If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What's the biggest "real" digital image?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What's the biggest "real" digital image?
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What's the biggest "real" digital image?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What's the biggest "real" digital image?
"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? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What's the biggest "real" digital image?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What's the biggest "real" digital image?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What's the biggest "real" digital image?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What's the biggest "real" digital image?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Price War Hits Digital Photos | MrPepper11 | Digital Photography | 3 | March 19th 05 12:32 AM |
Digital picture size ..Urgent.....plz help | why | Digital Photography | 0 | November 10th 04 10:42 AM |
Image tank / digital wallet options | JC Dill | Digital Photography | 11 | August 13th 04 11:28 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? | eProvided.com | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 5th 03 06:47 PM |