image with 2.5 billion pixels!

raphaelS · 21-11-2004 12:23AM #1

Impressive... you can zoom in like in a SF movie!
Amuzing also to spot the bugs (half cars, peoples,...).

The photo:
http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/Delft2.htm

Details from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4022149.stm

Raphael

casso · 21-11-2004 02:16PM

Very impressive indeed.

You can even see in peoples windows.

simu · 21-11-2004 03:46PM

They could've chosen a better looking spot to take it.

sci0x · 21-11-2004 08:46PM

Wonder how much that camera would cost

radiospan · 21-11-2004 09:00PM

simu wrote:

They could've chosen a better looking spot to take it.

I think it was chosen for a few reasons. For one, to show off that you can read the number plates on the cars.

raphaelS · 21-11-2004 09:02PM

sci0x wrote:

Wonder how much that camera would cost

Nothing really "fancy", they used a Nikon D1x:
http://www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite599.html

I know the D1x is not cheap but you can do the same thing with any DSLR and a good lense. The main work is in the control of the motion and the stitching.
And handling a very large file...

Raphael

MikeHunt · 22-11-2004 02:37PM

they kinda cheated though... it's made up of 600 images.

Final image dimensions: 78.797 x 31.565 pixels
Number of pixels in final image: 2,487,227,305 (2.5 gigapixel)
Final image file format: 24-bit colour bitmap
Final image file size: 7.5 GBytes
Number of source images: 600
Number of pixels in source images: 3,537,408,000 (600 images * 3008*1960)
Lens focal length: 400 mm (equivalent to 600 mm on a 35 mm camera)
Aperture: F22, Shutter speed: 1/100, ISO: 125
Horizontal field of view of final image: 93 degrees
Time required to capture component images: 1 hour and 12 minutes
Time required to match overlapping images: 20 hours
Time required to optimise project: 4 hours
Time required to compose the image: 3 full days using 5 high-end pcs
Time required to blend seams / correct misalignments / finalise image: 2 days

Panda · 23-11-2004 01:54PM

impressive,
i think i can go one better,
except i'd need somewhere to put the file.

The image i have is of ground zero (WTC), its a satellite photo.
Very, very impressive.
Goin back to the house and ill post a resized version of it if ye want. Its a 14mb jpeg at the moment.
The detail is staggering and you'd need a pretty damn good pc to look around it easily.

raphaelS · 23-11-2004 02:08PM

Panda wrote:

impressive,
i think i can go one better,
except i'd need somewhere to put the file.

The image i have is of ground zero (WTC), its a satellite photo.
Very, very impressive.
Goin back to the house and ill post a resized version of it if ye want. Its a 14mb jpeg at the moment.
The detail is staggering and you'd need a pretty damn good pc to look around it easily.

I'd like to have a link to the full file if you have one!

Though, the file here is 7.5 GigaBytes... a little bit more than 14mb!

Raphael

Panda · 24-11-2004 12:46PM

True,
i was thinking a more along the line of subject matter.
on a second look its a high aerial photo not satellite.

I've uploaded a much smaller version(15 or 16 times smaller) to me boards acc.
If anyone knows where i can put the other one let me know.

cleeek heer.

febreze · 24-11-2004 01:01PM

I used to have the full file too, but it got deleted from my work PC.

Do you have a link to the full 14MB file ??

Panda · 27-11-2004 11:51AM

no, like i said,
i have the file, need somewhere to upload it!

Only Human · 27-11-2004 01:55PM

Wow u can clearly see some kind of a turd in the left foreground above the blue beatle

image with 2.5 billion pixels!

Comments