lotsasteam
wow! thats amazing..
I work at Kodak, and I remember the debates in the 90's around film vs. digital..
for many years it was "digital cameras arent as good as film"...digital doesnt have the resolution, clarity, etc. of film.
about 1997 or so that debate suddenly stopped!
because digital reached, and surpassed, film quality..
now digital is WAYYYYY past film!
there is no way film could ever have that kind of resolution..wow..
Scot
I work at Kodak, and I remember the debates in the 90's around film vs. digital..
for many years it was "digital cameras arent as good as film"...digital doesnt have the resolution, clarity, etc. of film.
about 1997 or so that debate suddenly stopped!
because digital reached, and surpassed, film quality.. now digital is WAYYYYY past film!
there is no way film could ever have that kind of resolution..wow..
Scot
I believe this is from many images stitched together, not just one image from a digital camera.
Therefore not really a fair comparison of digital vs. optical resolution.
Greg
Therefore not really a fair comparison of digital vs. optical resolution.
Greg
Before you conclude that this is something radically new, check out this 1848 Daguerrotype of the Cincinnati waterfront
http://1848.cincinnatilibrary.org/
Includes a rail station/yard--from 1848!
http://1848.cincinnatilibrary.org/
Includes a rail station/yard--from 1848!
17 Gigabites? Pah! standard feature on the next i-phone 5...of course you wont actually be able to use it as a phone, cant have everything ya know...
![Image]()
Stan: 1848 and look at how many steamboats are tied up on the bank, I counted about 40+ between all the plates.
Stan: 1848 and look at how many steamboats are tied up on the bank, I counted about 40+ between all the plates.
Great website, Doug.... That's some special technoology.
Wonder what super stuff like that NASA and the Intelligence guys have?????
Super Top Secret (Need to Know) only.
![Image]()
Wonder what super stuff like that NASA and the Intelligence guys have?????
Super Top Secret (Need to Know) only.
Here's the original site for the Yosemite pic:
http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/
Compare to the photos of Half Dome on the site Doug posted taken on one image. The detail isn't quite as sharp when you're looking at individual people, but it's still good. (And while you're there, check out the White Pass & Yukon photo! Pretty cool! You can see right into the cab window to the engineer, and the diamond tread on the steps of the loco.) They're shooting on large-format film (9" x 18"), and scanning at 50 or 80 points per millimeter for those images.
Inch for inch, today's CMOS sensors have the potential to pack store far more "data" than a traditional film negative of the same size. To wit, pull out your cell phone; the sensor in that is going to be somewhere between 1/4" and 1/3" diagonal. That's just a bit larger than an 8mm film frame. Those chips are now anywhere from 2 to 8 megapixels. Now consider this: a 35mm (cinematic) negative has an effective resolution of around 2.2 megapixels. (i.e, when they scan the film negative into the computer for editing, they do so at 2048 x 1080 pixels). That's what the motion picture gurus have decided yields them comparable image quality in the digital realm. The "high-end" acquisition--akin to 70mm or IMAX-level resolution is 4096 x 2160, or comperable to a bit over 8mp. So yes, your 8mp camera could be used to shoot IMAX type movies--if the glass was good enough. Trust me--the glass ain't good enough. The simple truth is that the chips may be up to the task, but the lenses fall far short of the chip's potential.
I see film nearly completely dying in the next 20 - 25 years. The motion picture industry is by far the largest (nearly only?) widespread user of the medium anymore, and technology is catching up with them. Digital projectors are replacing the film projectors, and cameras for digital acquisition are beginning to make inroads (at resolutions greater than 2048 x 1080, too.) Virtually all modern film and video is digitally processed now, so that "film look" you could "only" get from shooting on celluloid has become easy to replicate digitally.
(Which reminds me... I really need to dig out my 8mm projector and put it up with my camera collection.)
Later,
K
http://www.yosemite-17-gigapixels.com/
Compare to the photos of Half Dome on the site Doug posted taken on one image. The detail isn't quite as sharp when you're looking at individual people, but it's still good. (And while you're there, check out the White Pass & Yukon photo! Pretty cool! You can see right into the cab window to the engineer, and the diamond tread on the steps of the loco.) They're shooting on large-format film (9" x 18"), and scanning at 50 or 80 points per millimeter for those images.
Inch for inch, today's CMOS sensors have the potential to pack store far more "data" than a traditional film negative of the same size. To wit, pull out your cell phone; the sensor in that is going to be somewhere between 1/4" and 1/3" diagonal. That's just a bit larger than an 8mm film frame. Those chips are now anywhere from 2 to 8 megapixels. Now consider this: a 35mm (cinematic) negative has an effective resolution of around 2.2 megapixels. (i.e, when they scan the film negative into the computer for editing, they do so at 2048 x 1080 pixels). That's what the motion picture gurus have decided yields them comparable image quality in the digital realm. The "high-end" acquisition--akin to 70mm or IMAX-level resolution is 4096 x 2160, or comperable to a bit over 8mp. So yes, your 8mp camera could be used to shoot IMAX type movies--if the glass was good enough. Trust me--the glass ain't good enough. The simple truth is that the chips may be up to the task, but the lenses fall far short of the chip's potential.
I see film nearly completely dying in the next 20 - 25 years. The motion picture industry is by far the largest (nearly only?) widespread user of the medium anymore, and technology is catching up with them. Digital projectors are replacing the film projectors, and cameras for digital acquisition are beginning to make inroads (at resolutions greater than 2048 x 1080, too.) Virtually all modern film and video is digitally processed now, so that "film look" you could "only" get from shooting on celluloid has become easy to replicate digitally.
(Which reminds me... I really need to dig out my 8mm projector and put it up with my camera collection.)
Later,
K
In 1961, English physicist and author Arthur C. Clarke wrote in his book, Profiles of the Future, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". At that time that phrase didn't carry much weight. Today, it is quoted frequently as we now understand that there is a great deal of truth in this. Regards, Dennis.
Assuming that the 17 gig photo is an actual single image with that degree of resolution, I'd be interested in knowing more about the hardware. What type of camera and lens was used? What were the exposure paramaters? To render that much detail and resolution the glass would almost have to be military or NASA spec. Otherwise the abberations induced by minute flaws in the grinding of the lens would become very apparent. Based on the "flow" of the waterfall, I'd assume a shutter speed of slower than 1/15 of a second, but with the sharpness of the motorcycle I'd also guess it would have to be faster than 1/60th. I'm suspect to say the least.
It's a single "image" in the sense that it's a single file. It was NOT taken at one point in time with a single "shot" from a camera, but indeed multiple images scanned and stitched together.
You need to read the site mentioned above carefully and read a couple of pages into the technology, not just the first page. Calling it a "camera" is misleading, it's an entire process...
For those not willing to read that much, this picture from the site showing the process should make that clear:
![Image]()
Greg
You need to read the site mentioned above carefully and read a couple of pages into the technology, not just the first page. Calling it a "camera" is misleading, it's an entire process...
For those not willing to read that much, this picture from the site showing the process should make that clear:
Greg
Stitching together multiple overlapping images has been a technique of serious/pro photographers for many years. In the strictly film era, it could be an exercise in frustration as even carefully, tripod stabilized prints could have varying tonalities just from the difference in declination to the sun as you rotate the camera.
Today, with Photoshop, or GIMP, it is much easier to get everything to match up and blend together, but you still have to set up the shots. Even with a Nikon D3s, with a 24-odd mexapixel sensor, a 17GB photo would take 708 photos shot with perfect registration. With 10% overlap on all four sides, you'd be up to well over a 1000!
Fear not, however, there is a solution .....
See:
http://gigapansystems.com/
I know several friends that have one of these things. Mucho bucks, but they work really, really well.
Usual disclaimers apply
Brian
Today, with Photoshop, or GIMP, it is much easier to get everything to match up and blend together, but you still have to set up the shots. Even with a Nikon D3s, with a 24-odd mexapixel sensor, a 17GB photo would take 708 photos shot with perfect registration. With 10% overlap on all four sides, you'd be up to well over a 1000!
Fear not, however, there is a solution .....
See:
http://gigapansystems.com/
I know several friends that have one of these things. Mucho bucks, but they work really, really well.
Usual disclaimers apply
Brian
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
