111 Gigapixels

[Twilight_guy]

111 gigapixels. Graphics card cry themselves to sleep in a corner when hearing that number. That's a coll picture though and really really cool.

 

[Voxgizer]

Wow, that's getting bookmarked.

 

[Griffolion]

So this is what it's like to be Ezio pressing triangle...

 

[SillyNilly]

This is absolutely amazing! So many details. *_*

Notice the zoom has a zoom in feature for the zoom in of the original zoom in.

That's a lot of zoom.

EDIT: Did I mention the zoom feature in this picture? Oh, I did? Ok then...

 

[Zykon TheLich]

[quote="canadamus_pr

 

[Samwise137]

And yet, all I can think of it...

[HEADING=1]GREAT SCOTT![/HEADING]

111 GIGAPIXELS!!!

Yep. Great Scott indeed. That is a truly remarkable bit of photography. I could look at that image for hours and never get bored. The clarity from all angles is astonishing.

 

[Aedes]

The concept of high definition being brough to the limit, I see.

I like it. :O

 

[auronvi]

For the other nerds that may want to know this. How much space would this image at it's fullest size take up on your hard drive?

111,000,000,000 px * 24 bits/px / 8 bytes/bit / 1000000000 bytes/gigabyte = 333 gigabytes

There goes your whole laptops hard drive.
The above is without compression. You could get it as low as 100 gigs probably but THAT IS HUGE!

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Oh yeah, I'm all broken up about it.
/sarcasm

Oh wow, you even put in the little "/sarcasm" to try and make sure nobody got the "wrong" idea.

Keep it up, maybe someone will believe you

Anyway, on topic I'd like to see the top down google earth stuff at this kind of detail...probably be a bit over the top though.

And maybe someday I'll actually care.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

[quote="canadamu

 

[Canadamus Prime]

And maybe someday I'll actually care.

You really need to drop the faux blase attitude, it really isn't very becoming and fools no one. Perhaps try something along the lines of "Yeah, I was wrong, I made a mistake, thanks for pointing that out". If you can't resist trying to rubbish the other persons correct answer it kind of makes you look like you have a very fragile ego.

I believe several posts ago I said something along the lines of 'ok, but I still think it sounds silly" which was supposed to read as 'ok you're right, but I don't have to like it'
So the reason I have this "faux blase attitude" as you call it is because I don't get why we're still discussing this.

 

[Jonluw]

Haha.
If you zoom in on one of the signs along the road, you'll see that it's an actual clickable commercial.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

I'm... Unimpressed. It's not really a technological advancement of any kind and the actual photo leaves a lot to be desired. The software they used is what I could be impressed by... All this took was time. The time to take a bunch of pictures from a fixed position and stitch them all together. The result could have been breathtaking, but instead it's just a number of pixels because they wanted to break some kind or record.

Not a technological advancement? You know, a lot of the long range pictures you see of deep space that are absolutely breathtaking? They use the exact same technique as this to piece images together. Before digital photography, it was impossible, now it's such common practice that they can do it of a cityscape. That's pretty huge.

That's exactly what I'm saying: The software, the technique, that's impressive. But it's not new. Not from today. Not from this month. Not even from this year. And certainly not with this particular picture, which is what I said. And my other point: the cityscape in question is boring as hell and the website is cheesy-cheap-bad-touristy-shittacular.

I've never tried it myself, but I could do it if I wanted to. All that's required is a solidly fixed position, and a tripod head with independent tilt and swivel with degree markings as well as lenses with overlapping focal lengths so that they can all be covered. You start and the longest focal length you want at the edge (both vertically and horizontally) of what you want your final picture to be and you take a picture. You then zoom out one millimeter while making absolutely sure nothing has moved (hence the solidly fixed tripod position) and take another picture. Rinse and repeat for every millimeter of focal length that lens has until it's completely zoomed out. Switch lenses if your longest-reaching one (such as a 70-200mm or a 100-400mm) doesn't zoom out enough. As I said, it's focal length range needs to overlap so you don't miss a step. Let's take the 70-200mm example; you'd switch it out for a 24-70mm, start at 70mm and repeat until you reach 24mm. If you want wider, you could then switch it out for, say a 16-35mm and work backwards from ~24 until you reach 16. Congratulations, you now have all the data you need for the vertical and horizontal edge of your final picture. Now you put the longest lens back on and frame like you very first shot and using the degree markings on your tripod head, you move horizontally just enough to still see the edge of your previous picture (like you'd do a simple panorama shot) and do the whole zooming out process again. and you repeat everything again until you have a full row of your final picture. Repeat again for every row of you final picture and BAM. You now have a couple thousand pictures that could make a better picture (provided you chose a better location and a better time of day) than that one.
Leading me back to my original point; That process is just time-consuming and simply requires care and minutiae to ensure your shots line up well.
The part that does impress me is how it all gets stitched together to form one mostly seamless monster of a picture.
So the the making of the picture: Awesome, but not new.
The actual picture linked here: Boring shit.

Unless you have the connections to get a sufficiently powerful camera, the super expensive telephoto lenses (they went up to 800mm), and build the robot plus the mounting, not to mention utilize the software I don't think you can say you could do it if you wanted to. Also, it may not be completely novel, but do you realize how big it is to go from publicly funded projects at a national park or federally funded projects in space to just some dude in Spain?

 

[Zykon TheLich]

[quote="canadamus_prim

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

Is anyone else making a mental note of how long it takes before someone finds somebody naked in this picture?

If it was Vegas or Ibiza, 1000 in one minute I bet! I wondered the woods but only found a few drug dealers.

Also two crazy ladies crossing a busy avenue when the cars are on the move.

 

[steeple]

this shit is amazing...

not much more that can be said...

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I believe several posts ago I said something along the lines of 'ok, but I still think it sounds silly" which was supposed to read as 'ok you're right, but I don't have to like it'
So the reason I have this "faux blase attitude" as you call it is because I don't get why we're still discussing this.

We're still discussing it because you don't care so much that you have to make sure everyone knows it.

Well it's not exactly something I need to go crying home to mommy about. So I was wrong? I've been wrong before and I'll probably be wrong again. ...many many many many times, I'm sure.
And I don't need everyone to know it, just you. Now can we drop it please?

 

[Zykon TheLich]

[quote="canadamus_

 

[Pearwood]

Ok maybe, but "thousand million" sounds retarded or like something a little kid would say when making up some really big number.

I know I'm a little late to join this conversation but using the very rarely used British measurement a billion is a million million so thousand million would be correct using that definition of billion.

OT - that picture is just amazing. I think I'm going to bookmark it and have a look around in the morning

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Well it's not exactly something I need to go crying home to mommy about. So I was wrong? I've been wrong before and I'll probably be wrong again. ...many many many many times, I'm sure.
And I don't need everyone to know it, just you. Now can we drop it please?

Absolutely, you see where a bit of politeness gets you compared to a dismissive attitude?

Well I think we had a bit of a misunderstanding because I believed you were joking around when you said "you're crying inside, don't try and deny it." So my responding sarcasm was intended with the same jest. So I was rather surprised when this turned back into an argument.