What is Digg?94 Comments
- avgjoe1974, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Unless you're in marketing, where it would magically become 4 Gigapixels
- punchingjudy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I'm not sure why we should care about the image size so much as the awesome content.
- pinkfireball, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9viewable at native resolution with the help of 200+ matrox triple head units and 500+ computer screens or 20 of the new 56" 3840x2160 LCD Displays from cmo [cebit06]
- littleidiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7300mb images! They must be using the same digital camera that my parents have. I guess at least NASA doesn't try to email them to me though...LOL
- dcipjr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Actually, I'd just put it down as 3.7 Gigapixels...
- Bwah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I love this part:
"Warning: Due to a link from Digg, the Marble Earth demo may be a little slow. Please be gentle with our poor little server ;-)" - Aooogah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I wonder if anyone has tried using this version of the image as a texture for a photo-realistic 3D model of the Earth? It would be fun to see the rendering times one gets with a 10GB texture slapped on a model.
- bluemax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Looks best in real life.
- interiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yay, a nonsensical question with a semi-sensical answer: 40,075,004 meters wide, 6,378,135 meters high.
- SuperOmegaSlack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I downloaded the 80,000x80,000 resolution image of the "Orion Nebula" and shrank it to 5,000x5,000 pixels...I printed 8.5x11 pieces on glossy paper with my epson and put them together on my wall (came out to being about 6ft x 6ft), but looks crazy!!!!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That's no moon!
- valkyries, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5holy hand grenades! just the pic is 10.7GB (uncompressed tiff) no way in hell I'm dling that ;)
- funkytaco, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Largest image online?
What about the one of YO MAMA?
(Come on, you know it was funny.) - levarnus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Crap. 3732 Megapixels.
- InternetUser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Click on the thumbs on this page:
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_set.php?categoryID=2355
Then "More Imagery..." To find a torrent of the full-size image at the bottom. - dognose, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5wouldn't the google sattelite maps be considered one big image? It's not like it lets you download the whole thing in one big image.
- Guder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_detail.php?id=7101
They also list PNGs for download. Very sweet picts... makes me wish I worked in a sign shop. (Wallpaper for the boys room) - SweetChuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I remember seeing a presentation for one of the new Telescopes in South America where they built 4, 6 Gigapixle cameras.
- kwilliam71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, I think it's called Hubble. Probably a little more expensive than the one your parents got from Target. ;)
- attila, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It needs to be cropped
- Skrolnik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Someone wake me up when there's pr0n available in these resoloutions.
- spiffytech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How do I open the doggone file? I downloaded the big one, and now I have this blablah.bin.gz file. I unzipped it, but the only thing I know a .bin file is is a Linux executable. My Windows machine recognizes it as a VLC media file. What do ai do???
- ddig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Problem is, viewing a map of the Earth != navigating an image. Because of the projection, the image becomes severely distorted towards the poles.
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually - a jumbotron usually is very low resolution (Like 640x480 or something) because the viewing distance is so great that higher resolution is irrelevant because the human eye couldn't resolve the detail anyway...
A jumbo-tron sized 72 or 90 dpi monitor, maybe... - steubens, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Cool. But hardly the largest, you can get 3m data from the USGS that dwarfs this data.
As for the 'tiff sux omg', how do you surmise you individually address the contents of a file when it is compressed, without decompressing all of the content before it.
Hint: You cant, so PNG is out the window, nevermind the technical reasons to use TIFF
(Agh comment went to the wrong place, read as if at the bottom, under the several complaints about it being available as a tiff file :) - bnolsen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2go to geoTorrent.org and search for BlueMarble to get a hold of the ECW representation of the data set you choose.
This is the best way to grab an image set. - mmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, the hubble is one megapixel, it just takes alot of pictures and puts em' together. :)
- RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To save anyone else the trouble: That's 12 feet by 24 feet when printed at 300 dpi... I can only imagine what kind of a fatty RAID drive you would need for your scratch disk to even consider opening this in Photoshop...
I know it makes sense to have it up as a TIFF, but wasn't the FITS file format created by astronomers specifically to store gigantic images in a reasonable manner? (And FITS was used commercially for resolution-independant image manipulation by Live Picture, a now dead program) - cbdgr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2poor servers..
- kwilliam71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Could somebody post a small piece of this at 100% so what can see what it looks like?
- st0ney, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Nice I am using it as my desktop pic. My system seems to be running a little slow but its worth it.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Was it a thumb wars reference? Sorry let me hike those up.
Eric Wilson - TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay. Then download Google earth. The whole image. It can't be compared. You can't just download Google earth in full resolution (let me know if you can).
Eric Wilson - mmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's a lil' page about it: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/pancam_techwed_040114.html
- intoflatlines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1damn i keep missing the update time..
http://digg.com/technology/4_GIGAPIXEL_CAMERA_ - Plopfish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder how many "pixels" Google's Earth is on max zoom, as in if it were all combined into one giant pic.
- esaba.com, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1take a picture and post it :-)
- BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Largest picture online? Nah.
Spamming 100,000x100,000 images on Internet forums is fun. :D - denix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Next email will be addressed to Jenna J. to ask her if she can pose for us to take a panorama of some gigapixels... I'm sure this will be a more impressive demo ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i have the same problem as well. it took me like....4 ***** hours to download 2.8 gb! that's pretty slow. so now that i'm finally done, i would like to open the file
- mattb5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This guy must be pissed. http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm
I remember seeing this a while ago.
http://digg.com/technology/Breaking_the_Gigapixel_Barrier
This one is pretty cool too. You can see license plates easily where you can barely see cars in the full frame.
http://triton.tpd.tno.nl/gigazoom/Delft2.htm
I see now that this has been Dugg a few times. - NiLeS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But how many pixels is it really? It's like at school when InDesign says images are not good enough, and people just photoshop in a higher resolution. Not quite the same quality...
- kwilliam71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1How about the biggest waste of bandwidth ever! I mean they are cool as crap. I love sh*t like this, but really, what the hell are any of us going to do with these things?
- setfree, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Super-Digg! I have a hi-res 16 foot wide printer. What a match!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1actually a well known exploit to crash browsers with images sized 999999999x999999999
seen a site with one (not really just a small pict blown up) but crashed me anyway..
I am actually surprised the porn industry isnt setting these records - nuxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2SWEET ZOMBIE JEEBUS?!?!?!?! 10.7GB?!?!?!?!?!?! No thank you...I actually want to be able to USE my internet connection this month
+digg for the concept though. - funderbolt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The TIFF has good reasons behind it. TIFF is a good format to transfer Landsat Satellite Imagery because it can store multiple bands (more than just the standard R, G, B--3 bands). Also, using a special header it can be made a GeoTIFF which has projection and coordiante information (a world file does something similar). TIFF is friendly to GIS and remote sensing data. Also, TIFF can handle LZW, Deflate (what ZIP and PNG use), and some forms of JPEG compression.
So, TIFF is a really a versitile format, but I'm sure it is all in what you are use to dealing with (and historic formats in your particular application). - intoflatlines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i remember something like those above on digg, but the images were taken using a recon aerial sensor or something.. those are pretty cool.
- intoflatlines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^.. http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm
- funderbolt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some background image was created from a composite of Landsat-7 satellite Images. I think this is called Landsat Natural Earth in which they show Red Green and Blue Color bands (like what our eyes see) in the imagry. With the Landsat satellites also Near IR, Mid IR, and Thermal Bands are also recorded for a total of 7 bands ( 9 for a later satelite called Enhanced Thematic Mapper).
These pixels are 30 meter wide by 30 meters in length. So a foot ball field would be represented by approximately 4-8 pixels (4x1 or 4x2). You can tell if the pixel is some kind of concrete, but you can't see the roads (unless you do some Pan Shapening, but is not a "killer" solution).
I couldn't find a suitable image, but Google Earth only lets you go in so far in areas that don't have aerial photography flown. I think they stop zooming in when it would start pixelation. -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is