WAH LAO EH!!!!!
super sharp and hardly any noise.
imagine the price when it's made available to us consumers...
Imagine buying a gigapix to make 4x6 prints...Originally Posted by cLarbRyan
I wish to have one as well!
As the Pixels getting higher, can you imagine people starts to take such high Mega Pixel photos and without resizing and directly inport into Powerpoint presenattion, just to project it onto 1024x768 pixel projectors. The file size become so big that it takes ages to load, they then blame the computer assigned by the company to them is too slow, and demand a better computer.
This creates opportunity for computer manufacturers to sell more high end computer.
Last edited by poh6702; 13th August 2005 at 09:55 AM.
actually this creates more trouble for india helpdesk... so india will start charging high price and jobs will come back to us...Originally Posted by poh6702
Like that also can!Originally Posted by idor
i hate to be a party pooper here but consider this -
standard 35mm film is equivalent to approximately 27MP camera (current estimate).
So imagine if you calculated it correctly, meaning dimensions to dimensions,
35mm - 24mm by 36mm, then an 8 x 10 large format negative that measures
8 inches ( 204mm) by 10 inches (254mm) should be the digital equivalent of
Tadaa, your large format cameras are more than the magic 1000MP camera - besides,
that's what the process seems to be -
Shoot on film - scan in at ridiculous DPI
The bottom line - it's a glorified digital large format.
Still would be a nice toy to play with tho.
Did you go to take alook at the megapxl website? At the very least, you should before you poop any party!Originally Posted by squishyx
Here I quote:
"The photographic prints with which we are most familiar are those derived either from 35-millimeter film or from digital cameras. In either case, the prints likely have dimensions of 4×6 inches. At this size, although a film-derived version usually contains more information, it is virtually indistinguishable from its digital counterpart, provided the latter was taken with a camera that employs at least three megapixels. From this we conclude that it takes a minimum of eight square inches to convey a megapixel of information to the human eye. When print size is increased beyond 4×6 inches, superiority on the part of a sharply focused 35-millimeter image progressively becomes more apparent. This is to be expected, insofar as a better-than-average 35-millimeter camera and film combination can yield images with the equivalent of about 12 megapixels; thereby permitting enlargement to 8×12 inches before loss of sharpness becomes an issue. It should be noted, however, that the information content remains consistent with the value of one megapixel for every eight square inches of print.
Simple arithmetic tells us that, to display 1000 megapixels to its best advantage requires a print of at least 50 square feet. Prints of this size are commonplace in the context of billboards. However, the information content of billboards is low, insofar as they have been enlarged by factors of several hundred with respect to an original negative. As a consequence, they possess a pixel count which is disproportionate to their image content; a circumstance which is referred to as over-sampling. Meanwhile, the 1000-megapixel images which are of interest to ourselves are defined as images that require 1000 megapixels for their reproduction; i.e. as images that are not over-sampled at 1000 megapixels."
The megalpxl project is not about the resolution of the negative, but about the resolution of the output.
also, a typical large format negative, using your example of an 8x10, is dwarfed by this 9x18 camera! Using your calculation, this 9x18 camera will yeild 3266MP, 2.02 times the resolution of an 8x10 negative.
Last edited by Deadpoet; 14th August 2005 at 04:02 AM.
Even for Billboards display of 8ft x 6ft, who will look at the pictue at 2 feet away?? It is meant catching attention from at least 10 feet away.Originally Posted by Deadpoet
that is exactly the point. a bill board display is menat to be looked at far away. according to the megapixl website, these huge wall size prints can be looked at close up.Originally Posted by poh6702
Originally Posted by squishyx
Sadly, as much as how people tend to argue about the quality of digital being equivalent to film, nothing within any current affordable means, would be comparable to a 4x5 / 8x10 velvia chrome.. ..
Our 1000 MP projhect here is shot on film first ... eventually will get there, and wont be too long either, but film did have a very longhead start, say about a hundred yearsOriginally Posted by F5user
it's just a super-large format (9" x 18") *film* high-end camera what...
it's the scanner by Leica GeoSystems that does the 6 micron scanning
We concluded that, consistent with the largest practicable roll film format (9"×18"), we could expect to achieve a resolution equivalent to 1000 megapixels. Hence, came the name Gigapxl™. With recent developments, this figure approaches 4000 megapixels, but the name remains unchanged.
The first Gigapxl™ cameras were completed and ready for test in February 2001; the first color landscapes being produced a month later. Early images had a pixel count of 260 megapixels (20-micron scan resolution) and were printed on photographic paper. Within a year, however, the count had increased to 670 megapixels (12.5-micron scan resolution). At which level, although substantially higher resolution was being achieved on film, the pixel count temporarily became constrained by issues related to scanner resolution and the file size limits of Adobe Photoshop. Meanwhile, with second-generation cameras (combining superior lenses and a variety of focal lengths) nearing completion, we switched from photographic printing to pigment ink printing. Working closely with Adobe, issues related to Photoshop file size have slowly but surely been resolved. Meantime, collaboration with Leica Geosystems (manufacturer of the DSW500 digital scanner) is about to yield scans with a resolution of 6 microns. At which time, numerous existing negatives will be redigitized at 2,900 megapixels. By year end (2004), we expect to push scan resolution to the 5-4 micron range; the corresponding pixel counts being 4,180 megapixels and 6,530 megapixels, respectively.
"I'm... dreaming... of a wide... angle~
Just like the ones I used to know~"
A couple of points if I may
The process described by the links above is really only high resolution scanning, nothing really new there folks.
Secondly a genuine 1 Gigapixel output Digital back has been available for quite a while, it's the PhaseOne Powerphase FX+, which outputs 1010 MB images in CMYK mode. This by the way is equivalent to 12.65 MP per square inch. If the FX+ were available in 9x18 format it's output would be 2.049 Gig.
Thirdly 1 GB stitched images have been around since 2001, to see the results check out http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm
The Ang Moh from Hell
Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!