What's the biggest "real" digital image?

Yes, I've heard about the gigapixel project, but that uses sheet FILM
which is then digitized. As far as I know, the largest current
digital image maker is a 340m pixel imager on the CFH (Canada France
Hawaii) telescope on Mauna Kia(sp?) in Hawaii. But how about
terrestrial images? Seems like 4 joined shots from the biggest
digital backs (39meg) would produce some awesome shots.
I've shot 6 shot images and compiled them into one 50 megapixels in
size using pano software and they look pretty good. Allows you to see
leaves on landscape shots, etc.
-Rich

One of the biggest digital images? I don't think so. Look at image
processing in histology where entire sections can be scanned at are
resolution of 0.75 NA. It's computer controlled and usually creates up to 40
by 40 digital images (at 12 MPixels with today's better cameras) that are
then put into a database, from which, of course, you could create a digital
image of that size.

With a 20mm ocular projection onto your CCD using a 40x lens, you have a FOV
of roughly 0.5mm. To scan an entire specimen of 2 cm by 2 cm, you need 40 x
40 images. Usually, people do not use 100x lenses and scan over the entire
section. But a 20x or 40x lens is employed.

Does this gigapixel project only apply for landscape photography?

To make things even better, the image can also be scanned along the
z-direction using confocal microscopy and hence create a 3D stack of
individual images. A terabyte of image information is then more appropriate
as a benchmark.

Gregor

"John A. Stovall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:58:55 -0400, Rich wrote:

Yes, I've heard about the gigapixel project, but that uses sheet FILM
which is then digitized. As far as I know, the largest current
digital image maker is a 340m pixel imager on the CFH (Canada France
Hawaii) telescope on Mauna Kia(sp?) in Hawaii. But how about
terrestrial images? Seems like 4 joined shots from the biggest
digital backs (39meg) would produce some awesome shots.
I've shot 6 shot images and compiled them into one 50 megapixels in
size using pano software and they look pretty good. Allows you to see
leaves on landscape shots, etc.
-Rich

198 images.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm

Final image dimensions: 40,784 x 26,800 pixels
Number of pixels in final image: 1,093,011,200 (1.09 gigapixel)
Final image file format: RGB Tiff using deflate compression
Final image file size: 2,068,654,055 bytes
Number of source images: 196
Number of pixels in source images: 1,233,125,376 (196 images *
3072*2048)
Lens focal length: 280mm (equivalent to 450mm on a 35mm camera)
Apertu F9. Shutter speed: 1/400
Number of control points in PTAssembler project: 779
Number of seams that were manually blended after stitching: 364
Horizontal field of view of final image: 63 degrees
Time required to capture component images: 13 minutes
Time required to set control points: 2 hours
Time required to optimize project: 2 days
Time required to stitch project: 4 days
Time required to blend seams / correct misalignments / finalize image:
3 days

************************************************** *******

"It looked like the sort of book described in library
catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be
more honest to admit that it looked as though it had
been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well."

_Light Fantastic_
Terry Pratchett

Rich wrote:
Yes, I've heard about the gigapixel project, but that uses sheet FILM
which is then digitized. As far as I know, the largest current
digital image maker is a 340m pixel imager on the CFH (Canada France
Hawaii) telescope on Mauna Kia(sp?) in Hawaii. But how about
terrestrial images? Seems like 4 joined shots from the biggest
digital backs (39meg) would produce some awesome shots.
I've shot 6 shot images and compiled them into one 50 megapixels in
size using pano software and they look pretty good. Allows you to see
leaves on landscape shots, etc.
-Rich

2.5 gigapixels he

http://www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite966.html

The 2.5 gigapixel photo

http://www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite966.html

Taken with a Nikon D1x

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message .uk...
2.5 gigapixels he

http://www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite966.html

That's the kind of photography that scares the hell out of tactical combat
people. Say, did you see what's going on in that red car?

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:05:37 GMT, John A. Stovall
wrote:

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:58:55 -0400, Rich wrote:

Yes, I've heard about the gigapixel project, but that uses sheet FILM
which is then digitized. As far as I know, the largest current
digital image maker is a 340m pixel imager on the CFH (Canada France
Hawaii) telescope on Mauna Kia(sp?) in Hawaii. But how about
terrestrial images? Seems like 4 joined shots from the biggest
digital backs (39meg) would produce some awesome shots.
I've shot 6 shot images and compiled them into one 50 megapixels in
size using pano software and they look pretty good. Allows you to see
leaves on landscape shots, etc.
-Rich

198 images.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm

Final image dimensions: 40,784 x 26,800 pixels
Number of pixels in final image: 1,093,011,200 (1.09 gigapixel)
Final image file format: RGB Tiff using deflate compression
Final image file size: 2,068,654,055 bytes
Number of source images: 196
Number of pixels in source images: 1,233,125,376 (196 images *
3072*2048)
Lens focal length: 280mm (equivalent to 450mm on a 35mm camera)
Apertu F9. Shutter speed: 1/400
Number of control points in PTAssembler project: 779
Number of seams that were manually blended after stitching: 364
Horizontal field of view of final image: 63 degrees
Time required to capture component images: 13 minutes
Time required to set control points: 2 hours
Time required to optimize project: 2 days
Time required to stitch project: 4 days
Time required to blend seams / correct misalignments / finalize image:
3 days

Impressive as can be! Must be fun trying to open it on a standard
computer.
-Rich

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:08:37 GMT, "GTO"
wrote:

One of the biggest digital images? I don't think so. Look at image
processing in histology where entire sections can be scanned at are
resolution of 0.75 NA. It's computer controlled and usually creates up to 40
by 40 digital images (at 12 MPixels with today's better cameras) that are
then put into a database, from which, of course, you could create a digital
image of that size.

With a 20mm ocular projection onto your CCD using a 40x lens, you have a FOV
of roughly 0.5mm. To scan an entire specimen of 2 cm by 2 cm, you need 40 x
40 images. Usually, people do not use 100x lenses and scan over the entire
section. But a 20x or 40x lens is employed.

Does this gigapixel project only apply for landscape photography?

To make things even better, the image can also be scanned along the
z-direction using confocal microscopy and hence create a 3D stack of
individual images. A terabyte of image information is then more appropriate
as a benchmark.

Or you could use an atomic force microscope and scan a car from one
end to the other. But then how long would it take?
-Rich

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:51:31 GMT, "David J Taylor"

wrote:

Rich wrote:
Yes, I've heard about the gigapixel project, but that uses sheet FILM
which is then digitized. As far as I know, the largest current
digital image maker is a 340m pixel imager on the CFH (Canada France
Hawaii) telescope on Mauna Kia(sp?) in Hawaii. But how about
terrestrial images? Seems like 4 joined shots from the biggest
digital backs (39meg) would produce some awesome shots.
I've shot 6 shot images and compiled them into one 50 megapixels in
size using pano software and they look pretty good. Allows you to see
leaves on landscape shots, etc.
-Rich

2.5 gigapixels he

http://www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite966.html


Bigger still! Could they have picked an uglier subject?
-Rich

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:49:18 -0400, Rich wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:08:37 GMT, "GTO"

To make things even better, the image can also be scanned along the
z-direction using confocal microscopy and hence create a 3D stack of
individual images. A terabyte of image information is then more appropriate
as a benchmark.

Or you could use an atomic force microscope and scan a car from one
end to the other. But then how long would it take?

A really long time. If you demand atomic-level resolution, scan speeds
are typically a few square microns per minute. That gives you
topography, and says nothing about color.

That ignores the fact that AFMs and other scanning-probe systems really
don't like objects with signficant topography; vertical topogrpahy
beyond a few or a few tens of microns moves beyond the scan range of the
piezos.

-dms