The 2.5 gigapixel photo
"A height of about 100 m..." - and you can zoom in so close, that you can read the licence plates of the cars passing by (at least in the close vicinity, but have in mind that the image on the site is compressed).If this photo were printed, it would measure 6.67 m by 2.67 m (300 dpi). The photograph shows Delft [a city in the Netherlands] and its surroundings in the autumn of 2004. It was taken the top of the Electrical Engineering faculty of Delft University, at a height of about 100 m, by TNO.
A warning to the users with slower connections - the site is quite traffic-hungry.
Last edited by dj_ivocha; 20th Nov 2004 at 14:49. Reason: Fixed a small typo in the title
Why in god's name would anyone need that sort of resolution, unless for commercial purposes?
And the truly stupid thing is that salesmen steer n00bs to the bigger purchases with this kind of thing, when no one could possibly need that sort of resolution unless they were making a billboard.
The voyeuristic potential is astounding!
Why not? Take the very same picture they made - wouldn't it be cool* to be able to view... things (cities, forests, animals, whatever) from a distance as well as in a great detail at the same time?
That sounds to me like "OMG who needs technological advancements, it's all good the way we are"Originally Posted by Gingerbread Man
And n00bs do stupid things whether they are steered to them or not most of the time, don't they?
* I admit, I watch SG-1 way to much
[EDIT]
I peeked through many windows in that picture, but couldn't see any nekkid girls.
You're probably a fan of singing underwear, glow-in-the-dark ketchup, and Ron Popeil.That sounds to me like "OMG who needs technological advancements, it's all good the way we are"
Keep scanning...you might find one eventually.
The creepy stalker bit would obviously work better on a closer scale. Take a picture of a few houses from a perspective down the street and see how many smaller detail you can pick out.
Course even if you're not one of the aforementioned creepy stalkers, the technology itself is really interesting.
That looks pretty awesome.
Glow in the dark ketchup!?!? I urgently need that!
This worries me.
Well obviously they didn't take the whole photo all at once. That would have required an insane amount of pixels on the ccd. Probably done using a progressive scan from top to bottom.
I doubt you'd ever find cameras in the stores with that kind of resolution. Looking at the technical details it says they took 600 images and composed them all together to make one big image.
Last edited by ravenseye13; 20th Nov 2004 at 04:20.
Holy shit. You can read the licence plates off the cars.
Then it's a fake
They never claimed it was taken with a single uber-camera, we're just at fault for assuming it was...therefore it's not a fake.
The problem with high-resolution static pictures is that it takes ages to get them scaled to one's display size. What I think would be useful for them is a new, "smart" image format with built-in level-of-detail and viewport features; the files would almost certainly be larger though, of course.
<small>Hmm, I've just remembered: hasn't PhotoCD introduced rudimentary LOD funtionality?</small>
Last edited by Marecki; 20th Nov 2004 at 08:31.
I spy with my little eye, a statue of a naked woman.
I spy with my little eye, a bridge made of wood.
I spy with my little eye, a fire extinguisher.
Seek and find, brother.
Is there honestly anyone who's NOT a fan of Ron Popeil? C'mon, the guy's a GENIUS, and a sharp dresser as well.You're probably a fan of singing underwear, glow-in-the-dark ketchup, and Ron Popeil.
PhotoCD is an image/media format, not a company.
PhotoCD and FlashPix, both developed by Kodak, support multi-resolution image files. Neither one is especially popular, since multi-resolution image formats are bloated, cumbersome to work with, and pointless.
Last edited by ZylonBane; 20th Nov 2004 at 14:31.
Not that much larger -- around 50% if each subsequent lower resolution image was 25% of the size (pixel count) of the previous.
I challenge you all to find this:
Now I understand what you meant! (better later than much later)
I guess you could tell it that way... besides, I do need glow-in-the-dark ketchup (and other food), because I often eat in front of my PC, while watching a movie, with the lights off - glowing food would be easier to find in the dish.
Actually, my first reaction to that site was "At last! A simple implementation of detailed zoom functionality that's free, and doesn't require me to learn Flash." I headed straight on over to Zoomify.
Why, you ask? Well, although I already have an SVG zoom facility for the historic maps my project is digitising, this one allows users to dynamically load content and zoom from the full map down to 1:1 detail or higher, without loading more than a small part of the whole image. Bearing in mind one of the maps I'm now stitching would be about 3m x 3m (guess) at full screen resolution, currently comprising 8 x 40Mb TIFs, the ability to easily and cheaply provide dynamic loading is a godsend. I also hope to use Zoomify for some other detailed historic documents.
As for their photo - utterly pointless, I agree.
Yeah, I'll get right on that...I challenge you all to find this:
It was "introduced" as in "new Pentium 4 processors introduced Hyper Threading technology". I know what PhotoCD is, the graphics programs I use both read and write it and I think I've still got some stashed around here somewhere. You suck at bashing non-n00bs, ZylonHowever,
this is the reminder I needed.PhotoCD and FlashPix, both developed by Kodak, support multi-resolution image files.
enhance 34 to 46.Yeah, I'll get right on that...
*bleep* *blip-blip-blip* *click*click*click*click*click*
pull back.
*click*click*click*click* wait a minute...
go right.
*click*click*click*click* stop.
enhance 57 19.
*click*click* stop.
track 45 left
*click*click*click*click* stop.
enhance 15 to 23.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
