Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

The Largest Digital Photo 176

Posted by kdawson
from the brushstrokes dept.
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

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Largest Digital Photo

Comments Filter:
  • 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 gigapixe
    • Wouldn't that constitute for the "biggest digital image on the internet" ?

      Okay, so it's stitched together... but so is this one.
      • by nachmore (922129) on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:22AM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Curtman (556920)
          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)

          Maybe they couldn't get their hands on one of these. [nrc-cnrc.gc.ca]
        • Not true

          Google Earth pulls from ONE BIG flat file. It's the same kind of technology that pixia uses. These extremely large files are much faster than databases because of pyramid layers. (reduced resolution data sets) The Keyhole Fusion that you use to add to a skin stitches it into that file. (Yes, it has variable resolution)

    • by imsabbel (611519) on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:23AM (#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.
      • by Salvance (1014001) * on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:37AM (#16639361) Homepage Journal
        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.
        • by Speare (84249)
          Again, no. The "one pixel camera" is a misnomer because it makes you think of the size of one photosite in a regular camera. It has one very large/good sensor and a TON of support structure. You can't just cram a few million of those things into the same camera box.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Phat_Tony (661117)
          Someone will always find a work-around to push a technology's limits well beyond the end point demarcated by yesterday's experts.

          Examples of where some experts were wrong about the limits to technology does not imply that there are no limits to technology. Some expert assessments regarding the limits may be wrong, while others are right.

          I'm not going to pretend I know what proposed limits to technology are solid and which aren't, but here are some to think about. Many physicists think that time travel
          • Examples of where some experts were wrong about the limits to technology does not imply that there are no limits to technology. Some expert assessments regarding the limits may be wrong, while others are right.
            "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan
      • by iammaxus (683241) on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:50AM (#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.

        • by rolfwind (528248)
          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.
          • by peragrin (659227)
            The average person can barely pilot on a 2 dimensional grid. Flying cars are always going to be unrealistic for the average person. The current reasons why you don't see more of the ones that do exist, is fuel. They haven't made them fuel efficient enough to be practical. burning 10-20% of your fuel just for take-off, and then again on landing doesn't help when your only carring a couple of gallons to start with.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            "Where are our flying cars predicted 50 years ago? They should have been here 10 years ago already."

            That's more of a driver problem than a hardware issue.
          • by nolife (233813)
            Flying cars and "fly by wire" transportation ARE possible right now and not restrained by physics or mechanics. They are not around because they are not economical.
            For technology to get to the masses, it has to be something of desire or benefit and be available at a resonable cost.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by CrackedButter (646746)
          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,
          • by Txiasaeia (581598)
            "Put a res of 1600x1200 at least and your original idea is off the ground."

            I don't know about you, but I don't know a lot of photographers that would consider 1600x1200 an acceptable size for a photo. Hell, my entry-level D50 takes shots at roughly 3000x2000.

            "All those images shot together, then seamless added together, you got yourself a gigapixel image!" You're missing the idea of angle. Imagine the following: you're looking at a work of art 20' by 20'. It's huge. You're standing at the foot of t

            • I agree with everything you said because thats what I meant, I had hoped I explained it enough to show that I understood and want to further expand and put across that what the parent had said, was plausible. The only trouble was I couldn't really articulate what I wanted to say this morning very well and had hoped somebody wouldn't pick my point apart too much. :) With regard to the last sentence, we weren't talking about the quality of the camera sensor. I was just thinking the parent poster was undere
            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              It's a good point about the angular deformation, but the camera already has distance information from the range finder. This could be used as a starting point to correct the angular problems. Of course the resolution of the farthest points would still be less. The vertical and horizontal pan could be corrected if there were overlap areas.

              This would require massive CPU firepower in today's terms, but very possible later. Also, if overlapping or movie data were available, then processing could be used t
        • Take a look at www.panoramafactory.com

          Just one of many stiching programs out there. There is no reason why something like this couldn't be built into a camera within a year or two. You want a giant picture? Take 5-10 photos and let it stick it all together.

          It would be even more interesting if the software got smart enough to not only make flat images but composite 3D photos just based off of a series of 2D images taken of an area.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by zaqattack911 (532040)
        I have no idea what you just said, but since you used the term "quantum efficiency".. I have no choice but to believe you :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jedrek (79264)
      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 sm
    • by Mike89 (1006497)
      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" ;)
    • No, consumer cameras will not record 13GP. Basic physics will prevent this. Pixels need to be a certain minimum phtsical size. If they are two smallthen not many photons bump into them. Light comes in packets called "photons" as this will not change. A 13GP sensor will have 114,000 pixels across each edge. So yu muliply the mini um pixel size times 114000 and you gt a sensor that is physically to large to stuff into a reasonable sized camera. And then how big is the lens that can project an image ci
      • ok so... .4um (wavelength of upper visible light spectrum) * 114,000 = 45.6mm... compare to 35mm and we're talking the same order of magnitude.
        • ok, so I should have used .7um (aproximate longest wavelength of visible light) and 136,424 = 95mm, which is medium format
        • No, the pixel size is not related to the wavelenght of light. The pixel simply needs to be large enough in square area that some light hits it. Think of a buket outdoor catching rain. A large diameter bucket will catch lots of water but a small drinking glass will catch less. Now think of a soda straw turnned vertical. There is a chance that very litel or even no drop fall down the straw. The straw is so small that the amount of water collected is more goveren by luck then the amount of rainfall.

          Api

          • The MINIMUM pixel size is certainly related to the wavelength you want to detect. Considering that we can build chip features in the 45nm range, a .4um detector is not outrageous. You are overlooking the fact that there are multiple ways to increase the number of photon samples you collect. One is ambient light. Another is exposure time. Alternatively, you could just accept a tradeoff between a small sensor and noisy image. It's still 13GP.
  • by headkase (533448) on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:09AM (#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 :)
    • by rf0 (159958)
      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 :)
      • by headkase (533448)
        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!
    • by hackstraw (262471) *
      Downloading wallpapers for my walls is going to be awesome

      So true. This is coming too. With epaper and the like, and with the higer res HDTVs that are wall mountable, getting this stuff to be thinner is just a matter of time.

      I think it would be the shit to be able to have even a static display cover every inch of a wall. You know when you pick a new wallpaper with your computer it doesn't look the same as the thumbnail, be it better or worse. You never really know until you try. Doing that with a real
  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Achromatic1978 (916097) <robert@chromablu[ ]et ['e.n' in gap]> on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:11AM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by klang (27062)
      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.
      • 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).

        • by klang (27062)
          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.
        • by swillden (191260) *

          If I scan a polaroid at 20,000dpi, it could be a gigapixel image

          It would, but you wouldn't be able to zoom very far before you had no detail at all. The polaroid camera's lens and film don't have the resolving power to make that useful. The gigpxl people, OTOH, use huge cameras with huge lenses (adapted from spy plane cameras) to accurately focus light onto a very large sheet of high-quality film. Scanning that at high resolution gives you a gigapixel image that still shows detail even at a 1:1 zoom (

        • by pilkul (667659)
          When I read FILM in all caps in your post I spent a few moments puzzled, having never heard of this F.I.L.M. acronym nor what kind of fancy new technology it might stand for. Focused Interferometric Laser Motion? I think I've been using digital cameras for too long...
    • by r3m0t (626466)
      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.
    • just 'cos I'm bored...

      Google Earth uses the same maps as Google Maps, afaik. Google Maps does not have the highest resolution pictures for every spot on Earth; not even domestic US, but certainly not the oceans.

      But let's say it did.

      As far zoomed in as I can go, right at the equator, the little distance bar tells me 20 meters for 69 pixels. Obviously there's going to be a good bit of error in there, so when we take the circumference of the Earth, let's ignore ellipticity and any significance and call it 40
      • If I start with 20 meters = 69 pixels, then 1 km = 1450 pixels, or 1 km^2 = 2.1 Mpx. Ignoring the oceans (since they no doubt have far worse resolution), the Earth has a land area [hypertextbook.com] of > 148 million km^2. That comes out to about 148 M * 2.1 M px = 310 Tpx. If the ocean were at a similar resolution, it'd be about 1 petapixel.
    • Problem with that idea is that the images are only about 100k in size per tile per tile and greatly reduced in pixel size. So no.. GE doesn't even compare to this gigapixel image. You are comparing an Apple to a Car.
      • images are only about 100k in size per tile per tile

        And? So there's a difference between, say, 10,000,000 100k image tiles, and 100,000 100mb image tiles? One is inherently superior?

    • by bill_kress (99356)
      That was my first thought. It zooms in exactly like Google Earth. That means there is an application on the PC to render it exactly like google earth--it also means that the pictures that compose it are downloaded from the web dynamically, exactly like google earth.

      Anyone want to calculate the number of pixels available in Google earth?

      Also, why can't cameras do live panning yet? In order to create a large photo you should be able to put it into "pan" mode, tell it how much area you want to capture (so i
  • 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 the
  • by AEton (654737) on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:19AM (#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.
  • 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 (Score:5, Funny)

    by dcapel (913969) on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:24AM (#16639301) Homepage
    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.
    • by tehSpork (1000190)
      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? :)
    • 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...
  • I'd like to see him do it with the single pixel camera now! :)
  • 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?
    • by Sinbios (852437)
      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.

      • by Kangburra (911213)
        And it's spelt kyrie, which is Greek for "Lord".

        I will email Miss Minogue right now! ;-)
      • "And it's spelt kyrie, which is Greek for "Lord"."

        Oh dear...

        It's spellED kyrie, which is LATIN for "Lord". The requiem mass is a catholic thing, not greek orthodox.
        • (A) The Brits have spelled it "spelt" for a long time, whereas we Americans have spelt it "spelled" for just as long. (B) See this site [newadvent.org]. Evidently, it's Greek and Latin.
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:28AM (#16639323) Homepage Journal
    the goatse man doesn't learn of this technique....
  • 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..
  • 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.
  • can be found where?
  • 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 e
    • 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.
  • by dattaway (3088) on Monday October 30, 2006 @03:44AM (#16639385) Homepage Journal
    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?
    • by theCoder (23772)
      The information blub in the article noted that it was 3 bands at 16 bpp (per band). Most likely those bands are RGB. I'd be surprised, though, if they really got 16 full bits of range for each pixel. It's probably something less than that, at least for the red and blue bands, but still more than 8. Maybe 11-12 bits.

      I wonder what file format they're storing the image data in. Most file formats can't handle images that big. TIFF has an upper limit of 4G, for example (I've heard of 64 bit TIFF versions,
  • by isnoop (239143)
    I think I found a naked lady sunbathing!
  • Can someone mirror this ?
    • 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?

  • 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,
  • 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? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:12AM (#16639537) Homepage
    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..."
  • How they wish now Seadragon [live.com] were there to help ;-)
  • Is it just me or does Jesus have a woman resting on his lap in the Last Supper section?
  • 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...
  • 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.
  • This will look great on my MySpace page!!!!!!!!!1
  • 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.
  • 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 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).

  • 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.
  • 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.

It is much easier to suggest solutions when you know nothing about the problem.

Working...