Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 8.6 billion pixels digital image

Reply
Thread Tools

8.6 billion pixels digital image

 
 
hIRS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2006
The Inventory office - dept.Cultural Property of Diocese of Novara,
and HAL9000 Srl from Novara, have produced a digital

picture of 8,6 billion pixels showing the "Parete Gaudenziana", a
fresco made by the painter Gaudenzio Ferrari dated 1513,

which can be seen in the partition of the Church of Santa Maria delle
Grazie, in the convent of Varallo Sesia, diocese of

Novara and Province of Vercelli.
The image stands at the boundaries of the modern opportunities as for
the final dimensions of the digital picture. The

picture has been created joining electronically 1145 images, each 12,2
Megapixel and 16 bit per color channel.
The 8,6 Gigapixel digital picture of the Parete Gaudenziana can be
explored in detail on the site www.haltadefinizione.com

Technical Info

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

Shooted Scene Size: 10,80 m x 9,94 m (35,43 ft x 32,61 ft)
corresponding to 107,35 m2 (1155,37 sqr feet).

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™ 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
POHB
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2006
hIRS wrote:
> The Inventory office - dept.Cultural Property of Diocese of Novara,
> and HAL9000 Srl from Novara, have produced a digital
> picture of 8,6 billion pixels


How does that compare to Google Earth?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
hIRS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2006

POHB ha scritto:

> hIRS wrote:
> > The Inventory office - dept.Cultural Property of Diocese of Novara,
> > and HAL9000 Srl from Novara, have produced a digital
> > picture of 8,6 billion pixels

>
> How does that compare to Google Earth?


What do you mean?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2006
POHB wrote:
> hIRS wrote:
>
>>The Inventory office - dept.Cultural Property of Diocese of Novara,
>>and HAL9000 Srl from Novara, have produced a digital
>>picture of 8,6 billion pixels

>
>
> How does that compare to Google Earth?
>

The above 8.6 Gpixel image is quite an achievement.

Regarding Google Earth, that is also quite an achievement.
Using the radius of the Earth, and assuming 30 meters
per pixel, covering only land areas (1/3 surface areas
of the earth, I compute one would get 78 terapixels
(78,000 gpixels). On disk that would be about
230 terabytes on disk for a 3 band image. Google earth
has some areas at higher resolution, and has coverage in
other colors too. So probably over 1000 terabytes
of data.

From someone who has worked with Google on Google Mars,
I heard Google has a fair fraction of the available world's
supply of hard disk drives.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Cynicor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2006
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> POHB wrote:
>> hIRS wrote:
>>
>>> The Inventory office - dept.Cultural Property of Diocese of Novara,
>>> and HAL9000 Srl from Novara, have produced a digital
>>> picture of 8,6 billion pixels

>>
>>
>> How does that compare to Google Earth?
>>

> The above 8.6 Gpixel image is quite an achievement.


Feh. I can still see the difference versus MF film when printed 5x7.
 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-18-2006
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:10:57 -0400, Cynicor wrote:

>> The above 8.6 Gpixel image is quite an achievement.

>
> Feh. I can still see the difference versus MF film when printed 5x7.


Was the MF film exposed at a comparable altitude? If not, how
would it compare if the photographer was high enough?

(p.i.)

 
Reply With Quote
 
AAvK
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-19-2006

To say the least, that IS amazing! I just wonder, if it is 16 bit color depth
as original from the camera, what did they shoot it with? A digital back?

--
}<)))*> Giant_Alex
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott in Florida
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2006
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:04:32 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>POHB wrote:
>> hIRS wrote:
>>
>>>The Inventory office - dept.Cultural Property of Diocese of Novara,
>>>and HAL9000 Srl from Novara, have produced a digital
>>>picture of 8,6 billion pixels

>>
>>
>> How does that compare to Google Earth?
>>

>The above 8.6 Gpixel image is quite an achievement.
>
>Regarding Google Earth, that is also quite an achievement.
>Using the radius of the Earth, and assuming 30 meters
>per pixel,


My house is easily viewed in decent detail on Google Earth.

I would think it would take more than one pixel to render a house.



> covering only land areas (1/3 surface areas
>of the earth, I compute one would get 78 terapixels
>(78,000 gpixels). On disk that would be about
>230 terabytes on disk for a 3 band image. Google earth
>has some areas at higher resolution, and has coverage in
>other colors too. So probably over 1000 terabytes
>of data.
>
> From someone who has worked with Google on Google Mars,
>I heard Google has a fair fraction of the available world's
>supply of hard disk drives.
>
>Roger


--

Scott in Florida

 
Reply With Quote
 
Joan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2006
Wow! Google Mars? I wonder how long that will take!



--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
:
: From someone who has worked with Google on Google Mars,

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-20-2006
Joan wrote:
> Wow! Google Mars? I wonder how long that will take!
>
>
>

Its done. http://www.google.com/mars

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A billion pixels for a billion stars - CCDs for astronomy David J Taylor Digital Photography 9 10-11-2011 06:24 PM
The largest digital image: 8.6 billion pixel Hires Digital Photography 0 10-22-2006 02:21 PM
Can hot pixels become dead pixels? kl_tom Digital Photography 4 10-05-2006 06:52 PM
Pse explain "3.1m effective pixels and 6.0m redorded pixels" notreallyme Digital Photography 14 12-28-2003 03:41 PM
What's the difference between effective pixels and recorded pixels? Mark Grady Digital Photography 10 09-28-2003 11:11 PM



Advertisments