26 Gigapixel Photo Sets New World Record

FrenchSilk writes "The largest gigapixel photograph ever created with a DSLR camera was made by A.F.B. Media GmbH in Dresden, Germany. 1655 images, each 21.6 megapixels in size, were taken with a Canon 5D Mark II and a 400 mm lens over a period of 176 minutes. The images were stitched on a 16 processor system with 48GB of main memory, taking 94 hours to create the final result. The interactive view can be found here."

Comments

Woop de freakin do

[GigaHurtsMyRobot]

If you can't take it all in at once, what's the big deal? Wouldn't Google earth have the largest 'photo' since it has an interactive view of the entire globe stitched together?

Re:Woop de freakin do

[Romancer]

I second the motion to call shenanigans.
This is not a gigapixel photo, this is a gigapixel collage.

Re:Woop de freakin do

[David Gould]

I'm still enjoying the phrase "largest gigapixel photograph". I'm not sure how it compares in size to all the regular gigapixel photographs. But no doubt it's much bigger than the smallest gigapixel photograph.

In other news, a ton of bricks actually does weigh more than a ton of feathers.

Slashdot effect

[EEPROMS]

in 3...2..1

Google Earth

[HateBreeder]

If we're gonna stitch photos together, i think Google Earth is probably by far "higher-resolution" than this.

Show me a SINGLE image sensor that can do 26GP and i'll be impressed!

Re:Google Earth

[cmiller173]

Of course it will still be attached to a consumer phone with a shitty little lens in front of it.

FTFY

Re:Google Earth

[Arthur Grumbine]

Read about CMOS Active Pixel Sensors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor

The size is dominated by the transistors, the photo-diode shares the same feature size are the transistors since it's manufactured under the same process.

Moore's law applies.

I have printed out that last post of mine and am chewing on the paper as I type this. Interesting to note, though, is these two articles discussing the upper limits of pixel count due to diffraction. Looks like we're not gonna see a 26 GP camera after all, even with Moore's Law applying.

*chokes on mushy pulp*

It's a moral victo-- AACCKKK-*gulp*...ahem, victory.

lolcats

[tholomyes]

...and 20 minutes later, the world's largest lolcat was created. ("i can haz gigapixelz?")

Actual Largest Photo

[OverlordQ]

Legacy Project, they converted an old hanger into a pinhole camera.

Largest Image Sensor

[HenryKoren]

Some related knowledge: The largest Image sensor (that I've heard of) is part of the "Large Synoptic Survey Telescope" in Chile and it weighs in at 3200 Megapixels

http://www.megapixelmyth.com/?p=127

Shameless plug: check out my blog at megapixelmyth.com

Re:Naked women

[amicusNYCL]

That's not a naked woman, that's Waldo.

CSI style zoom!!!

[syousef]

If you can't take it all in at once, what's the big deal?

Finally a photo that works like photos do on CSI when it comes to zoom!

Re:CSI style zoom!!!

[Brian Gordon]

Now all we need are criminals who will stand still for 176 minutes so we can get a good shot of them.

Re:Actual Picture?

[SEWilco]

Doesn't matter. They left the lenscap on.

I am on dialup!

[fotoguzzi]

(you insensitive clods.)

Boring

[krray]

I couldn't find one person in a compromising position or act.

Re:Is it really impressive to stich a pic together

[Anonymous Coward]

Stitching many images to form one big picture is challenging in many ways: First you need the camera and lens to capture enough detail. With a 400mm lens, it took a 21MP camera to get that much data. If you've ever tried to shoot a crisp 21MP picture at 400mm, you know that even just one of these 1655 photos is an achievement. Then you need the hardware to shoot these pictures in quick succession: The photoshoot took them three hours. During that time, the sun moves, shadows move, the color of the sky changes. The faster you can shoot the pictures, the better the result will be. The banding in the picture is a result of "only" shooting one picture every six seconds. You can't shoot to flash memory cards either, because they're going to be full all the time and you don't have the time to change them, so you need a camera which can shoot directly to a computer. Then you have lots of images on your hard disk and you need to stitch and blend them. Off-the-shelf panorama software is optimized for small numbers of pictures, so you have a couple of problems to solve on that front too.

That said, personally I think that that resolution is too much. Due to the way these images are created, they don't work at all for even moderately dynamic views, they're always full of artifacts from the light change, they usually look quite dull when zoomed out and the interesting bits are lost in a vast desert of pointless detail.

Re:Is it really impressive to stich a pic together

[icebike]

Due to the way these images are created, they don't work at all for even moderately dynamic views, they're always full of artifacts from the light change, they usually look quite dull when zoomed out and the interesting bits are lost in a vast desert of pointless detail.

Pointless detail?

Detail was precisely the point of the image.

Further, simply because you have no immediate use for this detail does not mean its pointless and certainly not a desert. Its all still there when you zoom back in.

The detail on the facade of a building does not cease to exist just because you get in your car and drive a mile away.

This is an attempt to record that. To have the naked eye view and the telescopic view in one set of images.

The practical applications of this seem rich, if we can just get past our little self centered world view that suggests just because you can not experience every level of detail simultaneously, that, therefore none of it is warranted.

Re:Naked women

[dfm3]

So you mean she's not naked.

(typing this while sitting at my computer naked, except for khakis, a pair of boxers, and a t-shirt.)