Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seitz's 160 Megapixel Digital Camera

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the whew-i-was-worried-there dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Digital cameras had been lagging behind Moores law for a while, but Seitz has taken a massive step forward with their announcement of a 160 Megapixel digital camera! At almost 20" long, with a price tag of around $36,000, and with on-board gigabit ethernet to copy off the image it's not exactly going to take on the consumer market, but how long before we see this resolution in a mobile phone?
Even with todays current range of digital cameras massive images are possible — such as the amazing 720 Megapixel image of Sydney Harbour"

8 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. FT submission by giorgiofr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the submission: but how long before we see this resolution in a mobile phone?

    Enough with stupid tag questions already! Would submitters and editors please stop with this insanity - we don't need to be *led* into a discussion, we're good enough already.

    --
    Global warming is a cube.
    1. Re:FT submission by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Giorgiorfr proposes that submitters and editors cut out the idiotic leading questions in their article posts. But will Slashdotters live up to their promise of being able to start a discussion on their own?

  2. Educated guess by neuro.slug · · Score: 5, Funny

    The sysadmins that host the 720 megapixel image of Sydney are probably not going to be sending you thank-you cards, I'm guessing.

    1. Re:Educated guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Neither is the half-naked girl that you can see in the third tower on the right, fifth window down....(Zoom to maximum)

    2. Re:Educated guess by whitehatlurker · · Score: 5, Funny

      They didn't say that she isn't there - go back and check again.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  3. Re:In a camera phone? Why? by DrDitto · · Score: 5, Informative

    Diffraction ultimately limits the useful megapixels in digital photography. You cannot replace film/sensor area, and the economics of building large sensors will make them extremely expensive in the forseeable future.

    I use a 4x5" large-format film camera. With 20 in^2 of film area and a flatbed scanner capable of 2400dpi, I get 115 megapixels. A drum scan at 4000dpi gives me 320 megapixels if I wanted. And because the sensor is huge, diffraction doesn't hurt me unless I stop down my lens to f45 or f64.

    Now many say you can get this quality through stitching dozens of digital captures together....if that is your sort of thing.

  4. Obligatory Dans Data "Enough already.. by mr_stinky_britches · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I highly recommend giving Dans "Enough already with the megapixels" article a read. He explains the situation more clearly than I ever could.

    --
    Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
  5. Diffraction, shmiffraction... by SnowDog74 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Negative Refractive Index... specifically read the last paragraphs about superlenses and breaking the diffraction limit.

    We're not talking science fiction. The concept has been tested in practical application and yielded orders of clarity beyond the diffraction limits of the wavelengths of light being captured.