Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Largest Digital Photo

Posted by kdawson on Mon Oct 30, 2006 02:03 AM
from the brushstrokes dept.
Media
Gigapixel writes to point us to what is claimed to be the largest digital photo on the Net, at 8.6 Gigapixel. It is a composite photo of the "Parete Gaudenziana," a fresco painted by Gaudenzio Ferrari, dated 1513. This fresco is in the Church of Santa Maria delle Grazie, in the convent of Varallo Sesia, diocese of Novara and Province of Vercelli, Italy. The site uses Flash to let you explore the fresco over a zoom range of more than 180 to 1. The photo is made up of 1145 images, each 12.2 Mpixel and 16 bits per color channel. Read on for more technical specs of the photo.

Photo Shots: 1,145
Computed Data: 84 Gigabyte
Computed Pixels: 13,982,996,480
Color Depth: 16 bit per channel

Cropped Image Size: 8,604,431,000 (w. 96,679 x h. 89,000) pixel
Image Size before the final crop: 10,293,864,000 pixel (w. 103,560 x h. 99,400) pixel
Size on Hard Disk of the 3x16 bit final image: 51,625,586,000 byte

Size of Photographed Scene: 10.80 m x 9.94 m (35.43 ft x 32.61 ft), corresponding to 107.35 m2 (1155.37 ft2).

True Scale Resolution: 227 dpi
Pixel Density: 80 pixel/mm2
Linear Pixel Density: 9 pixel/mm

Hard Disk space dedicated to 16 bit computing: 1.8 Terabyte
Ram: 16 Gigabyte
Processors: 4 x AMD Opteron(TM) 885 Dual Core 64 bit

Shooting on January 30, 2006
Shooting time: 13 hours
Computing time: 3 months
Final Image generated on June 15, 2006

+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Hardware: 26 Gigapixel Photo Sets New World Record 139 comments
FrenchSilk writes "The largest gigapixel photograph ever created with a DSLR camera was made by A.F.B. Media GmbH in Dresden, Germany. 1655 images, each 21.6 megapixels in size, were taken with a Canon 5D Mark II and a 400 mm lens over a period of 176 minutes. The images were stitched on a 16 processor system with 48GB of main memory, taking 94 hours to create the final result. The interactive view can be found here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

The Largest Digital Photo 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • The site is pretty slow to load up initially (understandably with the flash), but it's worth taking the time to view this fantastic work. The clarity and detail are superb, you can see every brushstroke, chipped paint flake, and any little imperfection (all in a Google Maps-esque viewer). I've never seen such detail firsthand at a museum!

    What's amazing is that in 20-30 years, it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that consumer cameras would be capable of taking the same picture at the same 13 gigapixe
    • Wouldn't that constitute for the "biggest digital image on the internet" ?

      Okay, so it's stitched together... but so is this one.

      • Re:Talking about google maps... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nachmore (922129) on Monday October 30 2006, @02:22AM (#16639297)

        I think the point is they took all of these photos and instead of storing them as separate layers somewhere they combined them all into one huge photo:

        Size on Hard Disk of the 3x16 bit final image: 51,625,586,000 byte"

        Whereas Google Earth and the like, obviously, have more data they are still stored as separate images... (not sure why they needed to connect this one up into one image either, but it must be easier for them to analyse like that)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Curtman (556920)
          Whereas Google Earth and the like, obviously, have more data they are still stored as separate images... (not sure why they needed to connect this one up into one image either, but it must be easier for them to analyse like that)

          Maybe they couldn't get their hands on one of these. [nrc-cnrc.gc.ca]

    • Re:Wow - worth checking out (Score:5, Interesting)

      by imsabbel (611519) on Monday October 30 2006, @02:23AM (#16639299)
      No, they wont.
      Sorry to break it to you, but image sensors arent cpus, so there is no moores law or anything.
      There is stuff like "physics" and "optics" that have to be taken into account.

      To get that kind of resolution out of a single camera you would neeed lenses that are heavier than you (just to beat the diffraction limit), not to mention that the sensor would need to be HUGE (we are at 2-4 um^2 pixel sensor size today (and thats bad already for various reasons). It should be obvious why getting smaller 500nm or so isnt a good idea (hello wavelenght of light?!). Not to mention that the real bad "noise kills everything" would start quite a bit earlier.
      This big detector size would again demand better lenses... (think of large format, but with a need for precission like the best 35mm optics.

      The only way to do it, in a handheld camera, would be if some breakthrough would enable negative reflraction index lenses (they can be _perfect_) and then using some ultra cooled detector.
      Even then the exposure times would be quite long just because of the quantum efficiency.

      • Re:Wow - worth checking out (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Salvance (1014001) * on Monday October 30 2006, @02:37AM (#16639361) Homepage Journal
        OK, so I can concede that physical gigapixel cameras may be unrealistic, but couldn't effective gigapixel cameras exist? For example, if a single pixel camera as referenced this past week on /. [slashdot.org] could take high resolution shots, couldn't they stretch out the technology to work for ridiculously hi-resolution photos?

        I'm not an optics expert, just a tech optimist. 10 years ago I interviewed at IBM when they were working with Cyrix to match Intel chips. The engineering Director that interviewed me went on and on about how it would be impossible to create chips below 100nm (or .1 micron as he said) due to some type of Quantum interactions. Yet today Intel is testing 45 nm chips, and Cyrix is forgotten.

        Someone will always find a work-around to push a technology's limits well beyond the end point demarcated by yesterday's experts.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Phat_Tony (661117)
          Someone will always find a work-around to push a technology's limits well beyond the end point demarcated by yesterday's experts.

          Examples of where some experts were wrong about the limits to technology does not imply that there are no limits to technology. Some expert assessments regarding the limits may be wrong, while others are right.

          I'm not going to pretend I know what proposed limits to technology are solid and which aren't, but here are some to think about. Many physicists think that time travel

      • Re:Wow - worth checking out (Score:5, Interesting)

        by iammaxus (683241) on Monday October 30 2006, @02:50AM (#16639407)

        Have a little more creativity. As the parent (and child) was trying to suggest, there are so many amazing ways that technology has surmounted so many previous "physics" barriers. How about this as a little potential example. You take your 2016 camera which has a measly 10 or 20 megapixels but incredibly processing power and storage and pan it over the fresco back and forth, not very carefully, and it's intelligent algorithms (and maybe built in accelerometers or other motion tracking) patch together what you are imaging into one large image.

        Hell, that's a pretty boring extension of todays very real and practical technologies (I know a team at my university that is doing almost precisely that for aerial photography), why not turn the camera around while you are at it and image the room from a few different angles, get some other art work and sculptures and have the camera create an incredibly detailed, textured 3d model of the entire room?

        Anyone who has seen the last, incredible 40 years of progress in technology would be pretty close-minded not to see "gigapixel" and more cameras in the next 10 or 15 years.

        • Where are our flying cars predicted 50 years ago? They should have been here 10 years ago already.

          Let's face it, we progressed a lot in the last 50 years in some areas but not so much in others. Often, we don't overcome the predicted physical limits not by advancing the same technology, but we do find new ways to attack the problem that are more efficient.

          That said, nothing is a given, even gigapixel digital consumer size cameras in 20 years.
          • "Where are our flying cars predicted 50 years ago? They should have been here 10 years ago already."

            That's more of a driver problem than a hardware issue.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by CrackedButter (646746)
          I had read in a UK photography magazine that in the near future, photography will actually be captured on video. Instead of using a camera to get the decisive moment captured in a single frame, photographers might use high resolution video technology to get their shot (lazy maybe?). You can do it now if you wanted, my Fuji S7000 (6 megapixel) shoots in video mode but the resolution sucks (640x480). Put a res of 1600x1200 at least and your original idea is off the ground. All those images shot together,
      • I have no idea what you just said, but since you used the term "quantum efficiency".. I have no choice but to believe you :)

        • Except it's not a digital camera. It's a film camera, the output of which is scanned to produce 4 Gpx images. You can see it as a 4Mpx toolchain if you like.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jedrek (79264)
      What's amazing is that in 20-30 years, it wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that consumer cameras would be capable of taking the same picture at the same 13 gigapixel resolution, and still have enough room left over to store 1000 similar pictures.

      Heh, don't I wish. But unless we reinvent optics as we understand them right now, it's not going to happen. 16-22mpx out of a normal 35mm sensor is a limit for *lenses*, with maybe some of the best of breeds being useful at 30mpx, but not more. A lot of really sm

  • Now we need wall displays. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by headkase (533448) <pickett.bill@gmail.com> on Monday October 30 2006, @02:09AM (#16639243)
    Now we have wall sized wallpapers we just need a wall display system for them. I can't wait :) Downloading wallpapers for my walls is going to be awesome :)
    • You are going to need a very big printer with a roll on one end to get them printed out or could you just stick up loads of sheets of letter :)
      • I was thinking as it as more of a screen/monitor that just happens to be wall sized! Throw video on it too and go back to wallpaper when your done!

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Achromatic1978 (916097) <robert@nOspAM.pennyonthesidewalk.com> on Monday October 30 2006, @02:11AM (#16639249)
    If a composite photo is eligible to be called "the largest digital photo on the net", then sorry, wrong...

    What about Google Earth. That's a huge scrollable and zoomable digital photo, bigger than Gigapixel's efforts.

    Stitching together 40x40 digital photos = cool.

    World's largest digital photo it is definitely not.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by klang (27062)
      This camera, http://www.gigapxl.org/ [gigapxl.org] takes 4 Giga pixel in one shot .. now, that's cool.

      Stitching 40 X 40 pictures together is just a lot of work.
    • No, because when you zoom in you often see entirely different things. (If all the roads were part of some giga/terapixel image, zooming out would show you sort of yellow-white blob. It doesn't.)

      Similarly for the satellite images. At different levels, it shows you different images.

  • Jesus Christ! [it's a lion, get in the car] (Score:4, Funny)

    by AEton (654737) on Monday October 30 2006, @02:19AM (#16639283)
    Because of the way the painting was centered, if you start out with the default view and zoom in -- all the way in -- you are treated to a sudden and rather unpleasant close-up of Jesus's crotch. On the cross.

    Thanks a lot, Slashdot.
  • 51 gigs per picture? Nice, I could keep eight!
    Printing it? Only takes 2 years to process to the printer. You're in no rush right?

    Hmm, I think I'll go take a 10 gigapixel picture of my... my motherboard! Yeah, that's it.

  • Good Idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by dcapel (913969) on Monday October 30 2006, @02:24AM (#16639301) Homepage
    Find one of the largest files on the Internet... Check.
    Find a site with a large amount of people browsing it... Check.
    Make a post interesting enough that people will look at it... Check.
    Watch your victim's bandwidth bills skyrocket... Check
    Smell the great smell of burning silicon... In Progress

    Linking directly to one of the biggest files around on Slashdot.
    Sheesh.
    • That's why the tune to the page is now Mozart's "Lacrimosa" from Requiem. It was probably Sanctus earlier (a lot more glory-to-god going on) but after seeing what was happening to their poor server they'll have decided to change it... /wonders if he should get + or - geek points for recognising specific Mozart sequences...
  • The pictures are kind of okay in a geeky way, but the sound is crap!

    How about a picture (and sound) of Kylie or something?

  • Lets just hope (Score:4, Funny)

    by antifoidulus (807088) on Monday October 30 2006, @02:28AM (#16639323) Homepage Journal
    the goatse man doesn't learn of this technique....
  • While I am waiting for the site to load, I get to stare at ugly yellow on gray text at the bottom that says "Website Optimized for Microsoft(R) Windors(R) & Internet Explorer(R)".

    I'm just taking a wild guess here..but something tells me this guy didn't use the gimp to stitch all these photographs togehter..
  • On a related note, does anyone have suggestions for good compositing software (on any OS)? I've been "archiving" my vintage one-sheet (usually 27" by 41") film poster collection by scanning at 600dpi in 16 overlapping segments, but I haven't done any of the compositing yet. One issue I had is that my old scanner did an automatic color adjustment which left some segments with a slightly different coloring than others, and I'm hoping there's a good compositing application that can compensate for this well e
    • Commercial software, but... it's what I use: Panavue Image Assembler [panavue.com]. You'd be using it in "mosaic" mode, which works quite well and is what I use constantly for doing scans of largish items. It does color blending on joins, and is fairly automatic. It can also handle 16-bit color depth TIFF images. I bought it recently, and have no complaints with it.

  • How much of the light spectrum? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dattaway (3088) on Monday October 30 2006, @02:44AM (#16639385) Homepage
    So it maps a large area with fine granularity. Its flash so I can't determine if its a RGB or CYMK photo. Or even if it details bands in the infrared spectrum. Or wavelengths in the ultraviolet?
  • I think I found a naked lady sunbathing!
  • I went to a display by gigapixel of their photos last year in San Diego. They are absolutely incredible! You might not think that this type of resolution would have any kind of effect, but it's incredible to stand 7 feet away and see more detail than you could if you were looking at the actual scene in real life. Definately go see them if you have get the chance. When I emailed and asked about the price, they ranged in prce from $1900 - $7500 for a print out. The San Diego Panorama, Coronado Island CA,
  • The Gigapan device, being developed by CMU and NASA, is a low-cost way to generate 1-40 gigapixel panoramas using off-the-shelf digital cameras. Soon it will be available to the general public. See some panoramas taken with the device [cmu.edu] or find out more about the commercial version [cmu.edu]. (Disclaimer: I'm part of the Global Connection project, which is developing the device)

  • 1,145? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Monday October 30 2006, @03:12AM (#16639537) Homepage
    Man, that'd make for a very boring slideshow round someone's house one night:

    "OK, this next slide is Jesus' left eye. We're now only two slides away from the bridge of his nose..."
  • How they wish now Seadragon [live.com] were there to help ;-)
  • Is it just me or does Jesus have a woman resting on his lap in the Last Supper section?
  • Take a look at the footer: it says the website is optimized for Microsoft(R) Windows(R) & Internet Explorer(R). I've never seen so many (R)s in one sentence that wasn't written by Microsoft! Feel free to burn his bandwidth, I guess...
  • Gigapixel writes to point us to what is claimed to be the largest digital photo on the Net, at 8.6 Gigapixel.

    Marketing annoyance is crossing a threshold.

    • I'm surprised and pleased to see Slashdot posting religious images of the Christian variety

      Couldn't quite tell if you were being serious, or exactly which part you may be joking about, but, for the record, it was a story about digital photography, not about religion. If I had mod points, your post would simply be off topic.

      I hate to be so humorlous, but people get foocused so tightly on certain emotional subjects that they sometimes refuse to see what's really going on. Religion just happens to be one of t

    • Can someone mirror this ?

      Not using conventional hosting solutions, I assume. I wonder if there is an OSS version of it (client and server) floating around?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.