8.6 billion pixels digital image

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by hIRS, Oct 18, 2006.

  1. hIRS

    hIRS Guest

    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
     
    hIRS, Oct 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. hIRS

    POHB Guest

    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?
     
    POHB, Oct 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. hIRS

    hIRS Guest

    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?
     
    hIRS, Oct 18, 2006
    #3
  4. 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
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 18, 2006
    #4
  5. hIRS

    Cynicor Guest

    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.
     
    Cynicor, Oct 18, 2006
    #5
  6. hIRS

    ASAAR Guest

    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.) :)
     
    ASAAR, Oct 19, 2006
    #6
  7. hIRS

    AAvK Guest

    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/
     
    AAvK, Oct 19, 2006
    #7
  8. On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:04:32 -0700, "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.
    >
    >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
     
    Scott in Florida, Oct 20, 2006
    #8
  9. hIRS

    Joan Guest

    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)" <>
    wrote in message news:...
    :
    : From someone who has worked with Google on Google Mars,
     
    Joan, Oct 20, 2006
    #9
  10. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 20, 2006
    #10
  11. Scott in Florida wrote:

    >>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.


    Yes, that is why I stated that some areas are at higher resolution.
    It looks like the high resolution stuff is on the order of a
    meter (at least it was over my house the last time I
    checked): I could see the windshield of a car parked in the
    driveway. But the vast majority of the Earth is covered
    by Landsat data at 30 meters/pixel. Many cities are covered
    at the higher resolution.

    Roger

    >>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

    >
    >
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 20, 2006
    #11
  12. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > Scott in Florida wrote:
    >
    >>> 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.

    >
    > Yes, that is why I stated that some areas are at higher resolution.
    > It looks like the high resolution stuff is on the order of a
    > meter (at least it was over my house the last time I
    > checked): I could see the windshield of a car parked in the
    > driveway. But the vast majority of the Earth is covered
    > by Landsat data at 30 meters/pixel. Many cities are covered
    > at the higher resolution.


    Including the rather vast Oceans?

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Oct 20, 2006
    #12
  13. hIRS

    RichA Guest

    On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:56:09 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <> wrote:

    >Joan wrote:
    >> Wow! Google Mars? I wonder how long that will take!
    >>
    >> ;-)
    >>

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


    I hope it's free, or Google might have to start paying NASA and JPL
    some royalties.
     
    RichA, Oct 21, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Grady
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    889
  2. notreallyme
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    990
  3. Hires

    The largest digital image: 8.6 billion pixel

    Hires, Oct 22, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    5,865
    Hires
    Oct 22, 2006
  4. kl_tom

    Can hot pixels become dead pixels?

    kl_tom, Oct 4, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    557
    Bill Funk
    Oct 5, 2006
  5. David J Taylor

    A billion pixels for a billion stars - CCDs for astronomy

    David J Taylor, Oct 11, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    518
    David Ruether
    Oct 11, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page