What's the biggest "real" digital image?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Oct 21, 2005.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Yes, I've heard about the gigapixel project, but that uses sheet FILM
    which is then digitized. As far as I know, the largest current
    digital image maker is a 340m pixel imager on the CFH (Canada France
    Hawaii) telescope on Mauna Kia(sp?) in Hawaii. But how about
    terrestrial images? Seems like 4 joined shots from the biggest
    digital backs (39meg) would produce some awesome shots.
    I've shot 6 shot images and compiled them into one 50 megapixels in
    size using pano software and they look pretty good. Allows you to see
    leaves on landscape shots, etc.
    Rich, Oct 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. 198 images.


    Final image dimensions: 40,784 x 26,800 pixels
    Number of pixels in final image: 1,093,011,200 (1.09 gigapixel)
    Final image file format: RGB Tiff using deflate compression
    Final image file size: 2,068,654,055 bytes
    Number of source images: 196
    Number of pixels in source images: 1,233,125,376 (196 images *
    Lens focal length: 280mm (equivalent to 450mm on a 35mm camera)
    Aperture: F9. Shutter speed: 1/400
    Number of control points in PTAssembler project: 779
    Number of seams that were manually blended after stitching: 364
    Horizontal field of view of final image: 63 degrees
    Time required to capture component images: 13 minutes
    Time required to set control points: 2 hours
    Time required to optimize project: 2 days
    Time required to stitch project: 4 days
    Time required to blend seams / correct misalignments / finalize image:
    3 days


    "It looked like the sort of book described in library
    catalogues as "slightly foxed", although it would be
    more honest to admit that it looked as though it had
    been badgered, wolved and possibly beared as well."

    _Light Fantastic_
    Terry Pratchett
    John A. Stovall, Oct 21, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    GTO Guest

    One of the biggest digital images? I don't think so. Look at image
    processing in histology where entire sections can be scanned at are
    resolution of 0.75 NA. It's computer controlled and usually creates up to 40
    by 40 digital images (at 12 MPixels with today's better cameras) that are
    then put into a database, from which, of course, you could create a digital
    image of that size.

    With a 20mm ocular projection onto your CCD using a 40x lens, you have a FOV
    of roughly 0.5mm. To scan an entire specimen of 2 cm by 2 cm, you need 40 x
    40 images. Usually, people do not use 100x lenses and scan over the entire
    section. But a 20x or 40x lens is employed.

    Does this gigapixel project only apply for landscape photography?

    To make things even better, the image can also be scanned along the
    z-direction using confocal microscopy and hence create a 3D stack of
    individual images. A terabyte of image information is then more appropriate
    as a benchmark.

    GTO, Oct 21, 2005
  4. 2.5 gigapixels here:

    David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2005
  5. David J Taylor, Oct 21, 2005
  6. Rich

    Lorem Ipsum Guest

    "David J Taylor"
    That's the kind of photography that scares the hell out of tactical combat
    people. :) Say, did you see what's going on in that red car?
    Lorem Ipsum, Oct 21, 2005
  7. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Impressive as can be! Must be fun trying to open it on a standard
    Rich, Oct 22, 2005
  8. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Or you could use an atomic force microscope and scan a car from one
    end to the other. But then how long would it take?
    Rich, Oct 22, 2005
  9. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Rich, Oct 22, 2005
  10. A really long time. If you demand atomic-level resolution, scan speeds
    are typically a few square microns per minute. That gives you
    topography, and says nothing about color.

    That ignores the fact that AFMs and other scanning-probe systems really
    don't like objects with signficant topography; vertical topogrpahy
    beyond a few or a few tens of microns moves beyond the scan range of the

    Daniel Silevitch, Oct 22, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.