Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

The Largest Digital Photo

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the brushstrokes dept.

176

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

cancel ×

176 comments

Wow (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639233)

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

Maybe we should have a 'Religion' topic for more stories of this type. Or maybe kdawson could just use the 'Enlightenment' topic again. :-)

Re:Wow (1)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639371)

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 them. I could give you a thousand examples (well maybe really just a dozen) but yours will do just fine for the moment.

Digital photograhy of a painting: YES

Story about religion: NO

adios,

TW

Wow - worth checking out (1)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639235)

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 gigapixel resolution, and still have enough room left over to store 1000 similar pictures.

Talking about google maps... (2, Insightful)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639265)

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... (4, Interesting)

nachmore (922129) | more than 7 years ago | (#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:Wow - worth checking out (4, Interesting)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 7 years ago | (#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 (3, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639361)

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:Wow - worth checking out (4, Interesting)

iammaxus (683241) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Wow - worth checking out (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639769)

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.

Re:Wow - worth checking out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16640057)

Helicopters?

Re:Wow - worth checking out (2, Interesting)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639999)

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, then seamless added together, you got yourself a gigapixel image! The entire movie, Corpse Bride was shot using 2 or 3, 16 megapixel Canon cameras just so you know. (Obviously, those images from the movie are placed after one another instead of being placed next to each other). By the way, in the 2016 most cameras (including the shittest ones) will be well over the 20 megapixel mark. A lot of them are now, the highest you can get (as far as I know is 16 megapixel canon SLR and I read somewhere that Hassleblad have a 32 or 64 megapixel camera for sale.

Re:Wow - worth checking out (1)

jdcool88 (954991) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639851)

I don't know about 13 gigapixels, but a 4 gigapixel camera already exists.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,66498-0.htm l [wired.com]

Re:Wow - worth checking out (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640043)

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.

Principle of VLA systems: (1)

Sir Unimaginative (967464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639883)

A lot of small receivers pointed at the same thing behave similarly to how a much larger hypothetical single receiver could be expected to in the same situation.

Expect multi-lens and/or multi-sensor digital cameras to become more common than they are now. Don't expect them to be portable in any sense but the most loosely technically adherent, or consumer-affordable for a couple generations after that, but still.

Re:Wow - worth checking out (2, Informative)

jedrek (79264) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639317)

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 smart people are saying that the megapixel war is going to seriously slow down (especially in pro cams, it's still going to be a selling point in consumer cameras). The consumer DSLR bodies are already surpassing the abilities of consumer lenses as it is right now. Look for cameras with better dynamic range and high iso quality.

39 Megapixels... (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639961)

Re:39 Megapixels... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16640099)

http://www.hasselblad.com/products/h-system/h3d. as px
You realize he was talking about 35 mm sensor the whole time? The Hasselblad (or Phase One digital backs for that matter) have sensors that are 2x a 35 mm sensor. 35 mm equivalent film resolution is enough for most (not all) professionals... just look at what kind of camera they're lugging around.

Re:39 Megapixels... (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640225)

He might well have been but the original post he was replying to was talking about "consumer cameras" in 20-30 years. Who says they have to be 35mm?

Re:Wow - worth checking out (1)

Mike89 (1006497) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639429)

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.
It's ironic that you say this and your signature reads "Say No to Crack" ;)

Re:Wow - worth checking out (1)

ExploHD (888637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639511)

The site is pretty slow to load up initially

and it just got slashdotted...

..anyone knows the music ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639793)

does anyone know the music that's playing in the background ?

Re:..anyone knows the music ? (1)

Artichoke (34549) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639967)

Does anyone know why the music is playing? :P

Re:..anyone knows the music ? (2, Informative)

slightlyspacey (799665) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640307)

Mozart - Lacrimosa

Now we need wall displays. (2, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 7 years ago | (#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 :)

Re:Now we need wall displays. (1)

rf0 (159958) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639629)

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 :)

Re:Now we need wall displays. (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639635)

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!

Re:Now we need wall displays. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639711)

Bill Gates' house does that.

Soup-rise, soup-rise, right?

Huh? (4, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#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:Huh? (2, Interesting)

klang (27062) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639325)

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.

Re:Huh? (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639341)

Uhhh? No, it doesn't.

It's a FILM camera: http://www.gigapxl.org/technology-format.htm [gigapxl.org]

If I scan a polaroid at 20,000dpi, it could be a gigapixel image (note I've not done the math, replace the dpi as appropriate).

Not to say the idea isn't impressive, and high res (it is/was a spy camera, after all).

Re:Huh? (1)

klang (27062) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640209)

truth be told, this is the first time I notice, that gigapxl is not a true digital camera.. (I kick myself at the moment)

In their defense, they have made the calculations to make sure that they have enough information to work with. I think this is as much like "cheating" as stitching a buttload of digital photos. Furthermore, the gigapxl camera is usable for "things that move", whereas the stitching really isn't .. unless you have 40x40 cameras..

Furthermore; GoogleEarth is still bigger, as noted in parent.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16640267)

Absolutely. The gigapixel camera is a fantastic idea, taking the cold war technology and using it in such a way. :)

Re:Huh? (1)

r3m0t (626466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639435)

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.

GP is correct (1)

deesine (722173) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639651)

mostly. I guess that we have to trust that they do in fact have a huge image stored on some drive somewhere. However, odds are that what we are seeing in the Flash viewer app are an array of images each representing a different area and different resolution. In other words, they are serving that photo up the same way GoogleEarth and WorldWind do.

It's a marketing stunt. You too could generate the world's largest digital (or analog, don't know if Landstat images are taken digitally or not) photo by taking a bunch of GE images at a zoomed in depth and stitching them together on your super-fast and beafy setup. It would then be kinda hard to prove you have such an image because, how would you show it to anybody? I don't think Photoshop will open anything that large. Something called Xres(?) used to specialize in large photos, maybe it would. The only way to show that image on the net is to serve it up like GE/WW does, or some similar scheme, whereby you save several different versions of your original photos, each at a different resolution.

Re:Huh? (1)

mei_mei_mei (890405) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639691)

"At different levels, it shows you different images."

Yes, there are lots of very large images there, one for each zoom%. The largest is the most zoomed in.

Google Maps is a bigger photo. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639257)

The zoom-and-scroll features of this website seem just like Google Maps.

Yes I know it's pieced together from satellite data.

Re:Google Maps is a bigger photo. (1)

Thong (218859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639503)

So is this...

Actually pretty cool (1)

amplusquem (995096) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639271)

If you click the link and view the picture (its in a flash document), it's actually pretty amazing. The detail is incredible, you can zoom in incredibly far and still get a crystal clear image. Here is the technical data...

Picture:

Size: 8,604,431,000 pixels
Size Before Crop: 10,293, 864,000 pixels
Colour depth: 16 bit per channel
True Scale Resolution: 227dpi

Data Processing:

CPU: 4 x AMD Opteron 885 Dual Core 64 bit
RAM: 16 gbs
Disk: 1.8 terabytes

I don't think we're going to be seeings these kind of pics on the average website anytime soon ;)

Re:Actually pretty cool (5, Funny)

Traf-O-Data-Hater (858971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639535)

Track 45 left.
clickclickclickclickclick
Stop.
Pull back, track right.
clickclickclickclick
Stop.
Give me hard copy right there.

Re:Actually pretty cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639741)

I don't think we're going to be seeings these kind of pics on the average website anytime soon ;)

Well, this reminds me of Seadragon http://labs.live.com/Seadragon.aspx [live.com] ; using their technology this should not be
such a problem. Coming soon? (You'll probably have seen Photosynth http://labs.live.com/photosynth/ [live.com] ?)

Re:Actually pretty cool (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640077)

It's all very impresive, them taking such a huge picture and all but that's not what you're looking at here. If the image we're all looking at was 50gig, I just panned across the whole thing (side to side) at full zoom in less than 2 minutes. Assuming a stripe accross the middle at full zoom is 0.5% of the whole image (I suspect it is more) that means I just downloaded ~250MB in under 2 minutes and I'm on a 2mb ADSL connection.

Jesus Christ! [it's a lion, get in the car] (3, Funny)

AEton (654737) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Jesus Christ! [it's a lion, get in the car] (2, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639349)

It's all part of the promotion for the upcoming musical: Jesus Crotch Super Star.

well, go ahead and tell us... (3, Funny)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639825)

you are treated to a sudden and rather unpleasant close-up of Jesus's crotch. On the cross.

Well, was He risen? I keep hearing yes, but I've always been too shy to check.

Re:well, go ahead and tell us... (1)

Stealth Potato (619366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639897)

If the fundies are right and there's a Hell, you're going there for sure, and I'm going right along with you for laughing.

...It was worth it.

Re:well, go ahead and tell us... (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640079)

Some church people have been checking [images-amazon.com] but so far they aren't saying... ;)

Filesize... (1)

Boogaroo (604901) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639285)

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.

Re:Filesize... (1)

tehSpork (1000190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639387)

Pah. I could hold just below 50, and that's just on my main computer. Of course, I'd have to get rid of all the useful stuff already on there... :(

Re:Filesize... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639471)

Hmm, I think I'll go take a 10 gigapixel picture of my... my motherboard! Yeah, that's it.
That level of detail is required to give justice to your "motherboard" ?

What's the problem? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640065)

Huh? What's the problem? 640k of memory should be enough for that... or anyone, actually! ;)

Google maps, satellite view. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639291)

Um... if you're counting composite imagery, google maps is covering most of the planet. How many terra pixels would you guess that is?

Re:Google maps, satellite view. (1)

dotgain (630123) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639449)

terra pixels

Oh har har bloody har!

Good Idea (4, Funny)

dcapel (913969) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639301)

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.

Re:Good Idea (1)

tehSpork (1000190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639411)

Note that they are smart and don't let you simply download the picture, instead you have to use their (undoubtedly resource intensive) flash interface to view finite bits of the gigantic photo. Too bad too, I for one would have loved to watch MSPAINT croak while trying to load such a massive image. Memory segmentation fault anyone? :)

Re:Good Idea (1)

FirienFirien (857374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639519)

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...

Awesome (1)

scoot80 (1017822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639305)

I'd like to see him do it with the single pixel camera now! :)

Well (1)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639307)

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?

Trust me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639389)

trust me you do not want to see Kylie with such many details. It would need army of PSpers working on it before. Better talk about Keeley, or Jessica

Re:Well (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639413)

It's the Lacrymosa from Mozart's Requiem. And it's spelt kyrie, which is Greek for "Lord".

Really though, considering the size of the image they're hosting, they can't even use a 320kbps mp3 or something to accompany it? My track is only about 7MB.

Re:Well (1)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639559)

And it's spelt kyrie, which is Greek for "Lord".

I will email Miss Minogue right now! ;-)

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16640213)

320? they are already using up all their bandwidth :-D

Re:Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639565)

Why would you want to have a large picture and sound of an ugly hag that can't sing?

Lets just hope (3, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639323)

the goatse man doesn't learn of this technique....

Website Optimized for.. (1)

mr_stinky_britches (926212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639353)

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..

Re:Website Optimized for.. (1)

Sinbios (852437) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639447)

Is this a problem somehow? Does it make the image less worthy of our haughty viewing? Oh noes, the guy isn't a purporter of alternative software!

Re:Website Optimized for.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639715)

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..

Something tells me that you did not use Firefox 2.0. But does that really matter?

Resolution (1)

Raptoer (984438) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639359)

Pixel Density: 80 pixel/mm2 I can understand a couple pixels/mm2, even a couple dozen for very detailed stuff. But 80... 9x9... those pixels are so small that your eye would have a hard time perceiving it.

Re:Resolution (1)

realnowhereman (263389) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639987)

Depends how close you are to it. Your eye would have no trouble seeing a feature that is 0.1mm. A typical technical pen set would have the following nib sizes: 0.13, 0.18, 0.25, 0.35, 0.5, 0.7, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_pen [wikipedia.org]

Torrent (1)

veldstra (107520) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639367)

can be found where?

A Related Question... (1)

SirWinston (54399) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639373)

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 enough without me having to manually adjust the color in each segment first.

So, what software would you recommend for compositing groups of 16 overlapping images? Hopefully there are a few good alternatives to try out.

Re:A Related Question... (1)

daverabbitz (468967) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639667)

If you're using *nix you might want to look at using the nip2 frontend with the VIPS system (vips.sf.net?), It's freakin' brilliant for working with enormous images, as it only processes the pixel data that is actually needed for the operation, for example a preview of a filter only operates on the pixels that are actually visible.

I've loaded up 8GB images before and worked with them in near realtime. It's pretty impressive stuff, and includes an enormous number of filters, and is designed for batch/semi-batch operations.

There's also a guide online for using it for producing infared scan composites which could probably applied to what you want to do.

Re:A Related Question... (1)

shawnmchorse (442605) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639747)

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? (2, Interesting)

dattaway (3088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639385)

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?

Re:How much of the light spectrum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639427)

What the fuck does that have to do with it being flash. Did you think your screen would suddenly radiate visible infrared at you or something?

Wait, is that... (2, Funny)

isnoop (239143) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639419)

I think I found a naked lady sunbathing!

Re:Wait, is that... (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640053)

nah, someone else noticed that earlier, they zoomed in & as it turns out, it's just Jesus' balls.

Mirror ? (1)

non-compliant (945796) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639443)

Can someone mirror this ?

Re:Mirror ? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639527)

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?

You HAVE to see these Pictures (2, Informative)

quadszilla (1001740) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639475)

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, was a 5 panel print out (that was the one that was $7500).

It's like "Powers of Ten" (1)

joe_n_bloe (244407) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639485)

Anyone remember that?

Soon everyone will be able to make one :-) (2, Interesting)

rsargent (533171) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639515)

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)

Surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639533)

I'm actually surprised that nobody mentioned goatse this time..

1,145? (2, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639537)

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..."

I remember this one... (1)

lzandman (902808) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639541)

The TNO institute in The Netherlands also created a very large digital panorama photograph [www.tno.nl] about two years ago. It was pretty impressive at the time.

Ouch! (1)

slightlyunruly (1013389) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639563)

From the article:

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

...this is gonna be one hell of a slashdotting!

Zooming in (1)

lastberserker (465707) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639573)

How they wish now Seadragon [live.com] were there to help ;-)

Woohoo! I found Waldo!!11one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639575)

He's in the middle third of the picture!

p.s. It helps to know that Waldo wore a toga in the 16th century. :-)

Jesus + Woman (1)

aarku (151823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639605)

Is it just me or does Jesus have a woman resting on his lap in the Last Supper section?

Re:Jesus + Woman (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639829)

If you were the son of the Lord, what would you be doing at your last supper?

Sponsored by Microsoft(R)? (1)

omeg (907329) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639663)

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...

Biggest.. Picture.. Ever.. (1)

crizpiz (960300) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639675)

Wow, I sincerely hope they have an enormous amount of bandwidth because the Slashdot effect on an 8.5 giga-pixel photo would be rediculious.

The fine line (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639709)

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.

Downloads? Torrents? (1)

Computer Guru (967408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16639733)

Where can I download this? I can't believe no one's asked... What's /. coming to?! I'll put a mirror up soon as I'm done digitally capturing all segments of the 80GB file with SnagIt 8.1 and saving it as a PNG - no stitching needed. Need seeds!

So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16639827)

Where's Waldo?

  - ac

Italian! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16640045)

It's an Italian work!
yeahhh! :)

---
Saluti a tutti i lettori Italiani di \.
(ed anche a quelli che riescono a leggere questo post ;) )
ogni tanto anche noi ci facciamo sentire, meno male va,
non siamo poi così da buttare...

bye from Italy!
=NiL=

Someone please mod this up (1)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640167)

If a significant part of the major art of Italy was put on the Net like this, it would be painfully apparent just how empty and devoid of meaning are most of the cultural productions of the 20th (and 21st so far) Centuries.

Godi, Fiorenza, poi che se' sì grande,
che per mare e per terra batti l'ali...

Biggest single image I could find: 450 Megapixels (1)

lhaeh (463179) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640275)

Here [nasa.gov] is an image of earth at night courtesy of NASA, only 5.9 MiB. Really cool to zoom in on, you can make out lots of stuff. I wouldn't recommend clicking this link unless you have a ton of ram. Best to save and view in photoshop.

Woohoo! (1)

DuranDuran (252246) | more than 7 years ago | (#16640295)

This will look great on my MySpace page!!!!!!!!!1
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...