The Largest Digital Photo

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

Wow - worth checking out

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.

Re:Talking about google maps...

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

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

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

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.

Now we need wall displays.

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 :)

Huh?

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.

Actually pretty cool

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

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

Jesus Christ! [it's a lion, get in the car]

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.

well, go ahead and tell us...

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.

Filesize...

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.

Good Idea

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.

Awesome

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

Well

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?

Lets just hope

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

Website Optimized for..

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..

Resolution

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.

Torrent

can be found where?

A Related Question...

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.

How much of the light spectrum?

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?

Wait, is that...

I think I found a naked lady sunbathing!

Mirror ?

Can someone mirror this ?

You HAVE to see these Pictures

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"

Anyone remember that?

Soon everyone will be able to make one :-)

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)

1,145?

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...

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!

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

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

Jesus + Woman

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

Sponsored by Microsoft(R)?

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..

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

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.

Biggest single image I could find: 450 Megapixels

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!

This will look great on my MySpace page!!!!!!!!!1

not same as Gigapxl project

This is different from the Gigapxl (<URL:http://www.gigapxl.org>) project. Gigapxl project headed by Graham Flint, a semi retired physicist, takes single snapshots that has information equivalent to 4 Gigapxl each. Check their website for tech details and a lot of images of places in america. Shortly, their technology consists of shooting with large format film camera (9"x18" negatives) followed by high resolution scanning. Details of their methods are fascinating.

And ya, let me not forget, Michael T. Jones, a co-founder and chief technology officer of Keyhole, now Google Earth, is another team member in the project.

Largest Human Ejaculation

In similar efforts, and upon realizing that semen + semen = semen, a regular spermbank donor has announced he has made the world's biggest spermjar, this being achieved in six month's worth of ejaculations. The results are quite stunning, as enough fluid has been generated to fill a small fish tank.

The donor has annuonced he will put the fluid in the shape of a single large squirt, thereby creating the world's largest ejaculation.

Fab!

I can't wait to get home and add some crudely drawn moustaches and Pam Anderson boobs to what will surely be the world's biggest photoshop.

Umm, where are the ACTUAL details of the camera??

It's all nice and dandy that they used 4 x AMD Opteron(TM) 885 Dual Core 64 bit , with 1.8 TB of space to "Compute"? (heh) this image.

But where are the REAL details?

I.E. what camera, what lens, what settings, what lighting, what software did they use to stitch?

You know.. details that are interesting, not how much ram they used :)

Good thing about PS - MOASD

Good thing PhotoShop broke its 30,000 x 30,000 barrier a while back. Can't wait to try this on my Pentium-II.

Of course, dowloading this image will be the MOASD (Mother of all SlashDotting).

Email it to me please

I don't have time to read TFA. Can someone just copy the image and send it to me by email?

Because that's what everyone else does to me. Jeez, one friend sent me an "update" with over 10MB of photos in it to me today.

Not much to see

The site takes forever to load (understandable Flash + Slashdot effect). However, the Flash view is not resizable, so I cannot get a larger view of the painting, only a small window through which to view a fragment of the fresco. I have a 30-inch Cinema HD display. I want to fill that display with the image. Even though there is a "Full Screen" link on the page, it only opens a full screen browser window, with the small flash view in the upper left corner, occupying 10% of the window.

Incorrect? Gigapan project at 30?

The Gigapan [cmu.edu] material says it can reach 30 gigapixels with the right camera. The preview images don't say what their resolutions are, but they are clearly pretty big.

National Archives of Japan

I guess I don't see this as being too impressive as it's not a huge leap beyond what's already out there. The National Archives of Japan has a digital collection online that is pretty impressive. I guess many of the images aren't quite as big, but there's quite a few ranging from 1-2 billion pixels.

http://www.digital.archives.go.jp/index_e.html [archives.go.jp]

One scroll I looked at was 7,164x279,984 pixels = 2,005,805,376 pixels, about 1/4th the size of this image. Was one other scroll that was slightly less wide. They're all shown through JPIP and an activex viewer, which unfortunately means IE only. Or you can do like I do and pull out the jpip url from the html and use it with a jpeg2k viewer capable of jpip.

!= 24-bit

Weak, it's only 16-bit. In other words:

Nothing to see here, move along

Re:Wow

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

Re:Google maps, satellite view.

terra pixels

Oh har har bloody har!

Re:Google Maps is a bigger photo.

So is this...

Someone please mod this up

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...