i inherited my grandfather's camera collection, an early 70s Nikkormat-EL with about half a dozen lenses ranging from a Micro-Nikkor macro, to a panoramic lens with a little mechanical jobbie to move the optics parallel to the plane of the film (lets you get shots of eg. tall buildings with no perspective effect) to a beast of a Nikkor-H 300mm tele...god, that thing is sweet. The rig is probably 30 years old and it still utterly spanks modern kit up and down the block - you could club somebody down with it, wipe the blood off, and keep shooting. perhaps i will get a new body sometime, but AFAIK the optics can still be made to fit. canon fanboys indeed :P
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
You can even read the license plate on the car in the lower-left corner.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
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.
It contains an analysis of available data within the film grain structure I saw their presentation at the Camera Owners of the Bay Area meeting and they were very clear about maximum available resolution.
o ba /
http://www.tow.com/photogallery/2004/20040714_c
100 points to whoever finds a naked person.
Im not sure whats going on, but the picture has either been slashdotted, or is just taking a REALLY long time to load.
*snare-snare-symbol*
"Would the owner of car, license plate number 93 DT VR, please return to your car, you've left your lights on?"
Really... (ok, their lights aren't actually on) it is pretty cool to be able to see well enough to make out the license plates of all those cars in the car park way down there...
I mean, come on... whoever the owner of HS ZP 71 is, you should clean your parcel shelf. (why is it called that anyway, if you actually put parcels on it you'd block your rear view)
It may be boring, but you can pretend you're on an episode of almost any crime/thriller show or movie (think Alias or the like) and say... "Wait... I'll just zoom in there... look, there's their license plate, clear as day!
Here is the flash view of it
Oh, and the really tinsy tiny car that fits into the motorcycle spot is call too.
... Where's Waldo ?
There's an IKEA in there. Then again, there's an IKEA everywhere now.
Top right corner, out beyond the buildings with the really red roofs (rooves?). I count 10 blue IKEA flags.
There is a artifact on the red car 50-DN-ZP.
Check out the car-bus next to it.
It's really great, though.
--Brenda
I have an image that is much much larger than that. Through a "good friend," I was able to get a PowerMac G5 with 8GB of RAM. That means that with my 64 bit processors, I made an image that is about 10 GB with a little C code and imagemagick. Eat your hearts out you dutch .......
Zoom in just left of the upper left corner of the large grey building in the lower left of the big picture. There, next to a blue sign with a bike, you can see a head and upper torso of a man walking around with no feet like nothing happened!
Either people in Holland have special powers, or their panorama tools could be improved.
A little bit to the right, you can see a similar looking guy partly hidden behind the building. Is it the same person? Does anyone know him?
It's also good for answering questions like: "Did I leave that pack of smokes on Building A or Building B?"
"Shared pain is lessened; shared joy is increased. Thus we refute entropy" - Spider Robinson
What I find interesting about this is that the 'zoomed out' view looks fake. It looks computer generated. Surely the zoomed out image should look like a normal photo of the overall scene?
Is there something about the way they are producing the lower resolution 'overall' picture which causes it to look fake?
It's interesting because understanding why it looks wrong may help us understand how to make 3D graphics in computer games look more realistic. Maybe the key is making things less clean and perfect.
After zooming in to incredible detail in this picture, I suddenly had the realization that this is pretty damn close to what Deckard was doing in the movie Blade Runner. I'd say the detail here is as good or better as the photo in Blade Runner. If memory serves me, Deckard could "turn around" corners in the photo though. That capability would require a vastly larger number of photos from different angles to be stitched together, and more sophisticated "Zoomify" software.
It's important to mention from a legal standpoint here that there are a few subjects in your photo that appear unawares of the photographer (living or not) that shot the picture. Also, given the power of slashdot publicity, a model release form should have been signed by each such person (some without heads, causing other legal problems such as misrepresentation, etc).
...including the lady undressing in quadrant FF18-A on the third floor (is there a public rating system in effect here?).
Rated M: for Mature subject themes.
-Insensitive clod.
--- Das einzige, das wir zu fürchten haben, ist die Furcht selbst.
That seven seconds between shots is killer for some folks... Check out this screenshot (take it easy slashdot, it ain't that interesting) http://home.comcast.net/~sean.workman/2004/11/worl ds-largest-digital-photo.html#comments/
what happens if they increase it, just keep adding to it year on year will the detail get finer ? does the image quality get better or is that still a lens/analog to digital problem ? oh and they still could of chose a better image, thats an ugly town
creativity people !
Hey! There's a guy floating in the middle of the intersection, near the upper-middle.
More interestingly, notice how they organize their angled parking spaces, on the right side. I don't know how it is in other parts of the US, but I am certainly not used to seeing parking spots printed this way; it seems very logical. Where I'm from, parking spaces are printed as a big, long line, with some smaller lines branching from it, between which you park your car. This is a much less effective use of space, and there is always that big empty spot off of one side of your car.
These Dutch sure are smart.... and foxy.
Or anyone else for that matter.
Woah, you can zoom right in on the car number plates, just like in Sneakers!
fish and pipes
* IKEA store
:)
* Golden Arches
* Rolls of toilet paper
* A weird looking PC
* Camel cigarette logo
I couldn't find any nudity
Did you guys zoom in to see the cars numberplates in the very bottom left hand side of the picture as well? ..... oh.. well i did
I couldn't think of a sig.
On the bottom, about 2/3rds of the way to the right, where the brown sidewalk is, there is a bloke riding a bike. It looks like part of where they stiched the images together. As you zoom all the way in, it looks like one plate had the guy on the bike, and the adjoining frame had someone walking there. Looks odd.
Did anyone find the half bus-half Porsche. It is on a street on the right of the photo. Must be the most fustrating game of "Where's Wally" I've ever seen.
Yet another ironic recursive statement.
And what about "DVD's" instead of "DVDs", "CD's" instead of "CDs" ?
Inspired by the example (and some other projects linked in the discussion), I decided to do something similar myself. A quick search turned up this excellent product:
PT Gui (shareware), based on just as excellent Panorama Tools libraries (open source). Check it out.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
If you zoom in on the field near the parking lot in the center of the image, you can see an older guy -- looks like a professor -- who is picking his nose... He's talking to a group of 3 students.