Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: giga pixel images  (Read 5532 times)
pad
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« on: February 08, 2006, 01:36:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyone else looked at the work of Graham Flint and his team at http://www.gigapxl.org ?
Logged
David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2006, 01:50:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Anyone else looked at the work of Graham Flint and his team at http://www.gigapxl.org ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I caught his exhibit at the Photographic Arts Museum in San Diego last August.  Awesome.  You could get magnifying glasses at the front desk for examining his prints.  The detail was incredible.  Not sure where the exhibit is now, but I would highly recommend seeing his work if you get a chance.

---------------
David White
Logged

David White
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2006, 07:15:29 AM »
ReplyReply

And these are I believe single shots, not stitched images. How anyone could argue that small format cameras can ever ultimately compete with large format cameras beats me. (BJL, are you reading this?   ).
Logged
abiggs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2006, 08:24:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And these are I believe single shots, not stitched images. How anyone could argue that small format cameras can ever ultimately compete with large format cameras beats me. (BJL, are you reading this?   ).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Better yet, how can somebody call their camera a gigapixel camera when it shoots film?

 

I still think they should put the camera in the hands of talented photographers, as opposed to taking their own shots. They have indicated that they love to take photos in the middle of the day, as more detail can be captured at that time. I think they would get more ooohs and aaaaahhs if they took photographs that stir the soul.

Just a thought.
Logged

Andy Biggs
http://www.andybiggs.com
Africa Photo Safaris | Workshops | Fine Art Prints
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2006, 12:32:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How anyone could argue that small format cameras can ever ultimately compete with large format cameras beats me. (BJL, are you reading this?  ).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, you are again misrepresenting my opinions, as if following a false dichotomy that either that larger formats are always substantially better and digital photography will eventually move up to larger formats as prices drop, or larger formats have no advantages whatsoever. So I will try to explain my position one more time.

On one hand, there are some advantages to larger formats in some situations, particularly in extremes of high spatial and tonal detail at low shutter speeds, typical of larger film format usage. On the other hand,
1) these advantages are greatly exaggerated when one ignores aperture size limits coming from the need for appropriate depth of field or the acceptable size and weight of lenses, or when one ignores or denies the ultimate optical limits on angular resolution of a subject ("lines per picture height", roughly.)  [By the way, the gigapxl site is a good source on the subject of angular resolution limits.]
2) as one moves up the the ladder of possible formats further and further above the formats that are satisfactory for the majority of photography and photographers, each successive doubling of image area gives a smaller increment in image quality advantages and a larger increment in disadvantages like weight, cost, and need for lower shutter speeds. Thus, beyond some point, each further step up the format size ladder will be suitable for a smaller fraction of photography and photographers. Note that this ladder now starts from a mainstream dominated by sensor formats 1/1.7" and smaller (under 10mm diagonal): the 4/3", EF-S and DX formats are way too big to ever dominate mainstream digital photography!


By the way, the gigapxl images seem in reality to be of about 100 to 200 MP resolution; stunning, but far less than they claim. This can be seen by "pixel peeping" the samples. It can be explained by the fact that the design goal is for each of numerous resolution limits to give 50% MTF at the lp/mm needed for "gigapixel resolution", so that the combination is at best "gigapixel" only at the far lower MTF level given by multiplying all these factors of 50% together, so well under 10%.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2006, 12:35:35 PM by BJL » Logged
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2006, 02:08:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Yah the D200 obviously trumps the GigaPixel camera cause that big lens just isn't sharp enough!

(Sorry couldn't resist)
Logged
Anon E. Mouse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2006, 05:53:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I find the Gigapixel project interesting as there are bigger cameras. I believe Wisner makes a 20x24 camera. Not only is the Wisner cheaper, it is smaller and easier to use.

And I agree with abiggs, they are dull pictures. All it has is a gee whiz factor of "look at the detail." But even that is not new. There have been larger cameras than that around for longer.

Just a side note:

Angular resolution is a quality used for visual instruments and is in reference to what can be resolved at the object plane and is expressed in degrees, minutes, and seconds.

Resolving power is the quality used for imaging systems and is in reference to what is resolved at the image plane and is expressed in line / mm.

Angular resolution and resolving power are directly related, but should not be confused.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #7 on: February 09, 2006, 01:23:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Angular resolution is a quality used for visual instruments and is in reference to what can be resolved at the object plane and is expressed in degrees, minutes, and seconds.

Resolving power is the quality used for imaging systems and is in reference to what is resolved at the image plane and is expressed in line / mm.

Angular resolution and resolving power are directly related, but should not be confused.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Agreed; and I was not confusing them at all. My points are that
- angular resolution of the subject is what matters for detail on the final viewed image (print, etc.): it converts directly to "resolution on the final viewed image" in lp/mm, regardless of the differences in "resolution at the focal plane" caused by changing focal length and format.
- when you change formats and focal lengths, lens designs tend to limit you to about the same angular resolution of the subject, though with some (small?) advantage to larger formats.

One little disagreement: some of us (including the Gigapxl site?) measure angular resolution in radians, not those clumsy, anachronistic degrees, minutes, and seconds! Do American optical engineers really still have to put up with that ancient nonsense?!
Logged
Anon E. Mouse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2006, 05:26:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One little disagreement: some of us (including the Gigapxl site?) measure angular resolution in radians, not those clumsy, anachronistic degrees, minutes, and seconds! Do American optical engineers really still have to put up with that ancient nonsense?!

That is just my little querk. Astronomy is a hobbies of mine and angular measurement are still in degrees, minutes, and seconds. But you are right about radians, they are easier. Funny thing is, most people can't visualize an angular measurement in radians.

I wish the US would go metric as well...
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2006, 02:48:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe that there is at least one Japanese photographer using a custom built Horseman ultra-light 11*14 camera weighting less than 5 kgs. I believe that him and others gather and order custom batches of Velvia 100 directly from the Fujifilm plants in Japan...

Many other still shoot 11*14 as well as other ULF cameras, and they do typically shoot images that are a lot more interesting that those exhibited by the "giga-pixel" project guys...

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2006, 01:17:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Funny thing is, most people can't visualize an angular measurement in radians.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=57836\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True, but let me suggest a guideline for photographers: the angular field of view of a "normal" lens is roughly one radian.
In other words, the angular size of an object in radians is roughly "size of object divided by distance to object".


Surely we could at least ditch the minutes and seconds or arc.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2006, 01:24:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
One little disagreement: some of us (including the Gigapxl site?) measure angular resolution in radians, not those clumsy, anachronistic degrees, minutes, and seconds!

"My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!" - Grampa Simpson
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad