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
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.
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.
I think the point is they took all of these photos and instead of storing them as separate layers somewhere they combined them all into one huge photo:
Whereas Google Earth and the like, obviously, have more data they are still stored as separate images... (not sure why they needed to connect this one up into one image either, but it must be easier for them to analyse like that)
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?
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
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.
Track 45 left.
clickclickclickclickclick
Stop.
Pull back, track right.
clickclickclickclick
Stop.
Give me hard copy right there.
Well, was He risen? I keep hearing yes, but I've always been too shy to check.