Page 1 of 1

[Photographers] 200+ Megapixel images?

Posted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:51 pm
by -Adrian
On the web, I've come across very large images numerous times and wondered if anyone could tell me what hardware these are shot with.

The normal prosumer range seems to be around 20MP, with Hassenblad, i think, offering about 50MP.

Now look at this vertically cropped image here:
Image

From the lens distortion it's clear that this is a single shot. Original res is 6400x19000px (27MB JPEG). Judging from the detail, it's clearly not blown up to that scale. Lacking EXIF data, I tried to contact the author but got no response.

So does anyone here have any insight as to how such resolutions can be achieved? Might it be chemical film that gets scanned to digital imagery afterwards? Note that this is business photography, not some Gigapixel experiment. I'm curious.

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 4:27 am
by simmsimaging
It is almost certainly stitched together to achieve that res. Using a longer lens, a panoramic tripod head, and good software (like autopano etc.) I don't think you would be able to tell just by looking at it.


b

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:33 am
by deadalvs
check out:
http://www.xrez.com/

i met that guy (Eric Hanson) a few weeks ago in his office in Santa Monica. he works together with Greg Downing, one of the specialists in the field of panoramic photography.

they use different panobots or panoheads.

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 11:50 am
by oz42
of course there's always these guys http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm, shooting at 4000 MegaPixels :!:

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 8:40 pm
by polynurb
oz42 wrote:of course there's always these guys http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm, shooting at 4000 MegaPixels :!:
insane alchemy...:shock: some of the images are hyperreal, like the mormon temple and the capitol...looks totally rendered.. ähh maxwelled... :wink:

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:52 am
by -Adrian
Thanks for the insightful replies. So i guess it was stitched then, very impressive software if it can do that.

I thought it was one single shot because everything on the top looked distorted, like it came from the very outer edges of the lens. Could be an illusion due to the gigantic ~650m height.

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:57 am
by deadalvs
maybe it looks a little distorted cos of the thinning out construction. the higher, the thinner the tower ?

also, the missing facade maybe at some points?

well..

stitcher can do such jobs. easily with 200 - 300 pictures.