What is Digg?53 Comments
- scinju, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It is done on film. The Gigapxl camera is a film camera, a very large one, which is fitted into the back of an SUV. They just chose the name Gigapxl. There was an excellent article in PopSci about the project a few months back.
Why quote 'pixels' when you use film?
Immediately after processing, each 9" x 18" exposure is digitally scanned then archived in a temperature and humidity controlled environment. All processing and printing are performed on the resulting one to four gigapixel digital scan. Therefore, the tangible output of the camera%u2014and all that we ever see and work with%u2014is a digital image at one to four billion pixels in size.
Incidentally, a four billion pixel, uncompressed, 16-bit per component image is a 24 gigabyte data file. Moving, copying, editing, processing, and printing files of this scale strains the boundaries of even the most robust image processing tools. Having accomplished such tasks for more than one hundred images certainly makes us feel that we are digital photographers even though we use film in the camera.
http://www.gigapxl.org/faqs.htm - DigiDT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This is pretty incredible. The whole process is astounding. I'm a digital photographer and my higher-end system (custom built 3Ghz, 10kRPM SATA HDs, 2GB Dual Channel PC3200) sometimes bogs when I'm working with many 8MB digital RAW images and doing lite 3D rendering. I can't even image what kind of storage and system clustering would be needed to work (efficiently) with a 24GB image file. I think it's great how independent projects like this that really push the boundaries and limitations of consumer available components and equipment.
Dugg it.
-Dell - wmtrader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7If you want to see this for yourself when you are in SF got to Yerba Buena/Treasure Island and stand on the causeway that links Yerba Buena Island and Treasure Island as the sun goes down.
- digdugsmug, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Wow, it captured all of the smug over San Franciso perfectly!
- BrandonAbell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4See also the related technique, "HDR" photography/tonemapping:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging - Scopitone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Stunning. Thank you!
- swissdietcoke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4These pictures must be pretty old. AirTouch (the building in the picture) hasn't existed since April 2000, when Verizon Wireless began operating. At that time, the brand name "AirTouch" ceased existing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTouch - Kerr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3is there a higher resolution of this, besides the ones found on that page?
- Lifelogger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is just awsome!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Simply wonderful!
- iamtheinternet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no coral cache = (
could someone who's downloaded the pic please repost it? hell, the entire site even?
EDIT:
found on flickr, (at least, i think this is the pic, i didn't get to the actual site before it got dugg to death)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joergbattermann/86230984/ - SouthernDigger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2site looks like it is down... mirrors anyone?
- andrewvc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Wha? It's EASIER in photoshop. Just take two photos and blend them using a blend mode (likely screen to simulate a camera double exposure) and two different layers. Although, considering photoshop's flexibilty you could do a lot else.
FYI I believe some of the older Fuji Finepix digicam models allowed double exposures in camera, though I personally find this useless as it's easier and more flexible to do this in PS. - jlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2AirTouch's logos were still on the building last year:
http://www.emporis.com/en/il/im/?id=440382
They were finally replaced with US Bank logos last October:
http://www.spiderstaging.com/press_cal.html
http://www.shorensteinsf.com/propdescfacts.cfm?bldgid=17
Some background from a 2003 article:
http://www.umtsworld.com/lastword/lw0120.htm - shooby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2 gotta agree with you on that one. I think this picture captures that beauty though
- skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3About time someone mentioned this, thank you. HDR is the future of digital photgraphy and no one seems to care.
- captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HDR is cool but I doubt it's "the future of digital photography." It's just another technique that photographers can use when they need it. Not every scene has a wide dynamic range, and many photos can look terrible with HDR.
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nice...We're so smug we love the smell of our own farts :)
- ehmjay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is absolutely beautiful!!
- kaplanfx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hmm, seems to me like it was taken from Emeryville with a bit of zoom.
- cainrok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They should really put up some of their images on bit torrent. To show people how great they really are.
- digdugsmug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haha, kinda a joke, watch South Park episode 1002 Smug Alert, quite funny
- IVIrMP3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There was an article about this in Popular Science a few months ago. It's a completely hand built camera with no viewfinder. Focusing is done with mathematics. The lens was part of a spy camera used for taking aeriel photographs during the war circa 1960. A picture was taken from a clif overlooking a beach and they notice a group of men with a telescope high above the beach. Upon following the line of sight straight down they notice a group of nude sunbathers.
- captaindan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's only true if your display has a dynamic range greater than or equal to the dynamic range of the image it's displaying. While there are specialized HDR displays on the market, this doesn't solve the problem of displaying an HDR image on, say, paper.
It sounds like you might be talking about tone mapping, which is a technique for compressing the dynamic range of an HDR image back down to LDR.
And again, not every scene has a wide dynamic range. HDR is not appropriate for every photograph. - DaMoB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HDR on Flickr :
http://www.flickr.com/groups/hdr/pool/ - samuelcotterall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes it does.
- dragulaaeop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sorry dude, that's a different one. Good, but different.
I uploaded the largest-version that the site allowed you to download:
http://xs77.xs.to/pics/06161/SanFranBayBrdgNight-1920.jpg
~Aeop - Hollywood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1When done properly HDR is great, when done for the sake of HDR, the resulting image looks more like a photoshoped image rather than what the photographer saw.
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unless you click the download link...
http://www.gigapxl.org/images/SanFranBayBrdgNight-1920.jpg
(It need stretching but not too much unless your running you've got more than 1024 vertical resolution, plus it should be possible to photoshop some sky onto the top) - veritech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how about 2560 * 1024?
- charliestout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ken Rockwell already covered this:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/100mp.htm - samuelcotterall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I always thought this is digital...
You just can't, typically, do a double exposure "in camera" - you would use two seperate JPEG/RAW files and layer them in Photoshop. - jephwhy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you look at Gigapxl's Travelogue at http://www.gigapxl.org/travelogue2.htm (see image at bottom of page), you can see where on Treasure Island the camera was placed when the picture was taken.
- millifoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Amazing.... except that you can't download the full image! What good is it taking all these wonderful pictures if they don't let people see them?
- p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The content, color and detail are visually delicious. Sweet find, fratboy!
- outofstep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You're right, it is actually done with film. Low sensitivity film with long exposures, and then scanned with some of the best scanners to get the resolution they want.
- ab500, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Southpark dude.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Great work! San Francisco is one of the greatest cities on the planet to photography, and the Bay-Bridge is awesome.
http://www.dpodgor.net - BrandonAbell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@captaindan:
It *is* the future of digital photography. Capturing the entire useable dynamic range of a particular shot enables you to recreate on-screen exactly what it is your eyes see as they view a scene in real life (since your eyes constantly adjust to send your brain the right "exposure" wherever you look). Don't knock it just because some people have turned it into the new Page Curl or Drop Shadow. - renehasp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow I know this has nothing to do with technology but that is so pretty!! I set it for my desktop.. Thank you..
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I couldn't find any pictures of the Bay-Bridge on the page you linked to, i'm going to mod you down cause I don't think you got the URL right.
- bmwusa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Some of the stuff they listed as the worst "hit the nail on the head," but some and I mean only one or two things were not that bad! It even said that some of the items were highly rated by users!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0technically not a digital camera. It is a large format film camera. Instead of printing the film the scan it. Still neat though. read the FAQ
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/?id=101040
- mercuryswitch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What's "smug"? I've only heard of smog before...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smog - soogy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Bleh... Why don't I have an SLR that can get that kind of quality? Bastards at Canon need to step up their technology!
- disrupter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1too small for wallpaper :(
- kirkio, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Dupe:
This story has been dugg numerous times:
http://digg.com/search?search=gigapxl - coreman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0So how does one do this with a digital camera? I'm guessing you can't, even with PhotoShop...
Double-exposure is one technique that still requires film... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3This is a new photo that they took, not a dupe story.
http://esspeaphotography.blogspot.com -
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
