Slashdot Mirror
The Largest Digital Photo
Photo Shots: 1,145
Computed Data: 84 Gigabyte
Computed Pixels: 13,982,996,480
Color Depth: 16 bit per channel
Cropped Image Size: 8,604,431,000 (w. 96,679 x h. 89,000) pixel
Image Size before the final crop: 10,293,864,000 pixel (w. 103,560 x h. 99,400) pixel
Size on Hard Disk of the 3x16 bit final image: 51,625,586,000 byte
Size of Photographed Scene: 10.80 m x 9.94 m (35.43 ft x 32.61 ft), corresponding to 107.35 m2 (1155.37 ft2).
True Scale Resolution: 227 dpi
Pixel Density: 80 pixel/mm2
Linear Pixel Density: 9 pixel/mm
Hard Disk space dedicated to 16 bit computing: 1.8 Terabyte
Ram: 16 Gigabyte
Processors: 4 x AMD Opteron(TM) 885 Dual Core 64 bit
Shooting on January 30, 2006
Shooting time: 13 hours
Computing time: 3 months
Final Image generated on June 15, 2006
Now we have wall sized wallpapers we just need a wall display system for them. I can't wait :) Downloading wallpapers for my walls is going to be awesome :)
Shh.
What about Google Earth. That's a huge scrollable and zoomable digital photo, bigger than Gigapixel's efforts.
Stitching together 40x40 digital photos = cool.
World's largest digital photo it is definitely not.
Wouldn't that constitute for the "biggest digital image on the internet" ?
Okay, so it's stitched together... but so is this one.
Sigs are for the weak.
Because of the way the painting was centered, if you start out with the default view and zoom in -- all the way in -- you are treated to a sudden and rather unpleasant close-up of Jesus's crotch. On the cross.
Thanks a lot, Slashdot.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
No, they wont.
Sorry to break it to you, but image sensors arent cpus, so there is no moores law or anything.
There is stuff like "physics" and "optics" that have to be taken into account.
To get that kind of resolution out of a single camera you would neeed lenses that are heavier than you (just to beat the diffraction limit), not to mention that the sensor would need to be HUGE (we are at 2-4 um^2 pixel sensor size today (and thats bad already for various reasons). It should be obvious why getting smaller 500nm or so isnt a good idea (hello wavelenght of light?!). Not to mention that the real bad "noise kills everything" would start quite a bit earlier.
This big detector size would again demand better lenses... (think of large format, but with a need for precission like the best 35mm optics.
The only way to do it, in a handheld camera, would be if some breakthrough would enable negative reflraction index lenses (they can be _perfect_) and then using some ultra cooled detector.
Even then the exposure times would be quite long just because of the quantum efficiency.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Find one of the largest files on the Internet... Check.
Find a site with a large amount of people browsing it... Check.
Make a post interesting enough that people will look at it... Check.
Watch your victim's bandwidth bills skyrocket... Check
Smell the great smell of burning silicon... In Progress
Linking directly to one of the biggest files around on Slashdot.
Sheesh.
DYWYPI?
What's amazing is that in 20-30 years, it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that consumer cameras would be capable of taking the same picture at the same 13 gigapixel resolution, and still have enough room left over to store 1000 similar pictures.
Heh, don't I wish. But unless we reinvent optics as we understand them right now, it's not going to happen. 16-22mpx out of a normal 35mm sensor is a limit for *lenses*, with maybe some of the best of breeds being useful at 30mpx, but not more. A lot of really smart people are saying that the megapixel war is going to seriously slow down (especially in pro cams, it's still going to be a selling point in consumer cameras). The consumer DSLR bodies are already surpassing the abilities of consumer lenses as it is right now. Look for cameras with better dynamic range and high iso quality.
the goatse man doesn't learn of this technique....
Monstar L
OK, so I can concede that physical gigapixel cameras may be unrealistic, but couldn't effective gigapixel cameras exist? For example, if a single pixel camera as referenced this past week on /. could take high resolution shots, couldn't they stretch out the technology to work for ridiculously hi-resolution photos?
.1 micron as he said) due to some type of Quantum interactions. Yet today Intel is testing 45 nm chips, and Cyrix is forgotten.
I'm not an optics expert, just a tech optimist. 10 years ago I interviewed at IBM when they were working with Cyrix to match Intel chips. The engineering Director that interviewed me went on and on about how it would be impossible to create chips below 100nm (or
Someone will always find a work-around to push a technology's limits well beyond the end point demarcated by yesterday's experts.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
So it maps a large area with fine granularity. Its flash so I can't determine if its a RGB or CYMK photo. Or even if it details bands in the infrared spectrum. Or wavelengths in the ultraviolet?
Have a little more creativity. As the parent (and child) was trying to suggest, there are so many amazing ways that technology has surmounted so many previous "physics" barriers. How about this as a little potential example. You take your 2016 camera which has a measly 10 or 20 megapixels but incredibly processing power and storage and pan it over the fresco back and forth, not very carefully, and it's intelligent algorithms (and maybe built in accelerometers or other motion tracking) patch together what you are imaging into one large image.
Hell, that's a pretty boring extension of todays very real and practical technologies (I know a team at my university that is doing almost precisely that for aerial photography), why not turn the camera around while you are at it and image the room from a few different angles, get some other art work and sculptures and have the camera create an incredibly detailed, textured 3d model of the entire room?
Anyone who has seen the last, incredible 40 years of progress in technology would be pretty close-minded not to see "gigapixel" and more cameras in the next 10 or 15 years.
I think I found a naked lady sunbathing!
I went to a display by gigapixel of their photos last year in San Diego. They are absolutely incredible! You might not think that this type of resolution would have any kind of effect, but it's incredible to stand 7 feet away and see more detail than you could if you were looking at the actual scene in real life. Definately go see them if you have get the chance. When I emailed and asked about the price, they ranged in prce from $1900 - $7500 for a print out. The San Diego Panorama, Coronado Island CA, was a 5 panel print out (that was the one that was $7500).
The Gigapan device, being developed by CMU and NASA, is a low-cost way to generate 1-40 gigapixel panoramas using off-the-shelf digital cameras. Soon it will be available to the general public. See some panoramas taken with the device or find out more about the commercial version. (Disclaimer: I'm part of the Global Connection project, which is developing the device)
Track 45 left.
clickclickclickclickclick
Stop.
Pull back, track right.
clickclickclickclick
Stop.
Give me hard copy right there.
Man, that'd make for a very boring slideshow round someone's house one night:
"OK, this next slide is Jesus' left eye. We're now only two slides away from the bridge of his nose..."
Summation 2
Well, was He risen? I keep hearing yes, but I've always been too shy to check.
I had read in a UK photography magazine that in the near future, photography will actually be captured on video. Instead of using a camera to get the decisive moment captured in a single frame, photographers might use high resolution video technology to get their shot (lazy maybe?). You can do it now if you wanted, my Fuji S7000 (6 megapixel) shoots in video mode but the resolution sucks (640x480). Put a res of 1600x1200 at least and your original idea is off the ground. All those images shot together, then seamless added together, you got yourself a gigapixel image! The entire movie, Corpse Bride was shot using 2 or 3, 16 megapixel Canon cameras just so you know. (Obviously, those images from the movie are placed after one another instead of being placed next to each other). By the way, in the 2016 most cameras (including the shittest ones) will be well over the 20 megapixel mark. A lot of them are now, the highest you can get (as far as I know is 16 megapixel canon SLR and I read somewhere that Hassleblad have a 32 or 64 megapixel camera for sale.
Jonathanjk.com
Mozart - Lacrimosa
I have no idea what you just said, but since you used the term "quantum efficiency".. I have no choice but to believe you :)
"Where are our flying cars predicted 50 years ago? They should have been here 10 years ago already."
That's more of a driver problem than a hardware issue.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
It's a good point about the angular deformation, but the camera already has distance information from the range finder. This could be used as a starting point to correct the angular problems. Of course the resolution of the farthest points would still be less. The vertical and horizontal pan could be corrected if there were overlap areas.
This would require massive CPU firepower in today's terms, but very possible later. Also, if overlapping or movie data were available, then processing could be used to lower the effective resolution of the final photo by combining images.
This login name for sale.
Someone will always find a work-around to push a technology's limits well beyond the end point demarcated by yesterday's experts.
Examples of where some experts were wrong about the limits to technology does not imply that there are no limits to technology. Some expert assessments regarding the limits may be wrong, while others are right.
I'm not going to pretend I know what proposed limits to technology are solid and which aren't, but here are some to think about. Many physicists think that time travel (at least restricted to back-in-time case) is impossible, and progress on time-travel technology in the entire history of the world is pretty much 0. And while the 100nm limit to silicon feature size was wrong, I suspect the quantum computability limit (the maximum density of computations if every quantum particle were utilized as a computer) presents a pretty hard limit on computational power and an upward bound for the end of Moore's Law. I don't think the laws of thermodynamics will be broken any time soon either- no perpetual motion machines and all the free energy, etc, that they entail. Likewise, for pictures, I suspect it will be difficult to create a camera that does any better than recording the wavelength and direction of every photon that encounters it. Some limits are "made to be broken," and I'm confident that others won't be. Again, these were just examples of some that I think are relatively solid, and I'm not entirely sure of any of them. What I am sure of is that there are some absolute physical limits governing what can be done, and sometimes, the expert's proposed limits on technology will be absolute.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?