5.5 Terapixel camera!

[AlexGT]

Wow! That would be about 5,500,000 megapixels!!!


http://www.gearfuse.com/55-terapixels-huh-mis-advertising-much/
















If it only were true! :lolsign:

 

[tsmith35]

5.5 terapixels is 5,500,000,000,000 pixels. Photo dimensions are about 2 million x 2.7 million pixels. File size is about 16.5 terabytes (bmp24) or 33 terabytes (tiff). You'll only need about 66 500-gig drives to store each photo. Jpeg highly recommended. Batteries not included.

 

[marokero]

Maybe that's the life span, pixel wise, of the camera? Like you can take ~458000 12mp pics before the camera dies? Wow, that's still pretty good, better that all Pro DSLRs with their "punny" 300K shutter cycle life :laughing:

 

[DoctaDink]

Maybe that's an abbreviation for 5.5 "Terrible-Pixels"

 

[DM51]

There's an interesting 2009 Inauguration "Gigapan" photo here. It's a composite photo made from 220 separate images, totalling 59,783 x 24,658 pixels or 1,474 megapixels.

You can use the controls to zoom in on anyone in the huge crowd, even people way off in the distance, and see them in pretty good detail.

 

[marokero]

Gigapixel stitched pictures are reasonable, but that thing comes from the same folks whose philosophies seem to be "if you can't innovate, just shamelessly copy your competition" :laughing:

 

[blasterman]

Gee, I wonder how many American products make the chinese laugh because of translation errors in *their* language.

 

[Sgt. LED]

There's an interesting 2009 Inauguration "Gigapan" photo here. It's a composite photo made from 220 separate images, totalling 59,783 x 24,658 pixels or 1,474 megapixels.

You can use the controls to zoom in on anyone in the huge crowd, even people way off in the distance, and see them in pretty good detail.

Look behind Obama a few rows for the Clintons.
Just off to the right from them there is the top of a mans head partially floating alone and partially stuck to another guys head!

Anyone else see that?

 

[Norm]

Look behind Obama a few rows for the Clintons.
Just off to the right from them there is the top of a mans head partially floating alone and partially stuck to another guys head!

Anyone else see that?

The original post Inauguration Photo
with some discussion about some of the anomalies it contains.
Norm

 

[blasterman]

top of a mans head partially floating alone and partially stuck to another guys head!

It's the same guy. He raised his head during the brief time the shutter was fired between the two shots that overlapped that particular stitch.

 

[Sgt. LED]

Ah! :thumbsup:

 

[blasterman]

Here's another massive pano that's pretty cool.

http://www.360cities.net/prague-18-gigapixels

 

[Solscud007]

Here is the giga pixel camera project.

You can read the signatures on the banner posted on the space shuttle crawler.

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-shuttlenight.htm

 

[Lynx_Arc]

A camera like this would be suited for a spy satellite. I would say have a large buffer that could store one frame and when you take a picture send a lower res down to see if you have the right spot and download the whole thing when you think you do.

 

[blasterman]

You can read the signatures on the banner posted on the space shuttle crawler.

The resolution of the digital shots is much higher. Matter of fact, decent pano stitching software allows a $200 digicam to exceed the 9" x 18" format film camera. Sorry for the rant, but I've reviewed the film based Gigapxl site on numerous occasions during film -vs- digital debates and found the images to be lacking.

The large format film shots show a glaring inferiority with film that it's remaining pundits show just how visually impaired they are. Basically, you have a choice between the longer density range of slide film and better midtone response but limited dynamic range, or muddy colors and contrast of print film but greater dynamic range. I'd rather shoot digital and not have to make compromises, nor fuss over my scanner capabilities.

Also, the Gigapxl film shots have poor shadow detail, which is to be expected with print film, but the highlights are trashed. My aging 10D doesn't blow highlights this badly in daylight in JPEG mode. Authors might want to consider investing in another scan service rather than write paragraphs of diatribe about Kodak tech films that were obsolete during the middle 80s. Probably get better image quality and resolution from current 4x5 / 8x10 Fuji slide films.