Slashdot Mirror


Budapest Panorama, at 70GP, Now the World's Largest Digital Photo

hasanabbas1987 writes "It's just been a few months since a 45-gigapixel panorama of Dubai claimed the title of world's largest digital photograph, but it's now already been well and truly ousted — the new king in town is this 70-gigapixel, 360-degree panorama of Budapest. As with other multi-gigapixel images, this one was no easy feat, and involved two 25-megapixel Sony A900 cameras fitted with 400mm Minolta lenses and 1.4X teleconverters, a robotic camera mount from 360world that got the shooting done over the course of two days, and two solid days of post-processing that resulted in a single 200GB file — not to mention a 15-meter-long printed copy of the photograph for good measure. Of course, what's most impressive is the photo itself [Note: requires Silverlight]."

207 comments

  1. No Thanks by ushering05401 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because of the technology chosen for the presentation layer.

    1. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto

    2. Re:No Thanks by Sandb · · Score: 1

      ditto

    3. Re:No Thanks by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I have silverlight installed, but won't be viewing this picture. Sad.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    4. Re:No Thanks by Aranykai · · Score: 1

      me 2

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    5. Re:No Thanks by MollyB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please excuse my utter ignorance, but what is wrong (philosophically, security-wise, or wishing leprosy on oneself, etc.) with installing Moonlight for a quick peek at the picture? Can it be uninstalled? I feel like the little fishy who's mesmerized by the angler fishs' lure...

    6. Re:No Thanks by Dumnezeu · · Score: 1

      ditto

      ditto

      ditto

      --
      Yes, it's sarcasm. Deal with it!
    7. Re:No Thanks by blirp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, it requires Silverlight. Even with Moonlight installed I get:

      Sorry, but Silverlight is not supported on this operating system.
      Silverlight works on Windows and on Mac OS (Intel only).

      ... kind of strange.

      M.

    8. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your loss.

      Works fine in Chrome.

    9. Re:No Thanks by epp_b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because of the technology chosen for the presentation layer.

      I can tell, just by the thumbnail, that this isn't true. It is actually quite a dull photograph.

    10. Re:No Thanks by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because I choose not to use the technology required .

      Fixed that for you.

    11. Re:No Thanks by Peach+Rings · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why:

      1. Would you have silverlight installed
      2. Wouldn't you view the picture if you had silverlight installed?
    12. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a very nice photo; the zoom ability is very impressive. Too bad that some folks hate Microsoft (insanely of course) so much that they are afraid of silverlight. Oh well, the rest of us get to see it.

    13. Re:No Thanks by Peach+Rings · · Score: 5, Funny

      Count me in. Lets give this thing the force of an internet petition.

    14. Re:No Thanks by choongiri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what is wrong ... with installing Moonlight

      I have moonlight installed. Here's what happened:

      Sorry, but Silverlight is not supported on this operating system.

      Silverlight works on Windows and on Mac OS (Intel only).

      Fail.

      I tried spoofing the user-agent to MSIE 8:

      Install the latest version of Silverlight to see this content.

      Fail.

      Props to the photography, but somebody needs to tell them 1990 called, and wants its browser sniffing rubbish back. I would only be mildly bothered that they used silverlight, but they didn't even do it properly.

    15. Re:No Thanks by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      Why would you expect a browser plugin to check the user agent to find its own version?

    16. Re:No Thanks by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      /signed

    17. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, me 2

    18. Re:No Thanks by bryonak · · Score: 1

      I have to agree.
      I'd really like to see that image, but I'm not going to waste hours and money for this.

    19. Re:No Thanks by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      I use XP AC. But when there are already perfectly fine programs, the need for a proprietary and dickwad program like silverlight does not need to be supported.

    20. Re:No Thanks by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The format dictated the content, and the content is uninspiring.

    21. Re:No Thanks by Carewolf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I had no idea silverlight still exisisted. Does anyone actually use it for anything??

      I thought it was just a braindead idea from the corpse of MS Vista that trickes gnomish people into wasting their time. Even on my two windows machines I don't have silverlight installed. I see activex and VG graphics waay more often than silverlight (as in I've seen them used unlike silverlight where this is the first I've seen beyond five year old demos).

    22. Re:No Thanks by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because of the technology chosen for the presentation layer.

      Why do you assume that a lot of pixels will make it beautiful?

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    23. Re:No Thanks by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      Well people think movies are really good when the video is blown out and razor sharp on blu-ray.

    24. Re:No Thanks by Suisyo · · Score: 1

      The subject matter is quite dull, you're right there. The thing that did impress me was the ability to zoom anywhere in the image. Fully zoomed out the scenery looks like it's filled with trees and small nondescript buildings etc, but upon zooming in you can find that what looked like an empty field actually contains a playground with adults watching their children playing. You can even make out the license plate #'s on parked cars, where fully zoomed out you can't even see the cars...I personally found this interesting and worth the look, but then again I didn't have to download anything to view this...I might not have bothered without knowing what I would see beforehand.

    25. Re:No Thanks by brasselv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The technology was not chosen - it appears to be more the motive behind the event.
      Turns out that MS, in fact, is the main sponsor of this thing, according to the website.

      --
      "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
    26. Re:No Thanks by bryonak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you say I should wait until monday, go to a store, fork over some cash to buy a copy of Windows, spend some time setting it up and installing Silverlight... and then claim it's unreasonable to say that they should've chosen a format that is easily available to everyone?

      Choice is very much dependent on perspective. It's hardly valid to claim that it's your fault if you chose not to own a Ferrari.
      Many people could if they really stretched out, got some credits, etc... but it's not worth to them.
      The same way it's not worth to me spending time and money just to view this image.

    27. Re:No Thanks by choongiri · · Score: 1

      Without looking at the code, I speculated that if the server thought it was IE8 and served up the silverlight content, moonlight might be able to display it. The problem isn't that I don't have a plugin that can handle the content (to my knowledge, moonlight should display it just fine), the problem is that the dumb website won't even give me the content, because it thinks I can't display it.

    28. Re:No Thanks by darkpixel2k · · Score: 0, Redundant

      This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because the technology required is only available on operating systems that require you to fork over dump truck loads of cash in order to use legitimately .

      There--fixed your fix for you.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    29. Re:No Thanks by short · · Score: 1

      what is wrong (philosophically, security-wise, or wishing leprosy on oneself, etc.) with installing Moonlight

      That you may get sued (=Fedora forbidden item).

    30. Re:No Thanks by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      somebody needs to tell them 1990 called, and wants its browser sniffing rubbish back

      There were no browsers in 1990, but I see what your point.

    31. Re:No Thanks by noidentity · · Score: 1

      So basically,

      Q: What file format is it in?

      A: It's a program you have to run in order to see the image.

      No thanks.

    32. Re:No Thanks by PPH · · Score: 1

      Silverblight aside, they expect me to judge its beauty on a Netbook screen? This may be a 70GP photo, but its not going to look any better than what I could stitch together from photos I've taken with a cheapo Cannon digital.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    33. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The worst kind of blind is the one wwho doesn't want to see" (proverb where I live)

      Curiously, in this case, this applies to people who keep asking "what's wrong with a closed format?"... those who won't see the silverlicht app are truly the ones who see the bigger picture. How ironic.

    34. Re:No Thanks by T-Bone-T · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wasting time? I don't even remember installing silverlight and it seems I did at some point. If it was a waste of time, I would have remembered it.

    35. Re:No Thanks by v1 · · Score: 1

      ditto++

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    36. Re:No Thanks by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      If you are forking over large amounts of money for Windows, you are doing it wrong.

    37. Re:No Thanks by adolf · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because I choose not to surrender my PC to a convicted monopolist.

      I still have a few machines on which I choose to run a filesystem written by a convicted murderer.

    38. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      just pretend you have a mac and it works just fine with moonlight. install user agent switcher for firefox and use this agent setting:

            Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008061004 Firefox/3.0

    39. Re:No Thanks by rolfc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't hate Microsoft, I hate their business model and the results of it.

    40. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Technically that FS doesn't come from a convicted murderer. He murdered and was convicted after a few versions of the FS he wrote, he didn't write it from a (non-chroot) jail. Poor guy, and poor wife. That's what hunting for race conditions does to people.

    41. Re:No Thanks by camperdave · · Score: 1

      If you are forking over large amounts of money for Windows, you are doing it wrong.

      Yes. It's a lot easier to just give them your bank account details and save yourself the work.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    42. Re:No Thanks by Mr.+DOS · · Score: 1

      Matter of principle? He may have Silverlight installed because he's on a shared computer and someone else uses Silverlight, or as part of a corporate rollout, or even because his employment currently (or once) involved Silverlight development, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have standards.

    43. Re:No Thanks by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      I've never paid more than $30 for Windows. Many people get it for free. You just aren't trying at all if you pay full price.

    44. Re:No Thanks by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Can you load the picture into your browser for a Javascript panner?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    45. Re:No Thanks by Skapare · · Score: 1

      I don't hate Microsoft. I just need a safe secure OS which I can build from source code. As soon as Microsoft makes the source code to Windows available to, and for use by, all Windows licensees (this does not need to be GPL or other license ... it can remain proprietary), then I might be able to use it (depending on how easy it is to fix).

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    46. Re:No Thanks by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because I choose not to use the technology required .

      Okay, so I need to go and buy a copy of Microsoft Windows to view it. Then I find I need to buy a new computer, because my existing one isn't compatible with Windows (the graphics card, sound card and network card aren't supported). Oh, and then I need to go and buy some expensive training courses to learn how to use Microsoft Windows, because I've never actually had to use it before.

      Or, they could just use something that runs on more than one operating system.

    47. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the iDevices even have programs that fetch specific webpages!

      Unix: "Make a single program that can perform one function very well"
      Apple and Android 3rd-party developers: "Turn one website into a GUI application for one platform, because your website isn't good enough to just work normally on small screens"
      Microsoft: "Turn a single photo into an executable that requires a proprietary browser VM plugin and embed that into a webpage for 'easy' viewing"

      Soon: "Don't do anything."

    48. Re:No Thanks by Random+Destruction · · Score: 2, Informative

      nope. works fine here on ubuntu 10.04 x64. It told me i needed moonlight, so i clicked ok, and then restarted firefox. blizzam. big picture and shit.

      --
      :x
    49. Re:No Thanks by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can tell, just by the thumbnail, that this isn't true. It is actually quite a dull photograph.

      There is the girl in the red bra, though she's not really that hot.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    50. Re:No Thanks by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      I've never paid more than $30 for Windows. Many people get it for free. You just aren't trying at all if you pay full price.

      Either you aren't buying a legitimate copy of Windows which could put you in legal trouble if they ever caught you, or you work for Microsoft--or you're a full-time student.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    51. Re:No Thanks by delysid-x · · Score: 1

      That's the same as people NOT doing things because it's the IN thing. It's no better morally than just doing the IN thing and going with the crowd. I'd check it out if I had silverlight. I like to keep crap out of my install so I avoid things like Silverlight and Quicktime and Realplayer and whatnot... (Is Real still even around?) Most of the content of the shitty, ugly formats are available in other formats. Eventually there's a divx version of everything.

    52. Re:No Thanks by derGoldstein · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is the girl in the red bra, though she's not really that hot.

      True, but the one in the black bra is nice, and the naked lesbian couple performing acrobatic sex on their porch is impressive.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    53. Re:No Thanks by nacturation · · Score: 1

      There is the girl in the red bra, though she's not really that hot.

      True, but the one in the black bra is nice, and the naked lesbian couple performing acrobatic sex on their porch is impressive.

      Ah, irony. Well, if you care to look she's in that cluster of apartment buildings just to the left of the default view. Zoom in and she's halfway up the twin towers on the right of the cluster.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    54. Re:No Thanks by old_kennyp · · Score: 1

      This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because of the technology chosen for the presentation layer.

      Yep Me too If any site has the words, "Requires Silverlight" Then I just do not bother even on a machine that can run it like my work PC's

    55. Re:No Thanks by studlyhungwell · · Score: 0

      The medium is the message.

    56. Re:No Thanks by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I had it installed to play games I no longer play (and didn't play often enough to really make it worth the hassle).

      I've been planning to get rid of it, this article just reminded me of it. Also, I'd rather have the original in jpg, tiff or png format.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    57. Re:No Thanks by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Nah, personal comp, just wanted to play some stupid FB games that I no longer play (and never played often to begin with). I forgot I had it installed still until yesterday and am still to lazy to just uninstall it (I do have it deleted though).

      Also, I thought Silverlight might actually be pretty neat. I was horribly, horribly wrong.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    58. Re:No Thanks by JohnVanVliet · · Score: 1

      "If you are forking over large amounts of money for Windows, you are doing it wrong."
      to view a photo -- pay NEVER . I'll pirate win7 for that . Now where is my rum .

      --
      "I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
    59. Re:No Thanks by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      That's the same as people NOT doing things because it's the IN thing. It's no better morally than just doing the IN thing and going with the crowd. I'd check it out if I had silverlight. I like to keep crap out of my install so I avoid things like Silverlight and Quicktime and Realplayer and whatnot... (Is Real still even around?) Most of the content of the shitty, ugly formats are available in other formats. Eventually there's a divx version of everything.

      You are right, it pretty much is the same as doing the in thing. I don't claim any moral ground on this issue.

      I just want to keep Silverlight disabled until I uninstall it.

      QT and RealPlayer (which is still around) are necessary because your assumption of them eventually being available in other formats is fallacious. As evidenced by my Winamp install (along with Windows Media Player not being able to find the codecs to play them, either) will not play the videos of any the MP4s that I download from YouTube (YouTube downloader). I have to use QT or install some sort of converter and go through some more hassle. Nah, keeping QT installed (and limit it's usage and it's gimpy hooks from touching stuff it shouldn't) is much easier.

      I have Realplayer installed because I got some swag bucks for it. I could probably delete it but I've come across the odd file or two that only it would play.

      Right now I need to grab divx, though. Thanks for reminding me!

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    60. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh right. Because what I need is some crap that slows my netbook to a crawl and takes space, even though I don't really use it. The reason why it would be better to settle on using flash there (or even better html5) is that almost everybody already has it.

    61. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, on Ubuntu 10.04 and Firefox 3.6.8... I did a, "sudo apt-get install moonlight-plugin-mozilla"... restarted the browser and it appeared to work fine... though it did display a temporary, "You are running a Silverlight 3 application. You may experience incompatibilities as Moonlight does not have full support for this runtime yet." message. I didn't even have to attempt the 3.0 preview download... http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/prerelease.aspx

    62. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because I choose not to surrender my PC to a convicted monopolist.

      I still have a few machines on which I choose to run a filesystem written by a convicted murderer.

      Herr Führer, you wrote a filesystem? We keep finding new stuff the Nazis built...

    63. Re:No Thanks by Yaur · · Score: 1

      Silverlight runs on Windows and Mac. Moonlight runs on Linux... no need to shell out cash for a new OS.

    64. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked for me using Mandriva Linux 2010, Firefox 3.6.6 (yes, I know I'm behind), and Moonlight 2.99.0.8. I could zoom in so close that I could count the number of chairs on a patio that was miles away. I was looking for nude chicks sunbathing, but I think that's a losing battle.

    65. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We can't be bothered to make our product work on your operating system" really makes me want it. Money well spend.

    66. Re:No Thanks by severoon · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. It's a bad photo. Uninteresting sky. Boring scene.

      Technology is great if it serves the art. This is just a demo of the tech, unfortunately. You'd think with all that time and effort it would have been worth paying a photographer to decide on the content. Oh well...

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    67. Re:No Thanks by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Thing is, there's no such thing as a file format suitable for loading such whacking great images. What application is even going to look at an image that size, let alone display it.

      Most of these applications download a drastically scaled-down version of the complete image and as you zoom in they load the relevant bits, scaled appropriately. You never download the complete image.

    68. Re:No Thanks by l_bratch · · Score: 1

      This is apparently a non-Silverlight version:

      http://pastehtml.com/view/1acy1f2.html

      I can't compare it to the Silverlight version to compare though!

    69. Re:No Thanks by l_bratch · · Score: 1

      A bit of image searching for the surrounding area seems to confirm that the above non-Silverlight version is indeed of Budapest, so is probably the real photograph.

    70. Re:No Thanks by g4b · · Score: 1
      Please excuse my utter ignorance, but what is wrong (philosophically, security-wise, or wishing leprosy on oneself, etc.) with installing Moonlight for a quick peek at the picture?


      Just about everything you mentioned is wrong with it, yeah.

      I want flash to die. Now, even if it reminds me of Vampires in my browser, sucking my CPU-blood, I don't want it to die because of Silverlight or any other Werewolf which could turn at moonlight into something else. I want them to die together.
      There is absolutely no need to use Silverlight to display a picture.
      Not even a big one.
      There is JavaScript. And there is flash.
    71. Re:No Thanks by bryonak · · Score: 1

      True, I didn't know you could cheat the page in order to view the image. Thankfully others have pointed out how.

    72. Re:No Thanks by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      Quicktime is not the only program that can play mp4 files... libmpeg2 and libavcodec can decode the video and Haali can split the container format. Then you can view those videos in any directshow player like WMP or MPC.

      Or just install the CCCP.

      Quicktime is an abomination and it needs to be eradicated.

    73. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hrmm. Maybe _this_ will fix that for you...

      http://pastehtml.com/view/1acy1f2.html

    74. Re:No Thanks by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      and if you think I'm going to spend hours looking for, installing, and configuring that on Windows, your nuts. QT just works.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    75. Re:No Thanks by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      The only reason it takes that long is because you've never done it before and don't know anything about it.

      "Why should I spend hours out of my action packed day to learn x when y works out of the box and is only a level 92 affront to nature"

    76. Re:No Thanks by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      Listen, just be happy I do use DivX. You're not going to change my mind. I hate QT as much as the next person. After installing FreeBSD on my frankenstein's monster of a computer (8+ year old case, mobo, processor with all other hardware of various ages (PSU being the newest)), I just want to sit back and enjoy a movie without having to worry if I have the correct codecs. I'm not saying I already have every codec in existence or that QT, RP, WMP and Winamp play them all, but it covers my bases enough that I just don't have to worry about it.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    77. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too, as if I would ever install silverpoo

    78. Re:No Thanks by andrikos · · Score: 1

      dildo++

      How internet typical!

    79. Re:No Thanks by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      FYI people with that attitude usually use VLC. It's open source and comes with built-in support for every format under the sun, including corrupt or partially-downloaded files.

      Also, DivX is a really bad MPEG-4 decoder.

    80. Re:No Thanks by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      I absolutely hate VLC. I don't use it under FreeBSD if I don't have to and I certainly don't use it under Windows. HORRID program.

      It may be, but in this case it works (I finally installed it and started using it for the legitimately downloaded movies I've been finding).

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    81. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix does the same thing. The only way to watch it in Linux is to run Virtual Box with Windows (So not really in linux). It's not worth it anyways. I used windows with Silverlight installed at work. It seemed pretty cool at first, but the UI was hard to use. For example once I started panning by clicking and dragging my mouse I couldn't stop. If I released the mouse button it remained tied to pan so that I couldn't reposition it to zoom. After about 10 seconds of frustration Silverlight crashed and almost took firefox with it. I managed to prevent a complete crash by end tasking firefox. It's not like I have a slow machine either. The developer machines at my office are pretty powerful. How does a company with Microsoft's resources so consistently churn out bad software. you would think every once in a while they would get it right by accident if nothing else.

    82. Re:No Thanks by bungeejumper · · Score: 1

      I see her ! I am using the Non-silverlight page http://pastehtml.com/view/1acy1f2.html

    83. Re:No Thanks by bungeejumper · · Score: 1

      Then use the non-silverlight link http://pastehtml.com/view/1acy1f2.html

    84. Re:No Thanks by bungeejumper · · Score: 1

      Then use the non-silverlight version of the page - http://pastehtml.com/view/1acy1f2.html

    85. Re:No Thanks by blirp · · Score: 1

      Went back today as it came up on a local newspaper. It appears they've fixed it. Now works on Moonlight (running 10.04 on an x64) ...

      M

  2. [Note: requires Silverlight] by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0, Troll

    Fuck that noise.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:[Note: requires Silverlight] by Peach+Rings · · Score: 1

      You know the platform is bad when people refuse to install it on principle.

    2. Re:[Note: requires Silverlight] by B4light · · Score: 5, Insightful

      OMG, Tribalism

    3. Re:[Note: requires Silverlight] by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      OMG, Tribalism

      Didn't the almighty Shuttleworth just tel us about the linux version of that? Apparently Microsoft made their own version for Windows users. I'm sure they'll tweak a few things, make it completely incompatible with Linux, and then brand their 'improved' version Microsoft Factionism.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    4. Re:[Note: requires Silverlight] by pspahn · · Score: 1

      I have nothing against Silverlight. The photo is actually quite cool to navigate. I am guilty, however, of refusing to install Quicktime or iTunes or any of THAT noise.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  3. fsck Silverlight by jijitus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All that processing, and couldn't create a Flash viewer for it?
    If someone shoots a 70GP picture and no one is able to view it, does it matter at all?

    1. Re:fsck Silverlight by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      No, no it doesn't matter.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    2. Re:fsck Silverlight by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Informative

      no one is able to view it

      I just viewed it. Its pretty awesome actually. Since you can't view it (?) let me describe it for you. When fully zoomed out, Budapest appears is a (pretty small) city in the distance and most of what you see is the surrounding countryside. Then with a very smooth zoom you keep zooming towards the city, until you see very clearly individual buildings and even people in the windows. Can you show me a Flash example of something like that?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:fsck Silverlight by Peach+Rings · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can you show me a Flash example of something like that?

      Meet
      http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1739126&cid=33096788

      This too if you read TFS...

    4. Re:fsck Silverlight by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Obviously not, as this is the largest digital photo. That implies that there is nothing like it.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    5. Re:fsck Silverlight by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Funny

      All that processing, and couldn't create a Flash viewer for it?

      IOW: Damn Microsoft and their proprietary format. They should be more open, and use Adobe's proprietary format instead!

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    6. Re:fsck Silverlight by gnalle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here is a html5-demo that does the same. It works well on Chrome, but no so well in Mozilla Iceweasel 3.5.11 http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Graphics/DeepZoom/Default.html

    7. Re:fsck Silverlight by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd rather use one proprietary, shitty, worthless viewer than another.

      How about putting this together with HTML5? That way nobody has to complain about being tied to an awful crapfest of a viewer.

    8. Re:fsck Silverlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a fascinating image: if you look closely in the bottom, you can see that images are repeated at some place (for instance, there are 3 people on a bench right to the small group of photographer -- ie: under the waterfall) that are also present on the left side of the image (to the left of the place where the stone path hit the grass). If you scroll horizontally all accross the image (ie takes very long, you will see details coming up several time).

      Is the image built with some sort of fractal compression tech ?

    9. Re:fsck Silverlight by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Why do you even need flash? Flash isn't much better, anyway.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    10. Re:fsck Silverlight by macshit · · Score: 1

      works great in iceweasel (aka firefox) 3.6.7 though

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    11. Re:fsck Silverlight by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      You're right. But, for the sake of argument -- if they wanted more people to see the photo, they should have used the platform that's installed on 99% of internet-enabled computers. If they'd used ajax/html5, that would also limit their audience, just to a different demographic.

      The question is: do they want people to see the photo, or do they want to make a statement about standards? (and the answer is probably -- they want Microsoft's sponsorship money, so they used Silverlight...)

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    12. Re:fsck Silverlight by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      More likely, this is causeded by the image being stitched together from many photos that weren't taken at the same time. The people moved, and were photographed more than once. There's an old trick that exploits this in group photographs. Position oneself at the top of the risers at the end where the panoramic camera starts. After the camera has passed, jump down and run behind the risers to the opposite end before the camera gets there. One then appears in the photograph twice.

    13. Re:fsck Silverlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or at least offer a link to download the image as a .BMP file?
      Newer versions of msPaint don't seem to crash anymore with images wider than 3000 pixels.....

    14. Re:fsck Silverlight by MunkieLife · · Score: 1

      That's funny. I just tried it in Chrome 5 and it sucked. It was really jerky. But in Firefox 4b2, it was very smooth. However, with Silverlight it was smooth on both browsers.

    15. Re:fsck Silverlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this is not what is happening there, I just re-checked: I saw the same trees at different spots. In one image, there is the very same bush twice. You can also see weird seams (with slanted 45 degrees trees).

      The image is definitely generated (or photoshopped).

  4. I will probably never see this photo by ThreeGigs · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I've never installed Silverlight, never had to, and hopefully never will.

    Perhaps the did it to save bandwidth? (grin)

  5. 200GB? by kinabrew · · Score: 0

    Are you *trying* to make me hit my ISP's bandwidth cap today?

  6. So they don't want people to see their hard work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't run Silverlight.

    So their effort might just as well be for nought, as far as I'm concerned.

    As they say on the gazillion-sites-and-counting internet: "Next!"

  7. Lets make sure to focus on what's really important by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lets make sure that this discussion focuses on the fact that they presented it in Silverlight and not the open and saintly Flash format. I don't want to veer offtopic here into discussing "gigapixels" and "robotic camera stands". That's not what this site is about.

  8. Unimpressive all things considered by wjh31 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This becomes considerably less impressive when you realize that this image is done with sponsorship from major partners, whereas images like the Dubai picture, or the 50 Gigapixel image in Vienna were both done by individuals.

    1. Re:Unimpressive all things considered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconded.

      I'll not be properly impressed til they get down to atomic resolution using camera obscura shoeboxes made from recycled organic hemp.

    2. Re:Unimpressive all things considered by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      Agreed, and remember anyone can do this with 9 grand worth of Sony A900 digital cameras and a $1000 robotic camera mount.

      These were impressive many years ago because someone had to build the hardware and write the software to do this, but now they sell kits.

      Please /., don't post a story when they reach 78 gigapixel or 83 gigapixel or 92 gigapixel or whatever, /. already did stories on 8.6 GP, 26 GP, and now we have a story on 70 GP. Just tell me when we reach 100, then 500, and 1000.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    3. Re:Unimpressive all things considered by bcmm · · Score: 1

      This becomes considerably less impressive when you realize that this image is done with sponsorship from major partners, whereas images like the Dubai picture, or the 50 Gigapixel image in Vienna were both done by individuals.

      Was one of those sponsors Microsoft, by any chance?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    4. Re:Unimpressive all things considered by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

      1000 for the robotic camera mount is a rip off. There are Pan/Tilt platforms for 50 dollars that have the same resolution as this shit and can be controlled using Pelco-D.

      Then you can use OpenZoom to do the rest.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  9. Amazing details! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Check out the 36th house on the left, if you zoom in enough you can just about see a quarter of a boob through the half opened window. Not enough mega pixels to see if its a female or male booby though :(

    1. Re:Amazing details! by Peach+Rings · · Score: 4, Funny

      And suddenly silverlight penetration in the Slashdot community triples.

    2. Re:Amazing details! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, photography is a common hobby among Mac users and I wish both of them well.

  10. PS by wjh31 · · Score: 4, Informative

    oh, and half of it is sky which doesnt really count. While this is the case with the other two i mentioned, it is not so with the 67 Gigapixel image of Corcoado

    1. Re:PS by Suisyo · · Score: 1

      The image of Budapest was the first time I had heard of these images, but after seeing these 2 links to previous photos like it I more than angree that the images in those 2 were far more interesting and well done than the one with major sponsorship.

    2. Re:PS by sloomis · · Score: 1

      But 1/3 of the Corcoado photo is water, so what is the difference?

    3. Re:PS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the coolest part of that image. Try to use the scrool wheel on your mouse. You can zoom in a actually see the license plates on some cars. The image is in silverlight because they are using deepzoom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Zoom

    4. Re:PS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, You stupid faggot. It's done in Deep Zoom because it's done with silverlight. Deep Zoom is the name m$ gave to a 20 year old technology that we all use.

    5. Re:PS by Skapare · · Score: 1

      But this is not a 360.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    6. Re:PS by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      oh, and half of it is sky which doesnt really count.

      Unless they intentionally degraded the quality of the sky (which is possible), then in the technical sense, it does count. It would even count if it were 99% sky.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    7. Re:PS by ian_from_brisbane · · Score: 0

      oh, and half of it is sky which doesnt really count.

      Are you kidding? The sky is always the hardest part. First you have to start with the corners, then do all the edge pieces, then assemble any clouds/planes/birds, etc., then brute force the rest over the next 3+ months. Imagine the size of their coffee table.

  11. Who cares? by whizbang77045 · · Score: 0

    This record appears to me to have about the same value as a phone booth stuffing contest. How does this advance humanity, or even technology, in a meaningful way?

    1. Re:Who cares? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How does your post advance humanity, or even technology, in a meaningful way?

      Practice what you preach asshole.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  12. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by alexhs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lets make sure that this discussion focuses on the fact that they presented it in Silverlight and not the open and saintly Flash format.

    Nobody likes Adobe Flash (excepted for Apple bashing time).
    We now have HTML5.
    However Flash is an important legacy format that we can't yet ignore (especially when all major browsers don't support HTML5 yet).
    Silverlight became legacy before ever gaining significant marketshare. Why should we care ? Also, as pointed by blirp, it's not really cross-platforms.

    Therefore, expect the same kind of off-topic threads that we get with paywalls or slashdotted links. No access to the material implies random off-topic discussions.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  13. Wonderful by AnonymousClown · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And the ability to zoom in to certain views was pretty awesome. If Ansel Adams were alive today, I wonder what his opinion would be and if he would use such a technique. He would have ot do something. Many of the films he liked to use are no longer in production - at least in the 4x5 format he liked.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Wonderful by etnoy · · Score: 1

      And the ability to zoom in to certain views was pretty awesome. If Ansel Adams were alive today, I wonder what his opinion would be and if he would use such a technique. He would have ot do something. Many of the films he liked to use are no longer in production - at least in the 4x5 format he liked.

      Don't insult the name of Ansel Adams.

      I'm a photographer myself, and I have yet to see a gigapan that looks lood. Why do people think that the resolution is interesting at all? A photo is all about capturing something interesting, and that requires hard work from the guy behind the camera. Gigapixel is the latest excuse for lazy photographers to make boring photos. A great (no, let me say legendary) photographer like Adams doesn't need gigapans. And large format photography is alive and kicking, btw.

      --
      Quantum hacker.
    2. Re:Wonderful by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Practically speaking, this could be an awesome service as well. If you could get it to near real-time (however long it takes to scan the sky with the camera, and then map a geogrid on the viewer, you could like, see your friend sitting at the cafe if she messaged you her position. You wouldn't need to have cameras everywhere if you had one of these. Of course this could be easily supplemented by smaller cameras distributed around and geolocated, as well as satellite video. Of course, it could be used by evil corporatist police states for evil as well.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
  14. Too bad. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Funny
    The they have scenes were you can zoom in to certain parts of the photo. The one that zooms in on the nude beach where it appears that they're filming some sort of Playboy type of thing is really nice.

    Anyway, you don't want to install Silverlight.....

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  15. Works with Moonlight... by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 3, Informative

    The idiots behind the site are using OS detection, so if you're using Moonlight on a non-Windows/OSX platform, you'll need to spoof your User-Agent string.

    Other than that, it works just fine with Firefox & Moonlight on Linux.

    1. Re:Works with Moonlight... by choongiri · · Score: 1

      I tried that. It didn't work.

    2. Re:Works with Moonlight... by camperslo · · Score: 0, Troll

      The idiots behind the site are using OS detection, so if you're using Moonlight on a non-Windows/OSX platform, you'll need to spoof your User-Agent string.

      And Microsoft is a sponsor? Is there anything here for the Justice Department or the EU to look at?

      Artificially impeding interoperability to promote an OS seems unethical.

    3. Re:Works with Moonlight... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is there anything here for the Justice Department or the EU to look at?

      I would hope that the Justice Department would have something better to do than investigate complaints that you can only view a particular photo on a particular OS. Of course, I could be wrong.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    4. Re:Works with Moonlight... by sd.fhasldff · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spoofing as Firefox 3 on Vista worked for me.

      Specifically:
      Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009011913 Firefox/3.0.6

      With Novell Moonlight 2.3.

    5. Re:Works with Moonlight... by choongiri · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that did work. Mod parent to +5 informative, as that's the way to view this thing on linux.

    6. Re:Works with Moonlight... by flerchin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Worked fine in Chromium, with moonlight 2.3. No spoofing required.

      The hatred for silverlight seems irrational, as most of us also have the adobe flash plugins installed too.

      --
      --why?
    7. Re:Works with Moonlight... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > The hatred for silverlight seems irrational, as most of us also have the adobe flash plugins installed too.

      They're different pieces of code, though, written by different people working for different companies. The only thing they have in common is that they are both used inside a browser. The differences - that one belongs to a convicted monopolist with a shocking track record of supporting standards and fixing gaping security holes - appear to be more relevant than the similarities.

    8. Re:Works with Moonlight... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > if you're using Moonlight on a non-Windows/OSX platform, you'll need to spoof your User-Agent string.

      No, I'm using firefox on ubuntu, and microsoft linked to a site where I could download moonlight, which installed painlessly and worked -albeit with a little flickering during loading.

      Dubai and budapest though... has it not occurred to anyone to take these sorts of shots somewhere that doesn't suck, such that you'd actually want to look at them other than for the technology?

    9. Re:Works with Moonlight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      M$ft earned their ignomy well
      no comparison at all to most other corporate actors

    10. Re:Works with Moonlight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked fine in Chromium, with moonlight 2.3. No spoofing required.

      The hatred for silverlight seems irrational, as most of us also have the adobe flash plugins installed too.

      Having one buggy program installed, doesn't mean I want to install another one

    11. Re:Works with Moonlight... by orasio · · Score: 1

      flash is not the same as silverlight.

      Flash is installed in most computers, and there's even a free alternative, gnash. I happen to be using it, it's the only way to get video acceleration in GNU/Linux. Flash is kind-of-needed for youtube and stuff, even though there is html5 video, it's still the most popular video solution.

      Silverlight gives us nothing. In this particular application, it brings us nothing beyond flash (which is already installed), most clients don't have silverlight, and it also gives is nothing beyond html5 (which is better, and an open standard).

  16. Not Ditto by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1
    No not Ditto, Silverlight.

    If it were Ditto, it would be blue and smell like alcohol. Geeze!

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  17. Cool story, bro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No really, totally cool.

  18. Not bad, but ads are annoying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing new besides size. However one thing that I found annoying - couple billboards were added with the sponsor logos that do not belong in the original image.

  19. Just to be different by dnix · · Score: 1

    nice picture, BUT why they used Silverthing? there are much more interesting opensource tools like iipimage ( http://iipimage.sf.net/ ) that they work in javascript, flex and even java! Anyway, I had to use a friend computer to watch the image :)

    1. Re:Just to be different by wjh31 · · Score: 1

      OpenZoom is another popular alternative.

    2. Re:Just to be different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep and IIPImage is server / client. one of the clients is based on openzoom (great library btw)

    3. Re:Just to be different by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      OpenZoom is another popular alternative.

      OpenZoom requires Flash, as I found out after wasting five minutes on their web site. Thanks!

  20. Your loss by DogDude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because of the technology chosen for the presentation layer."

    Great. Do you want a cookie? The only thing you've accomplished is to not see the picture. Nobody else really cares.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  21. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by Draek · · Score: 1

    Silverlight *is* cross-platform, the problem is the website in question is sniffing out OSes other than Windows and OSX/Intel, which is stupid but not a technical problem, lest of all Moonlight's.

    --
    No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  22. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by MikeUW · · Score: 1

    It's fine if they want to use Silverlight, but from what I can tell (maybe I'm wrong) they are only relying on the Web browser's useragent string to check if it can run the application. With the latest release of Moonlight installed on FF/Ubuntu, the default response I got from the website indicates I need to have Silverlight on Windows or Mac. If I switch to an IE8 useragent string (using useragent switcher), it then tells me I need Silverlight 3. I then tried switching to a useragent setting for FF on Vista, and all of a sudden it thinks I'm okay.

    That's pretty lame in my opinion...it's fine to have a warning (although Moonlight already does that for you), but to assume the client browser can't handle the application without actually validating feature support, or at least providing the user with an option to try anyway is not all that friendly.

  23. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Lets make sure that this discussion focuses on the fact that they presented it in Silverlight and not the open and saintly Flash format.

    Those are formats for executable content. I thought this was just a freaking image. Why not an image file format?

  24. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

    It is a zoomable image so it only downloads greater detail for the part you've zoomed in to.

  25. I can see the pr0n... by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

    I can almost see all the pr0n being filmed in the windows....

    1. Re:I can see the pr0n... by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      Just wait -- Google Earth is going to be exactly this. You'll be able to look at how much mustard people are adding at the hotdog stand, and what number they're dialing on their mobile. It'll be voyeur paradise. Don't think it'll just be done from satellites, either -- street view will eventually tap into those nice big camera networks like in London, and they'll rent spots on cellular towers so they can mount their own cameras.

      When you google someone's name in a couple of years, the first result will be a picture of their face. When you do so in 5 years, the first result will be that person's photo, naked.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
  26. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those are formats for executable content. I thought this was just a freaking image. Why not an image file format?

    Yeah, why don't they just post the 200GB image for us to download and attempt to view? I mean, I'm certainly willing to tie up all my bandwidth for a week straight to try to view an image that I consider nothing more than a curiosity. And of course, once I have that 200GB image, I'll spend another day and a half waiting for my image viewer to open the file. And then if I want to pan or zoom, I'll spend another couple hours waiting for it to redraw. I simply don't understand why those idiots used some cross-platform browser plugin!

  27. No thanks by rolfc · · Score: 0, Redundant

    No silverlight

  28. I'm currently working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On an 80 gigapixel panoramic picture of my cock. It will be the biggest photo in the world.

    But my cock will still be tiny.

  29. FYI by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The first Browser ever was released December 23, 1990.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:FYI by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

      He said "browsers", plural.

      --
      Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
    2. Re:FYI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he said "browsers", collectively and therefore inclusive of the first.

    3. Re:FYI by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      But it was in reply to a comment denigrating browser sniffing which wasn't around until there were multiple browsers existing and in serious development.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  30. Why? by uncholowapo · · Score: 0

    If you were going to show off any type of "first", then wouldn't it be probable to use a widely used medium like, I don't know, something that isn't silverlight? Even Flash is better alternative audience wise. I'm logging on to my linux partition to make fun of this on my distro's forums...

  31. Enhance by poity · · Score: 4, Funny

    Enhance.. Enhance.. Enhance..

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:Enhance by spartacus_prime · · Score: 1

      Just show the damn thing!

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
  32. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Earth anybody?

  33. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    All major browsers support HTML5. What major browser doesn't support HTML5?

    They haven't agreed upon a video codec, but that's a different thing, and not exactly part of the HTML5 spec.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  34. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 1

    The fact that some guys reverse engineered the project and built an alternative doesn't mean that a patent-ridden windows-only piece of shit like shiterlight is cross-platform.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  35. Why doesn't Google sat view break this record? by mpsmps · · Score: 1

    I can zoom and pan just the same in Google maps with a satellite photo. Is it that it was done in a single exposure? That seems irrelevant.

    1. Re:Why doesn't Google sat view break this record? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      It doesn't count because it's using a simple portable system to display, scroll, pan, and zoom. For corporate sponsorship, you have to use something proprietary, and avoid all that communist open stuff.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  36. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by Skapare · · Score: 1

    So what is the point of making images this big in the first place? They didn't create an image, they created data for a specific application that not everyone can run and a lot more would rather not run for security reasons. What we need is a well defined and open protocol for fetching the images as needed in little squares. Maybe HTTP. If we get that, then we'd only need Javascript and maybe we could even view the landmasses of the Earth that way.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  37. WHAT ABOUT "sPACE piCS??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hOW MANY gPIXELS IS gOOGLE'S SATELLITE VIEW IN Google Maps?
    hOW BIG ARE THOSE PLENTARY PHOTOS OF THE WHOLE PLANET FROM A SATELLITE?
    These pictures are meaningless.
    I'll paste them together andf make a BIGGER one! ;-)

    Oh great Slashdot... The Captcha called me "RETARD"!!!

  38. Way out of town by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 1

    I was disappointed in it because of the location they shot from. It's taken from János hegy. Although this is the highest point in Budapest, it is so far from the city itself that there isn't much to see.

    There is some waffle on the page about why they chose that point. They say it is the highest point and that the observation platform there will have its 100th anniversary in September. But then there is mention of the support and cooperation that they had from the district council for that district of Budapest.

    So presumably the authorities responsible for the other more reasonable vantage points were less cooperative.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
  39. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

    The point is to make the image as large as possible. Sometimes the goal is the reason. I doubt they said,"Let's make an image that we can distribute with Silverlight." they probably chose Silverlight because it allows you to see the entire image without having to actually download the entire image all at once.

  40. I'll give you a hint... by dugrrr · · Score: 1

    Waldo is waving at you from a window.

  41. For those who will not view it... rationale? by pspahn · · Score: 1
    So, apparently nobody will look at it because of Silverlight. Here, I present you an argument for checking it out. Listen, this picture is pretty big and from the top of a hill looking down 360 into houses and shit. Something of this size, there simply HAS to be some ridiculous stuff captured inside... will you be the one to find it and lay the embarrassment right on Microsoft?

    Maybe you're already too late.

    --
    Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    1. Re:For those who will not view it... rationale? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Like what the heck is going on here?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
  42. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by derGoldstein · · Score: 1

    Nobody likes Adobe Flash (excepted for Apple bashing time).

    And everybody loves Apple bashing time! -QED

    (someone really needs to make an "Apple Bashing Time" song...)

    --
    Entomologically speaking, the spider is not a bug, it's a feature.
  43. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by old_kennyp · · Score: 1

    So where is the installer for Silverlight for my Ubuntu PC I am posting this from?

  44. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So does Flash, Java, JavaScript, etc.

  45. Anon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may be the largest photo taken from a single location.... but I'd say google earth is the largest stitched photograph. Why doesn't this qualify?

  46. This is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the CCD isn't 70MP, the image is. Why not just take all pixels from the highest resolution of Google earth and make a 1TP image and call it the biggest.

    Cool photo though...

  47. Isn't Google Earth a larger digital picture? by SlideGuitar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems like Google Earth qualifies as a much larger "picture".... continuously linked pixels creating a visual representation of reality resembling that which you would see if you looked with your eyes.

    Define "picture" or "photograph" as you will... many map databases integrate images to create images that are vastly larger and more interactive.

  48. I'm no anti-MS zealot, but... by istartedi · · Score: 1

    I'm no anti-MS zealot, but even I won't install Silverlight. For anything. OK... if YouTube stopped working then I probably would; but that's not happening. Give it up, guys. I don't need any more of that kind of crap on my machine.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  49. Where is Waldo? by AngryJohny5 · · Score: 1

    Count 5 parachutists!

  50. More beer by voodoowizard · · Score: 1

    Bah! I liked it and I guess I had silverlight installed. Some drunk night? Anyways, I think the picture is pretty cool. Makes me think I am in some movie crime lab and can zoom in to read a license plate on a car I could not see to begin with. Well of course I still need my depixelator.

  51. Minorities. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    Choice is very much dependent on perspective. It's hardly valid to claim that it's your fault if you chose not to own a Ferrari.

    If the technology in question was like a Ferrari - rare, expensive, and available only to a few... you'd have a point. But the technology in question is more like a Kia - widely available and relatively cheap.
     
    The only way not to be able to view is to be in one of two minorities.
     
    The first are those too poor to afford a computer able to view the image. (Which by your own admission you are not - because if you bought a copy of Windows you admit to being able to set it up.) I'll give and grant this minority, unlikely to be present on Slashdot, has no choice in the matter.
     
    The second minority (and the one prevalent on Slashdot) is those who choose to run an operating system other than Windows. They made their choice (for whatever reason) and now must live with the consequences.
     
    Which minority are you in?

    1. Re:Minorities. by bryonak · · Score: 1

      Selective quoting doesn't get you far when I've addressed the issue in the same comment. I repeat:

      The same way it's not worth to me spending time and money just to view this image.

      It's my choice (for whatever reason), and it's a nontrivial effort to get Windows.
      I'd venture the choice of operating environment is a tad more sovereign than the ability to view a fancy image.

      Now... no desaster happened, they miss out on me as a viewer. In addition, as others have pointed out meanwhile, there are cheats to view it on other OSes than Windows and OSX.
      But the point still stands: accessibility matters, artificial barriers are bad.

      Or, as an extreme example (taken ad absurdum, just to make some kind of maybe not exactly the same point ;)):
      Just because you chose to be muslim but we chose to serve only pork here (even though we could do otherwise), it's your own fault if you starve. And it's therefore no discrimination against muslims to remove all non-pork dishes from the menu.

    2. Re:Minorities. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Selective quoting doesn't get you far when I've addressed the issue in the same comment.

      I might as well selectively quote since you're selectively reading.
       

      But the point still stands: accessibility matters, artificial barriers are bad.

      If there was an artificial barrier - you'd have a point. But there isn't, you've created the whole thing out of thin are. So all you have is confused flailing and ever more strained and bizarre analogies in order to create the impression that there is one.

    3. Re:Minorities. by bryonak · · Score: 1

      Oh well...

      Selective quoting doesn't get you far when I've addressed the issue in the same comment.

      I might as well selectively quote since you're selectively reading.

      I don't realise I've read anything selectively. Care to show a case in point?

      But the point still stands: accessibility matters, artificial barriers are bad.

      If there was an artificial barrier - you'd have a point. But there isn't, you've created the whole thing out of thin are. So all you have is confused flailing and ever more strained and bizarre analogies in order to create the impression that there is one.

      The muslim analogy wasn't exactly serious, I hoped the leading sentence was enough to make that clear.

      Apart from that...
      The "generic" way to solve this problem is to install Windows or OSX, and how is that not a barrier (both money and time-wise)?
      The alternative is to tweak the guts of your browser... and again, how is that not a barrier for the majority of users out there?
      Neither my mother, sister, girlfriend, my girlfriend's mother, father, brother, and two of my neighbours (among many others) could do it, and they're all running Ubuntu*. Works extremely well for them, but they're all excluded from viewing this image by poor choice of presentation technology.

      I know enough people running another OS than Win/OSX and have no problem tweaking their user agent or running Windows in a VM, but there's enough of those who do.

      * And I've only ever touched three of those machines.

  52. Please excuse my utter ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please excuse my utter ignorance, but why does a picture require silverlight to display? What technological problem is insurmountable without the use of Silverlight when viewing an image? Others seem to have managed similar activities without it, so what reason is it to require silverlight here?

  53. It's an advert for Silverlight. Yawn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an advert for Silverlight. These clever PR people are getting smarter and smarter.

    Well they know where they can stick their 70 Gigapixel image. The larger the better.

  54. Yes there is, it's called "jpg" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes there is, it's called "jpg" and I can download a 45GB file in that format no problem.
    I can view it too.

    Al transferred via HTTP or even FTP.

  55. hatred squad at it again. by kanguro · · Score: 1

    Let this thread be an homage to utter stupidity

  56. Where are the people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this Budapest or one of those Twilight Zone towns?

  57. Location of tower picture was taken from.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Location picture was taken from:

    4731'5.66"N 1857'33.37"E

  58. Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import by noidentity · · Score: 1

    Or even just a reduced image that you can click on to get a magnified portion. Doesn't even need JavaScript.

  59. No more by elvena · · Score: 1

    trashy products on the web! We already have to deal with flash!

  60. Look at it HERE without silverplight. by SunSpot505 · · Score: 1

    http://pastehtml.com/view/1acy1f2.html And then tell my why that green transmission tower is pasted into someone's backyard??