Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

26 Gigapixel Photo Sets New World Record

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the stock-up-on-flash-memory dept.

Input Devices 139

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."

cancel ×

139 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GOATSE! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480364)

26 GP of stretched anus! OMFG!

Frosty Fuckin Piss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480370)

How do you stop a bunch of niggers from raping a white woman? Throw them a basketball!

Hurry up and mod me down, you fucks.

frist FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30481238)

Haha, I came frist. That's my 19th frist psot. Yes... I do keep track. XD

Woop de freakin do (5, Insightful)

GigaHurtsMyRobot (1143329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480394)

If you can't take it all in at once, what's the big deal? Wouldn't Google earth have the largest 'photo' since it has an interactive view of the entire globe stitched together?

Re:Woop de freakin do (5, Informative)

Romancer (19668) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480466)

I second the motion to call shenanigans.
This is not a gigapixel photo, this is a gigapixel collage.

Re:Woop de freakin do (4, Funny)

David Gould (4938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480630)

I'm still enjoying the phrase "largest gigapixel photograph". I'm not sure how it compares in size to all the regular gigapixel photographs. But no doubt it's much bigger than the smallest gigapixel photograph.

In other news, a ton of bricks actually does weigh more than a ton of feathers.

Re:Woop de freakin do (1)

severoon (536737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481034)

I don't see the big deal here. There's a much bigger photo stitch with interactive browser that makes this 26GP image look positively tiny. It's called "Google Street View".

Re:Woop de freakin do (2, Funny)

skirtsteak_asshat (1622625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480654)

No, brace yourselves, this is the worlds BIGGEST GOATSE PRANK ! Do not be rick-rolled like those insensitive clods over in soviet russia. Or whatever.

Re:Woop de freakin do (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481950)

that, and the thing threw an error of the nature 'could not find file XXXXXX.jpg for quadrant XX' (or something along those lines) when i zoomed in. epic fail.

Re:Woop de freakin do (1)

novalis112 (1216168) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480568)

I third the motion. How many do we need for it to pass? I thought the articles were moderated on this website?

Re:Woop de freakin do (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480612)

If you can't take it all in at once, what's the big deal? Wouldn't Google earth have the largest 'photo' since it has an interactive view of the entire globe stitched together?

A 26 gigapixel image is cool for any computer geek / graphics nut / photographer.

I for one welcome our new, gigapixel image toting, overlords

Shadows (1)

Potor (658520) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480924)

I agree. And since they couldn't take it all at once, but needed almost a three-hour span, the shadows are all over the place.

CSI style zoom!!! (5, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480942)

If you can't take it all in at once, what's the big deal?

Finally a photo that works like photos do on CSI when it comes to zoom!

Re:CSI style zoom!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30482060)

It's all Blade Runner's fault!

Re:CSI style zoom!!! (4, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482072)

Now all we need are criminals who will stand still for 176 minutes so we can get a good shot of them.

Re:CSI style zoom!!! (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482466)

I noticed a couple walking along a path near the middle of the, ummm, collage, that was captured at least five times at different locations by the photo-robot.

Re:CSI style zoom!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30482396)

Pffft.... just enhance it. You know, it's in the "filters" menu. Just do enhance a few times and you can get crystal-clear photographs of reflections of reflections off of oddly shaped metallic objects.

Re:Woop de freakin do (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480958)

view of the entire globe stitched together

No, it hasn't. I dare bet large chunks of the oceans and poles aren't quite as detailed as some of the cities.

You probably can still find a big chunk detailed enough to beat the 26 gigapixel record, but the resolution of any chunk should be measured by the lowest resolution part and should be without any missing parts.

Re:Woop de freakin do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480982)

Presumably a single file version of it exists somewhere but for demonstration purpose they prepared the interactive view. Google earth however is not available as a single file (even internally at Google). Could Google go ahead and use its vast processing power to make a single image by stitching all of Google earth pictures together? Perhaps but unless they actually do it, it would not set a record.

On your marks.. get set.. (1)

spraguetc201 (1674846) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480990)

Here! Here! I third the shenanigans call. More like a cry.. The real question is who can 'stitch' the fastest...

Re:Woop de freakin do (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481384)

Increasingly large megapixel photos are an interesting thing though, but to me they are only interesting if the focus is small. Imagine you are a woman looking at dress photos online. The photos have such amazing detail that you can zoom in and see the weave of the fabric itself, the details of the patterns. Then imagine you're looking at a mate's car photos. You can zoom in and read the badges etc. On a photo of a forest you can zoom in and check out a bee landing on an interesting flower.

Oh, ye. The interactive view appears to be slashdotted...

Re:Woop de freakin do (1)

spartacus_prime (861925) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482318)

If you can't take it all in at once, what's the big deal?

That's what she said.

Actual Picture? (1)

DarkSabreLord (1067044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480408)

I get a "security error" when I try to view the actual picture from that website...anyone have another link?

Re:Actual Picture? (4, Funny)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480962)

Doesn't matter. They left the lenscap on.

Re:Actual Picture? (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481162)

It's a world record slashdotting.

Slashdot effect (4, Insightful)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480426)

in 3...2..1

Re:Slashdot effect (1)

jocabergs (1688456) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480732)

in other 3, 2, 1 news today. "3, 2, 1, Cheese!!!.. okay just need to hold that smile for 175 more minutes.."

Naked women (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480742)

If you zoom in a bit, there is a women in that photo who is naked, all except a red and white striped bikini top.

Re:Naked women (5, Funny)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480854)

That's not a naked woman, that's Waldo.

Re:Naked women (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481018)

That's just cruel.

Re:Naked women (1)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481742)

yeah like if i needed to see a naked woman on the internet i'd spend my afternoon fucking around with the clunky zoom on some flash driven monstrosity of dresden town centre!

Google Earth (3, Interesting)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480460)

If we're gonna stitch photos together, i think Google Earth is probably by far "higher-resolution" than this.

Show me a SINGLE image sensor that can do 26GP and i'll be impressed!

Re:Google Earth (1)

von_rick (944421) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480662)

Show me a SINGLE image sensor that can do 26GP and i'll be impressed!

Come back in 2150 C.E. and somebody can show you one. If you were alive till 2150, the folks showing you that sensor would be impressed too :)

Re:Google Earth (1)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480726)

Actually, according to moore's law, we just need 20 years (for a factor of 1000)...

Re:Google Earth (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481236)

Actually, according to moore's law, we just need 20 years (for a factor of 1000)...

That phrase you use. I don't think it means what you think it means. Unless, of course, they start using transistors as sensors - in which case I will gladly eat my words.

Re:Google Earth (2, Interesting)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481386)

Read about CMOS Active Pixel Sensors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor [wikipedia.org]

The size is dominated by the transistors, the photo-diode shares the same feature size are the transistors since it's manufactured under the same process.

Moore's law applies.

Re:Google Earth (4, Insightful)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482426)

Read about CMOS Active Pixel Sensors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor [wikipedia.org]

The size is dominated by the transistors, the photo-diode shares the same feature size are the transistors since it's manufactured under the same process.

Moore's law applies.

I have printed out that last post of mine and am chewing on the paper as I type this. Interesting to note, though, is these [luminous-landscape.com] two [luminous-landscape.com] articles discussing the upper limits of pixel count due to diffraction. Looks like we're not gonna see a 26 GP camera after all, even with Moore's Law applying.

*chokes on mushy pulp*

It's a moral victo-- AACCKKK-*gulp*...ahem, victory.

Re:Google Earth (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480740)

Of course it will still be attached to a consumer level camera with a shitty little lens in front of it.

Re:Google Earth (3, Insightful)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481000)

Of course it will still be attached to a consumer phone with a shitty little lens in front of it.

FTFY

Re:Google Earth (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481114)

Yeah, sorry, I don't own a phone with a camera, so I forget that they are quickly becoming the preferred way to take blurry, oversized photos.

Re:Google Earth (1)

arun84h (1454607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481936)

Someone needs to release a product that is a DSLR, professional level camera...WITH A PHONE BUILT IN.

Now, instead of having your shitty pictures interrupted by phone calls, you could have your high quality pictures interrupted by phone calls.

Ingenius!

DSLR with phone capability (1)

bobbuck (675253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482118)

They already rejected the idea because they couldn't figure out a way to make the voice quality on the camera any shittier than on the phones.

Re:Google Earth (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481122)

Of course it will still be attached to a consumer surgically-implanted micromobile platform with a shitty little lens in front of it.

FTFY.

Re:Google Earth (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480778)

http://xkcd.com/331/

Re:Google Earth (2, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481346)

There is a 111 MP single sensor camera that just got installed on a telescope. There's not a whole lot of point though. It's easier, cheaper and more reliable to create a multichip camera like the 1.4 GP camera installed on one of the telescopes in Hawaii. It's still one camera though, and takes the whole 1.4 GP in one shot.

Re:Google Earth (1)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481620)

except for the distortion you get around the edges of each sensor...

Also note, that the denser pixels are going to get the less surface area you'll require for 26GP... though i suspect that there is a fundamental limit - the photo-diode will need to be larger than a some function of the wave length.

Re:Google Earth (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482008)

Presumably, since these multiple sensor cameras are currently used in telescopes, they've either worked out how to deal with sensor edges or it isn't important. There need not necessarily be a gap at the edge of a sensor anyway. Just because it technically came off a different wafer doesn't mean you couldn't line the things up closely enough that it wouldn't matter.

Denser pixels are going to get less surface area... provided the surface area of your sensor doesn't change. Astronomical cameras don't exactly use 4/3 sized sensors. But you point out an excellent reason why single-slab-of-silicon cameras are doomed to top out in resolution - there is a fundamental limit to how many detectors you can put on a given size piece of silicon, and some very compelling reasons why you can't just scale up the size of a silicon wafer.

Re:Google Earth (1)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481876)

Wouldn't it be easier and a whole ton cheaper to do a 4000dpi scan off of a 8x10 negative? I mean there's almost 1.3GP in one shot.

Re:Google Earth (2, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482112)

Not in astronomy. Film and digital sensors respond to light in different ways. Digital sensors are MUCH more sensitive than film is, but much of that sensitivity is unusable in a regular camera because digital sensors also experience much higher levels of noise than film does.

So if you're shooting regular landscape, portrait, whatever, you might well be right. But in astronomy that extra sensitivity actually buys you something.

Most astronomical pictures you see are the result of long exposures, from seconds to weeks. With a digital sensor you can capture even very faint objects by taking lots of short exposures and then averaging them together. That gets you a bunch of advantages, such as being able to salvage data if something happens halfway through, exposing over multiple nights, and taking a LOT of pressure off your tracking apparatus. It's much easier to accurately track a target over a short exposure (and align the images afterward) than it is to keep up accurate tracking over an entire, long exposure.

If you tried the same trick with film you simply wouldn't be able to image dimmer objects because they'd fall below the base sensitivity of each exposure.

There's a reason astronomers were some of the first to use digital cameras, and that amateur astronomy was revolutionized by them.

Re:Google Earth (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482280)

Google Earth is not a uniform resolution.

Still, David Pogue is sure to arrive on site soon and tell us we should do this with a 3 megapixel camera and just be quiet about all this gigapixel tom foolery.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E1DD113FF93BA35751C0A9619C8B63 [nytimes.com]

Is it really impressive to stich a pic together? (1, Redundant)

joeflies (529536) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480470)

It would be an impressive achievement to note the largest picture taken at one time with a camera. However, stitching together 1655 photos together doesn't exactly seem to be as interesting as a feat. If that qualifies as a record, then just how many photos does the a global satellite view like Google Maps have in "total resolution"?

Re:Is it really impressive to stich a pic together (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30481838)

Stitching many images to form one big picture is challenging in many ways: First you need the camera and lens to capture enough detail. With a 400mm lens, it took a 21MP camera to get that much data. If you've ever tried to shoot a crisp 21MP picture at 400mm, you know that even just one of these 1655 photos is an achievement. Then you need the hardware to shoot these pictures in quick succession: The photoshoot took them three hours. During that time, the sun moves, shadows move, the color of the sky changes. The faster you can shoot the pictures, the better the result will be. The banding in the picture is a result of "only" shooting one picture every six seconds. You can't shoot to flash memory cards either, because they're going to be full all the time and you don't have the time to change them, so you need a camera which can shoot directly to a computer. Then you have lots of images on your hard disk and you need to stitch and blend them. Off-the-shelf panorama software is optimized for small numbers of pictures, so you have a couple of problems to solve on that front too.

That said, personally I think that that resolution is too much. Due to the way these images are created, they don't work at all for even moderately dynamic views, they're always full of artifacts from the light change, they usually look quite dull when zoomed out and the interesting bits are lost in a vast desert of pointless detail.

megapixels? (2, Insightful)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480498)

bah, megapixels mean nothing...

what about signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, plenoptic capabilities, etc.

Re:megapixels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480570)

bah, megapixels mean nothing...

what about signal to noise ratio, dynamic range, plenoptic capabilities, etc.

For that matter, I feel the authors of the article should have to write correlation is not causation on the blackboard many, many times. Just because some people claim credit for a 26-gigapixel photo and their website hosts a 26-gigapixel photo does not necessarily mean those people made the photo. Jeeze!

Re:megapixels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30481852)

bah, megapixels mean nothing...

Argh, the megapixels! They do nothing!

Re:megapixels? (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482464)

David Pogue? Is that you?

lolcats (5, Funny)

tholomyes (610627) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480534)

...and 20 minutes later, the world's largest lolcat was created. ("i can haz gigapixelz?")

It's a fake guys (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480560)

It looks 'shopped. You can tell by the pixels and I have seen quite a few 'shops in my day.

Re:It's a fake guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480874)

obligatory xkcd http://xkcd.com/331/

Obligatory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480578)

Yes, but does it run Linux?

Actual Largest Photo (5, Interesting)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480594)

Legacy Project [legacyphotoproject.com] , they converted an old hanger into a pinhole camera.

Re:Actual Largest Photo (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480678)

Legacy Project [legacyphotoproject.com], they converted an old hanger into a pinhole camera.

I clicked expecting some crazy setup involving coat hangers.

I got a crazy setup involving an old airplane hangar.

Re:Actual Largest Photo (1)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480748)

Why do these sites insist on resizing my browser window for me?

I really hate that..

Yes, I know I could prevent it. I don't see why I should though.

Re:Actual Largest Photo (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480868)

Why do all record making photographs have to be so aesthetically repulsive!?!?

Re:Actual Largest Photo (2, Interesting)

John Whitley (6067) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482028)

It's not just photographs. This is a problem when generally when a medium is applied to a primarily technical aim (e.g. breaking a record) vs. an aesthetic one. The best example of this I've witnessed was during my freshman year of college, when a music department Prof. had the class listen to the first public recording of tape loop reverb. IIRC, it came out of MIT. The recording was performed on the recorder (the woodwind instrument) by the then-current department chair.

Now try to imagine sounds that would make Vogons would tremble in simultaneous delight and terror at this, and admit in defeat that their poetry is no equal. I can't recall hearing a brilliant rendition of anything on the recorder. Now combine that lackluster sound, with a /cough/ less than virtuoso performance and a good mangling by those first doozy steps into studio-created reverberation.... bleaaargh!

Re:Actual Largest Photo (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480940)

Nope. From TFA, the new photo is 105x35 meters. The photo you referenced is only 32.9x8.5 meters.

Re:Actual Largest Photo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30481064)

but is not a photo, its a collage, unlike this one.

Re:Actual Largest Photo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30481602)

105m at 66ppi...

Re:Actual Largest Photo (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481864)

Doesn't using a building as a camera pretty much limit your choice of subject material? There just might be a reason why portable cameras were invented! (Unless, of course, you can get a large number of people to pose in front of the building.

I remember as a child, the sun shining through a hole in the garage door onto the freezer door created a camera obscura, although it really only displayed a silhoette of the trees. And of course, the image was upside down.

Re:Actual Largest Photo (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482032)

in a related note, i once accidentally converted my friends dorm room into a pinhole camera. we where lying there watching TV, and we turned the TV off, and i was staring at the wall, when i realized that the weird colors moving on the wall, was a projection of what was going on outside, it was just upside down. (small hole in the blanket over the window as it turns out)

Can you send me the thumbnail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480626)

It didn't fit on my screen, can you send me the 1600x1200 wallpaper?

I got that version... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481502)

and the original, and the big one really doesn't look any sharper on my laptop screen.

in the office (2, Funny)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480692)

AFB Media Exec: Hey IT guy, can our server handle the load if I post a 26 gigapixel image to slashdot?

IT Guy: Of course it can, we run BSD, which as you know, is not....

PNG! (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480792)

I swear to god if this is a VLCsnap.png I am going to be really mad.

No fun (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480794)

I can only see the thumbnail from the article, but it doesn't look like a good Where's Waldo type picture. Giant photographs are no fun until you can spend an hour trying to find the woman in the shower that one guy says he found when you zoom in enough to count the pixels.

Honestly? Goggle Traslate impressed me more. (0)

WarlockD (623872) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480800)

This has been done and its going to be "done" many times before.

What amazed me was that Google translate did a REALLY good job of traslating that article. Its not perfect, but you can read it and understand fairly clearly.

Re:Honestly? Goggle Traslate impressed me more. (2, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480856)

Ditto that. I read the first few sentences without a problem, until I hit the part where they talk about pixels (picture elements). I couldn't figure out why the grammar and parentheses were that screwed up.... until I accidentally moused over a sentence with a Google pop-up asking me to improve the sentence. Only then did I realized I was looking the Google Translate page of the actual German page.

Hot damn. Automated language translation has come a long way.

Re:Honestly? Goggle Traslate impressed me more. (0, Troll)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481136)

This has been done and its going to be "done" many times before.

What amazed me was that Google translate did a REALLY good job of traslating that article. Its not perfect, but you can read it and understand fairly clearly.

Posting on /. about how something's "been done before" has been done before.

What amazed me was that Slashdot spellcheck did a REALLY good job of spellchecking that post. It's not perfect, but you can read and understand it fairly easily.

Re:Honestly? Goggle Traslate impressed me more. (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#30482498)

I agree, that worked like gangbusters and didn't read as particularly awkward. That's quite an accomplishment.

                      Brett

6mod down (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30480828)

FreeBSD because COMPANY A 2 'Yes' to any eulogies to BSD's of BSD/OS. A Discussion I'm failure, its co!rpse aacounts for less

Largest Image Sensor (4, Interesting)

HenryKoren (735064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480846)

Some related knowledge: The largest Image sensor (that I've heard of) is part of the "Large Synoptic Survey Telescope" in Chile and it weighs in at 3200 Megapixels

http://www.megapixelmyth.com/?p=127 [megapixelmyth.com]

Shameless plug: check out my blog at megapixelmyth.com

Re:Largest Image Sensor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30481720)

And its still not big enough to see all of yo mamma!

Zing!

I hope I have enough ram... (1)

socz (1057222) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480852)

to load that image!

Apparently... (1)

Ugarte (42783) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480860)

their web server does not have 16 processors.

I am on dialup! (3, Funny)

fotoguzzi (230256) | more than 4 years ago | (#30480968)

(you insensitive clods.)

Created with 16 processor system with 48GB (1)

belthize (990217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481176)

    Sadly the server for viewing is a 486 with an AT1500-BT 10mbit coax connection.

Pity they picked afternoon to shoot this photo (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481188)

It is a pity they picked afternoon to shoot this photo. As a result the most beautiful part of the city, historic center, is in a deep shadow. With so much work put into this, one would think image aesthetics would be also be a consideration besides just technological accomplishment.

And they still (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30481304)

couldn't get all of Jlo's butt!

Boring (3, Funny)

krray (605395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481318)

I couldn't find one person in a compromising position or act.

Holy Carp! (1)

ittybad (896498) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481324)

Forget about the whose-a-ma-wuchit umpty-ump gigapixel technology...I want to know about the partial-cloaking field device implemented on the car in the parking lot!

Don't click on that link! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30481430)

...unless you want to get slammed in the face with a gigapixel of goatce.

Messed up stitching... (2, Funny)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481488)

They messed up the stitching... that of someone invented a camouflage car [yfrog.com] .

Re:Messed up stitching... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481500)

Um. *or* not *of*

Re:Messed up stitching... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481888)

No, somebody moved their car while they were taking the pictures. When you stitch together "picture with car" and "picture with no car", that's what you get.

Re:Messed up stitching... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481982)

The highway doesn't have the same problem... I assume those cars were moving... :)

No mirror? (1)

redphive (175243) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481532)

Was anyone able to mirror the image before the server went down? ;)

Obvious they don't watch movies (1)

IronicToo (514475) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481666)

This functionality and resolution is easy to get and can be obtained from a normal single photo, not 1655. All you need is a standard "enhancement" filter found on any movie of TV show worth its salt. You zoom in, everything is blurry, enhance, it gets clear again and repeat ad nauseum, or at least until the scientists in your audience are nauseated.

I am shocked and amazed! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481740)

What are the chances that a web server serving up a 26GByte picture would be slashdotted?

Wheres.... (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | more than 4 years ago | (#30481810)

Hey! I found Waldo!

265 meter penis sets new world record (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30481920)

OK, so it's really only 16 cm, but I stroked it 1655 times today.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>