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!

Budapest Panorama, at 70GP, Now the World's Largest Digital Photo

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the cool-one-up-man-ship dept.

Input Devices 207

hasanabbas1987 writes "It's just been a few months since a 45-gigapixel panorama of Dubai claimed the title of world's largest digital photograph, but it's now already been well and truly ousted — the new king in town is this 70-gigapixel, 360-degree panorama of Budapest. As with other multi-gigapixel images, this one was no easy feat, and involved two 25-megapixel Sony A900 cameras fitted with 400mm Minolta lenses and 1.4X teleconverters, a robotic camera mount from 360world that got the shooting done over the course of two days, and two solid days of post-processing that resulted in a single 200GB file — not to mention a 15-meter-long printed copy of the photograph for good measure. Of course, what's most impressive is the photo itself [Note: requires Silverlight]."

cancel ×

207 comments

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

No Thanks (5, Insightful)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096648)

This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because of the technology chosen for the presentation layer.

Re:No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33096670)

ditto

Re:No Thanks (1)

Sandb (691178) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096674)

ditto

Re:No Thanks (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096702)

me 2

Re:No Thanks (5, Funny)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096772)

Count me in. Lets give this thing the force of an internet petition.

Re:No Thanks (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096828)

/signed

Re:No Thanks (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097208)

ditto++

Re:No Thanks (1)

Dumnezeu (1673634) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096722)

ditto

ditto

ditto

Re:No Thanks (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096680)

I have silverlight installed, but won't be viewing this picture. Sad.

Re:No Thanks (3, Insightful)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096760)

Why:

  1. Would you have silverlight installed
  2. Wouldn't you view the picture if you had silverlight installed?

Re:No Thanks (1)

Mr. DOS (1276020) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097622)

Matter of principle? He may have Silverlight installed because he's on a shared computer and someone else uses Silverlight, or as part of a corporate rollout, or even because his employment currently (or once) involved Silverlight development, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have standards.

Not Ditto (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096954)

No not Ditto, Silverlight.

If it were Ditto, it would be blue and smell like alcohol. Geeze!

Re:No Thanks (2, Insightful)

MollyB (162595) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096706)

Please excuse my utter ignorance, but what is wrong (philosophically, security-wise, or wishing leprosy on oneself, etc.) with installing Moonlight [go-mono.com] for a quick peek at the picture? Can it be uninstalled? I feel like the little fishy who's mesmerized by the angler fishs' lure...

Re:No Thanks (4, Interesting)

blirp (147278) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096740)

Actually, it requires Silverlight. Even with Moonlight installed I get:

Sorry, but Silverlight is not supported on this operating system.
Silverlight works on Windows and on Mac OS (Intel only).

... kind of strange.

M.

Re:No Thanks (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097296)

just pretend you have a mac and it works just fine with moonlight. install user agent switcher for firefox and use this agent setting:

      Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008061004 Firefox/3.0

Re:No Thanks (2, Insightful)

choongiri (840652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096784)

what is wrong ... with installing Moonlight

I have moonlight installed. Here's what happened:

Sorry, but Silverlight is not supported on this operating system.

Silverlight works on Windows and on Mac OS (Intel only).

Fail.

I tried spoofing the user-agent to MSIE 8:

Install the latest version of Silverlight to see this content.

Fail.

Props to the photography, but somebody needs to tell them 1990 called, and wants its browser sniffing rubbish back. I would only be mildly bothered that they used silverlight, but they didn't even do it properly.

Re:No Thanks (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096808)

Why would you expect a browser plugin to check the user agent to find its own version?

Re:No Thanks (1)

choongiri (840652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096988)

Without looking at the code, I speculated that if the server thought it was IE8 and served up the silverlight content, moonlight might be able to display it. The problem isn't that I don't have a plugin that can handle the content (to my knowledge, moonlight should display it just fine), the problem is that the dumb website won't even give me the content, because it thinks I can't display it.

Re:No Thanks (1)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097020)

somebody needs to tell them 1990 called, and wants its browser sniffing rubbish back

There were no browsers in 1990, but I see what your point.

FYI (2, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097630)

The first Browser ever was released December 23, 1990.

Re:No Thanks (1)

short (66530) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097010)

what is wrong (philosophically, security-wise, or wishing leprosy on oneself, etc.) with installing Moonlight

That you may get sued [fedoraproject.org] (=Fedora forbidden item).

Re:No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097188)

"The worst kind of blind is the one wwho doesn't want to see" (proverb where I live)

Curiously, in this case, this applies to people who keep asking "what's wrong with a closed format?"... those who won't see the silverlicht app are truly the ones who see the bigger picture. How ironic.

Re:No Thanks (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33096742)

Your loss.

Works fine in Chrome.

Re:No Thanks (2, Insightful)

epp_b (944299) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096750)

This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because of the technology chosen for the presentation layer.

I can tell, just by the thumbnail, that this isn't true. It is actually quite a dull photograph.

Re:No Thanks (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096846)

Agreed. The format dictated the content, and the content is uninspiring.

Re:No Thanks (1)

Suisyo (1868376) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096920)

The subject matter is quite dull, you're right there. The thing that did impress me was the ability to zoom anywhere in the image. Fully zoomed out the scenery looks like it's filled with trees and small nondescript buildings etc, but upon zooming in you can find that what looked like an empty field actually contains a playground with adults watching their children playing. You can even make out the license plate #'s on parked cars, where fully zoomed out you can't even see the cars...I personally found this interesting and worth the look, but then again I didn't have to download anything to view this...I might not have bothered without knowing what I would see beforehand.

Re:No Thanks (3, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096754)

This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because I choose not to use the technology required .

Fixed that for you.

Re:No Thanks (-1, Flamebait)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096962)

This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because I choose not to surrender my PC to a convicted monopolist.

FTFY.

Re:No Thanks (4, Funny)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097266)

This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because I choose not to surrender my PC to a convicted monopolist.

I still have a few machines on which I choose to run a filesystem written by a convicted murderer.

Re:No Thanks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097506)

Technically that FS doesn't come from a convicted murderer. He murdered and was convicted after a few versions of the FS he wrote, he didn't write it from a (non-chroot) jail. Poor guy, and poor wife. That's what hunting for race conditions does to people.

Re:No Thanks (3, Insightful)

bryonak (836632) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096982)

So you say I should wait until monday, go to a store, fork over some cash to buy a copy of Windows, spend some time setting it up and installing Silverlight... and then claim it's unreasonable to say that they should've chosen a format that is easily available to everyone?

Choice is very much dependent on perspective. It's hardly valid to claim that it's your fault if you chose not to own a Ferrari.
Many people could if they really stretched out, got some credits, etc... but it's not worth to them.
The same way it's not worth to me spending time and money just to view this image.

Re:No Thanks (0, Redundant)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096996)

This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because the technology required is only available on operating systems that require you to fork over dump truck loads of cash in order to use legitimately .

There--fixed your fix for you.

Re:No Thanks (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097222)

If you are forking over large amounts of money for Windows, you are doing it wrong.

Re:No Thanks (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097562)

If you are forking over large amounts of money for Windows, you are doing it wrong.

Yes. It's a lot easier to just give them your bank account details and save yourself the work.

Re:No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33096766)

It was a very nice photo; the zoom ability is very impressive. Too bad that some folks hate Microsoft (insanely of course) so much that they are afraid of silverlight. Oh well, the rest of us get to see it.

Re:No Thanks (1)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096844)

I use XP AC. But when there are already perfectly fine programs, the need for a proprietary and dickwad program like silverlight does not need to be supported.

Re:No Thanks (0, Flamebait)

rolfc (842110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097492)

I don't hate Microsoft, I hate their business model and the results of it.

Re:No Thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33096832)

yeah, me 2

Re:No Thanks (1)

bryonak (836632) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096840)

I have to agree.
I'd really like to see that image, but I'm not going to waste hours and money for this.

Re:No Thanks (0, Flamebait)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096858)

I had no idea silverlight still exisisted. Does anyone actually use it for anything??

I thought it was just a braindead idea from the corpse of MS Vista that trickes gnomish people into wasting their time. Even on my two windows machines I don't have silverlight installed. I see activex and VG graphics waay more often than silverlight (as in I've seen them used unlike silverlight where this is the first I've seen beyond five year old demos).

Re:No Thanks (2, Interesting)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097192)

Wasting time? I don't even remember installing silverlight and it seems I did at some point. If it was a waste of time, I would have remembered it.

Re:No Thanks (2, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096864)

This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because of the technology chosen for the presentation layer.

Why do you assume that a lot of pixels will make it beautiful?

Re:No Thanks (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096886)

Well people think movies are really good when the video is blown out and razor sharp on blu-ray.

Too bad. (5, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096912)

The they have scenes were you can zoom in to certain parts of the photo. The one that zooms in on the nude beach where it appears that they're filming some sort of Playboy type of thing is really nice.

Anyway, you don't want to install Silverlight.....

Re:No Thanks (4, Insightful)

brasselv (1471265) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096932)

The technology was not chosen - it appears to be more the motive behind the event.
Turns out that MS, in fact, is the main sponsor of this thing, according to the website.

Works with Moonlight... (3, Informative)

sd.fhasldff (833645) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096948)

The idiots behind the site are using OS detection, so if you're using Moonlight on a non-Windows/OSX platform, you'll need to spoof your User-Agent string.

Other than that, it works just fine with Firefox & Moonlight on Linux.

Re:Works with Moonlight... (1)

choongiri (840652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097006)

I tried that. It didn't work.

Re:Works with Moonlight... (5, Informative)

sd.fhasldff (833645) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097404)

Spoofing as Firefox 3 on Vista worked for me.

Specifically:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009011913 Firefox/3.0.6

With Novell Moonlight 2.3.

Re:Works with Moonlight... (1)

choongiri (840652) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097444)

Thanks, that did work. Mod parent to +5 informative, as that's the way to view this thing on linux.

Re:Works with Moonlight... (0, Troll)

camperslo (704715) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097018)

The idiots behind the site are using OS detection, so if you're using Moonlight on a non-Windows/OSX platform, you'll need to spoof your User-Agent string.

And Microsoft is a sponsor? Is there anything here for the Justice Department or the EU to look at?

Artificially impeding interoperability to promote an OS seems unethical.

Re:Works with Moonlight... (3, Insightful)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097162)

Is there anything here for the Justice Department or the EU to look at?

I would hope that the Justice Department would have something better to do than investigate complaints that you can only view a particular photo on a particular OS. Of course, I could be wrong.

Your loss (2, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097014)

"This is probably a beautiful photograph that I will never see because of the technology chosen for the presentation layer."

Great. Do you want a cookie? The only thing you've accomplished is to not see the picture. Nobody else really cares.

Re:No Thanks (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097104)

So basically,

Q: What file format is it in?

A: It's a program you have to run in order to see the image.

No thanks.

Re:No Thanks (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097152)

Silverblight aside, they expect me to judge its beauty on a Netbook screen? This may be a 70GP photo, but its not going to look any better than what I could stitch together from photos I've taken with a cheapo Cannon digital.

[Note: requires Silverlight] (0, Troll)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096658)

Fuck that noise.

Re:[Note: requires Silverlight] (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096746)

You know the platform is bad when people refuse to install it on principle.

Re:[Note: requires Silverlight] (5, Insightful)

B4light (1144317) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096806)

OMG, Tribalism

Re:[Note: requires Silverlight] (-1, Redundant)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096972)

More like, refusing to do business with a convicted, unrepentant monopolist.

Re:[Note: requires Silverlight] (1)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097012)

OMG, Tribalism

Didn't the almighty Shuttleworth just tel us about the linux version of that? Apparently Microsoft made their own version for Windows users. I'm sure they'll tweak a few things, make it completely incompatible with Linux, and then brand their 'improved' version Microsoft Factionism.

fsck Silverlight (3, Insightful)

jijitus (1478465) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096662)

All that processing, and couldn't create a Flash viewer for it?
If someone shoots a 70GP picture and no one is able to view it, does it matter at all?

Re:fsck Silverlight (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096688)

No, no it doesn't matter.

Re:fsck Silverlight (4, Informative)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096800)

no one is able to view it

I just viewed it. Its pretty awesome actually. Since you can't view it (?) let me describe it for you. When fully zoomed out, Budapest appears is a (pretty small) city in the distance and most of what you see is the surrounding countryside. Then with a very smooth zoom you keep zooming towards the city, until you see very clearly individual buildings and even people in the windows. Can you show me a Flash example of something like that?

Re:fsck Silverlight (4, Informative)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096856)

Can you show me a Flash example of something like that?

Meet
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1739126&cid=33096788 [slashdot.org]

This too [gigapan.org] if you read TFS...

Re:fsck Silverlight (3, Interesting)

gnalle (125916) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097080)

Here is a html5-demo that does the same. It works well on Chrome, but no so well in Mozilla Iceweasel 3.5.11 http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Graphics/DeepZoom/Default.html [microsoft.com]

Re:fsck Silverlight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097634)

It is a fascinating image: if you look closely in the bottom, you can see that images are repeated at some place (for instance, there are 3 people on a bench right to the small group of photographer -- ie: under the waterfall) that are also present on the left side of the image (to the left of the place where the stone path hit the grass). If you scroll horizontally all accross the image (ie takes very long, you will see details coming up several time).

Is the image built with some sort of fractal compression tech ?

Re:fsck Silverlight (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096866)

Obviously not, as this is the largest digital photo. That implies that there is nothing like it.

Re:fsck Silverlight (5, Funny)

Zak3056 (69287) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097030)

All that processing, and couldn't create a Flash viewer for it?

IOW: Damn Microsoft and their proprietary format. They should be more open, and use Adobe's proprietary format instead!

Re:fsck Silverlight (1)

RocketRabbit (830691) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097588)

Yeah, I'd rather use one proprietary, shitty, worthless viewer than another.

How about putting this together with HTML5? That way nobody has to complain about being tied to an awful crapfest of a viewer.

I will probably never see this photo (0, Flamebait)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096668)

I've never installed Silverlight, never had to, and hopefully never will.

Perhaps the did it to save bandwidth? (grin)

200GB? (0)

kinabrew (1053930) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096672)

Are you *trying* to make me hit my ISP's bandwidth cap today?

So they don't want people to see their hard work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33096684)

I can't run Silverlight.

So their effort might just as well be for nought, as far as I'm concerned.

As they say on the gazillion-sites-and-counting internet: "Next!"

Lets make sure to focus on what's really important (4, Funny)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096730)

Lets make sure that this discussion focuses on the fact that they presented it in Silverlight and not the open and saintly Flash format. I don't want to veer offtopic here into discussing "gigapixels" and "robotic camera stands". That's not what this site is about.

Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import (2, Insightful)

alexhs (877055) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096868)

Lets make sure that this discussion focuses on the fact that they presented it in Silverlight and not the open and saintly Flash format.

Nobody likes Adobe Flash (excepted for Apple bashing time).
We now have HTML5.
However Flash is an important legacy format that we can't yet ignore (especially when all major browsers don't support HTML5 yet).
Silverlight became legacy before ever gaining significant marketshare. Why should we care ? Also, as pointed by blirp [slashdot.org] , it's not really cross-platforms.

Therefore, expect the same kind of off-topic threads that we get with paywalls or slashdotted links. No access to the material implies random off-topic discussions.

Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097026)

Silverlight *is* cross-platform, the problem is the website in question is sniffing out OSes other than Windows and OSX/Intel, which is stupid but not a technical problem, lest of all Moonlight's.

Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import (1)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097084)

It's fine if they want to use Silverlight, but from what I can tell (maybe I'm wrong) they are only relying on the Web browser's useragent string to check if it can run the application. With the latest release of Moonlight installed on FF/Ubuntu, the default response I got from the website indicates I need to have Silverlight on Windows or Mac. If I switch to an IE8 useragent string (using useragent switcher), it then tells me I need Silverlight 3. I then tried switching to a useragent setting for FF on Vista, and all of a sudden it thinks I'm okay.

That's pretty lame in my opinion...it's fine to have a warning (although Moonlight already does that for you), but to assume the client browser can't handle the application without actually validating feature support, or at least providing the user with an option to try anyway is not all that friendly.

Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097140)

Lets make sure that this discussion focuses on the fact that they presented it in Silverlight and not the open and saintly Flash format.

Those are formats for executable content. I thought this was just a freaking image. Why not an image file format?

Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097250)

It is a zoomable image so it only downloads greater detail for the part you've zoomed in to.

Re:Lets make sure to focus on what's really import (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097392)

Those are formats for executable content. I thought this was just a freaking image. Why not an image file format?

Yeah, why don't they just post the 200GB image for us to download and attempt to view? I mean, I'm certainly willing to tie up all my bandwidth for a week straight to try to view an image that I consider nothing more than a curiosity. And of course, once I have that 200GB image, I'll spend another day and a half waiting for my image viewer to open the file. And then if I want to pan or zoom, I'll spend another couple hours waiting for it to redraw. I simply don't understand why those idiots used some cross-platform browser plugin!

Unimpressive all things considered (2, Insightful)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096752)

This becomes considerably less impressive when you realize that this image is done with sponsorship from major partners, whereas images like the Dubai picture, or the 50 Gigapixel image in Vienna [photoartkalmar.com] were both done by individuals.

PS (4, Informative)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096788)

oh, and half of it is sky which doesnt really count. While this is the case with the other two i mentioned, it is not so with the 67 Gigapixel image of Corcoado [gigapan.org]

Re:PS (1)

Suisyo (1868376) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096976)

The image of Budapest was the first time I had heard of these images, but after seeing these 2 links to previous photos like it I more than angree that the images in those 2 were far more interesting and well done than the one with major sponsorship.

Re:PS (1)

sloomis (1326535) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097008)

But 1/3 of the Corcoado photo is water, so what is the difference?

Re:PS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097554)

You missed the coolest part of that image. Try to use the scrool wheel on your mouse. You can zoom in a actually see the license plates on some cars. The image is in silverlight because they are using deepzoom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Zoom

Re:Unimpressive all things considered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097050)

Seconded.

I'll not be properly impressed til they get down to atomic resolution using camera obscura shoeboxes made from recycled organic hemp.

Re:Unimpressive all things considered (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097450)

Agreed, and remember anyone can do this with 9 grand worth of Sony A900 digital cameras [google.com] and a $1000 robotic camera mount. [gigapansystems.com]

These were impressive many years ago because someone had to build the hardware and write the software to do this, but now they sell kits. [gigapansystems.com]

Please /., don't post a story when they reach 78 gigapixel or 83 gigapixel or 92 gigapixel or whatever, /. already did stories on 8.6 GP [slashdot.org] , 26 GP [slashdot.org] , and now we have a story on 70 GP. Just tell me when we reach 100, then 500, and 1000.

Re:Unimpressive all things considered (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097454)

This becomes considerably less impressive when you realize that this image is done with sponsorship from major partners, whereas images like the Dubai picture, or the 50 Gigapixel image in Vienna were both done by individuals.

Was one of those sponsors Microsoft, by any chance?

Amazing details! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33096778)

Check out the 36th house on the left, if you zoom in enough you can just about see a quarter of a boob through the half opened window. Not enough mega pixels to see if its a female or male booby though :(

Re:Amazing details! (4, Funny)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096870)

And suddenly silverlight penetration in the Slashdot community triples.

Re:Amazing details! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097034)

Of course, photography is a common hobby among Mac users and I wish both of them well.

Who cares? (0)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096862)

This record appears to me to have about the same value as a phone booth stuffing contest. How does this advance humanity, or even technology, in a meaningful way?

Re:Who cares? (1, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097056)

How does your post advance humanity, or even technology, in a meaningful way?

Practice what you preach asshole.

Wonderful (2, Interesting)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 4 years ago | (#33096906)

And the ability to zoom in to certain views was pretty awesome. If Ansel Adams were alive today, I wonder what his opinion would be and if he would use such a technique. He would have ot do something. Many of the films he liked to use are no longer in production - at least in the 4x5 format he liked.

Cool story, bro (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33096966)

No really, totally cool.

Not bad, but ads are annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33096992)

Nothing new besides size. However one thing that I found annoying - couple billboards were added with the sponsor logos that do not belong in the original image.

Just to be different (1)

dnix (831940) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097000)

nice picture, BUT why they used Silverthing? there are much more interesting opensource tools like iipimage ( http://iipimage.sf.net/ [sf.net] ) that they work in javascript, flex and even java! Anyway, I had to use a friend computer to watch the image :)

Re:Just to be different (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097040)

OpenZoom [openzoom.org] is another popular alternative.

Re:Just to be different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097088)

yep and IIPImage is server / client. one of the clients is based on openzoom (great library btw)

I can see the pr0n... (1)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097348)

I can almost see all the pr0n being filmed in the windows....

No thanks (0, Redundant)

rolfc (842110) | more than 4 years ago | (#33097460)

No silverlight

I'm currently working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33097486)

On an 80 gigapixel panoramic picture of my cock. It will be the biggest photo in the world.

But my cock will still be tiny.

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>