«

http://www.harlem-13-gigapixels.com/

Wow, you all claim to be into photography and yet not one person comments on
this amazing photo. If you don't click on the next link then it is your
loss. Use IE and install the activex control for HD. It's quite impressive.

http://www.harlem-13-gigapixels.com/harlem_hdview.html

"Pooh-Man" <> wrote in message
news:g3Sri.17785$. ..
> Wow, you all claim to be into photography and yet not one person comments
on
> this amazing photo. If you don't click on the next link then it is your
> loss. Use IE and install the activex control for HD. It's quite
impressive.
>
> http://www.harlem-13-gigapixels.com/harlem_hdview.html
>

Maybe they are all into saving bandwidth?
Weren't you concerned about that in another ng yesterday?

On second thoughts this kind of fake was shown quite some time ago and
others have already commented there.

Gerrit

"gerrit" <> wrote in message
news:46afef48$0$31403$...
> Maybe they are all into saving bandwidth?
> Weren't you concerned about that in another ng yesterday?

ooh, I have a stalker.

> On second thoughts this kind of fake was shown quite some time ago and
> others have already commented there.

WTF are you talking about "this kind of fake"? Did you even visit the link I
posted? Me thinks not.

On Aug 1, 12:17 pm, "Pooh-Man" <not_...@email.invalid> wrote:
> Wow, you all claim to be into photography and yet not one person comments on
> this amazing photo. If you don't click on the next link then it is your
> loss. Use IE and install the activex control for HD. It's quite impressive.

Maybe we are just a little wary of a post by a pooh-man, with no
explanatory text, that looks rather like spam.

For the record, I went to the page, and was immediately put off by all
the bad image matching (VERY obvious in the sky). I've seen similar,
but much better, images elsewhere.

And I'll pass on the 'requirement' to use IE, but thanks.

"Pooh-Man" <> wrote in message
news:%oYri.220834$ m...
> "gerrit" <> wrote in message
> news:46afef48$0$31403$...
> > Maybe they are all into saving bandwidth?
> > Weren't you concerned about that in another ng yesterday?
>
> ooh, I have a stalker.
>
> > On second thoughts this kind of fake was shown quite some time ago and
> > others have already commented there.
>
> WTF are you talking about "this kind of fake"? Did you even visit the link
I
> posted? Me thinks not.
>

It is a fake because it is not one image but a series of images "stuck"
together on a website and you can "zoom" into individual parts of the
"image".
This was first done by a Dutch University crowd and there was a discussion
about it on usenet at the time.

I did go to the website to have a look and quickly realised what it was.

Stalker? I replied to another post of yours on
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems where you were involved in a discussion about
top-posting of replies and the following exchange took place:

""Pooh-Man" <> wrote in message
news:VQFri.202128$ m...
> "mike o'sullivan" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > Yes, because if you're top-posting it doesn't matter!
>
> It does if you care about saving bandwidth. I expect you are a litter bug
> too.
>

Oh Pooh-Man if you are so worried about the consumption of bandwidth why did
you post this URL in another forum? http://www.harlem-13-gigapixels.com/

Gerrit"

I had at that time only just seen your post in this thread and thought you
were being a little inconsistent so I wrote the above. Subsequently when you
had not answered but repeated your post in this thread I thought I would
remind you!
Stalking? I think not - unless you happen to also go by the name of
Douggie.

Gerrit

gerrit wrote:
> "Pooh-Man" <> wrote in message
> news:%oYri.220834$ m...
>> "gerrit" <> wrote in message
>> news:46afef48$0$31403$...
>>> Maybe they are all into saving bandwidth?
>>> Weren't you concerned about that in another ng yesterday?
>> ooh, I have a stalker.
>>
>>> On second thoughts this kind of fake was shown quite some time ago and
>>> others have already commented there.
>> WTF are you talking about "this kind of fake"? Did you even visit the link
> I
>> posted? Me thinks not.
>>

> It is a fake because it is not one image but a series of images "stuck"
> together on a website and you can "zoom" into individual parts of the
> "image".

The above is incorrect. Moreover, quotes are inappropriate except for
the word "stuck".

--
john mcwilliams

"gerrit" <> wrote in message
news:46b06e51$0$31416$...
> Oh Pooh-Man if you are so worried about the consumption of bandwidth why
> did
> you post this URL in another forum? http://www.harlem-13-gigapixels.com/

I posted it because it is interesting, git. Did you try the HD version and
use your mouse to zoom in and out? I am quite aware it is a stitched
together photograph. My subject title was a joke that obviously went over
your head.

<> wrote in message
news: ps.com...
> For the record, I went to the page, and was immediately put off by all
> the bad image matching (VERY obvious in the sky). I've seen similar,
> but much better, images elsewhere.
>
> And I'll pass on the 'requirement' to use IE, but thanks.
>

Seeing as it took 2hrs to shoot of course there will be slight mismatches.
The HD version using IE is more impressive so your loss. Post the better
images. I don't believe you.

That's a fascinating image.

Here's one on a smaller scale, a microscope slide that is just over one
terrapixel.
http://shorterlink.com/?2CKWCU
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com