GIGAPIXELS LOVE THE D60 !!!

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Annika1980, Dec 1, 2003.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    stacey Guest


    Last time I was in this group it was the "fabulous EOS1V" now 6 months later
    it's this one.

    What -WILL- you buy next!!!
     
    stacey, Dec 1, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: stacey
    400 f/5.6L
    -----------
    Who's being fooled by marketing?
    I only buy the best, baby, and right now .... that's Canon!
     
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2003
    #3
  4. If I were that concerned about resolution, then I would shoot with a
    medium format film camera once instead of shooting all those digital
    shots and stitching them together.

    Cody Houston,
    ===============================

    Group: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2003, 1:55am (CST+6)
    From: (Annika1980)

    Well, sports fans, the gigapixel barrier has now been broken, but not by
    me. And wouldn't you know it? He did it with the Totally Digital D60 !!!
    http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm

    Who Rules?

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer02, Dec 1, 2003
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Why not the 300/4 with 1.4x teleconverter? The older non-IS one
    costs less, and the IS one a bit more. Don't you already have a TC?

    Thanks for the link to the Gigapixel Barrier article. Bryce Canyon
    is well worth visiting, and a great place for photographers.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Dec 1, 2003
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: Bill Tuthill
    The 400 f/5.6L is sharper than that combo.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2003
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    brian Guest

    Medium format film can't even begin to approach that level of image quality.

    Brian
    www.caldwellphotographic.com
     
    brian, Dec 1, 2003
    #7
  8. What would you need that much resolution for? A billboard?
    I would rather take one shot with a medium format camera than all those
    digital shots no matter how much resolution the final image had, unless
    I was wanting to put the image on the side of a building. When a digital
    camera has that much resolution in one shot then I will be impressed.

    Cody,
    ================================

    Group: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2003, 1:26pm (CST-2)
    From: (brian)

    Medium format film can't even begin to approach that level of image
    quality.
    Brian
    www.caldwellphotographic.com

    wrote in message
    If I were that concerned about resolution, then I would shoot with a
    medium format film camera once instead of shooting all those digital
    shots and stitching them together.
    Cody Houston,

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer02, Dec 1, 2003
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    ßowser Guest

    Think of the resolution he could have achieved if he had shot 8 x 10 and
    scanned those chromes!

    Other than an obvious excercise, what was his point? According to the site,
    this thing took many days to complete.
     
    ßowser, Dec 1, 2003
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From:
    And when that happens, just imagine the resolution he will get from stitching
    THOSE images together!

    Someday we may be able to take a photo of the United States. Actual size.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2003
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    stacey Guest


    AND is more expencive so you can brag about owning the most expencive gear
    around!!
     
    stacey, Dec 2, 2003
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Kin Lau Guest

    It would make an real interesting interactive click and explore site.
    It's a proof of concept, and once we know it can be done, there'll be
    more ways that we can think of to use it.

    I can imagine having a motorized bank of Rebels scanning the night sky
    and giving us an interactive, zoomable star map.

    At 600dpi, it would be an amazing 5ft by 3.5 picture to hang on the
    wall. At 300dpi, it'll be 10ft by 7, a wall mural.
     
    Kin Lau, Dec 2, 2003
    #12
  13. Where would you put it?
     
    William Graham, Dec 2, 2003
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Other than an obvious excercise, what was his point? According to the
    site,
    There is no point , it's masturbation. If you want to talk about hi-res try
    stitching the same amount of shots done with 11x14 sheet film, that's real
    resolution.
     
    Joseph Kewfi, Dec 2, 2003
    #14

  15. There's nothing particularly innovative about it. It's been done
    before, many years back, using film. It's currently in use to map the
    details and life forms of undersea coral walls. And it's been done for sky
    maps long ago.

    The only difference between this, and all the previous efforts, is
    being able to put an impressive name to the resolution, which still pales
    compared to using film for the same thing. The other advantage would be the
    ability to pull up individual areas digitally, instead of separate prints
    or a huge mural (which is impractical for most potential uses).

    And someone I knew a few years back was doing three-dimensional
    imaging/rendering, combined photography and holography. Taking everything
    in a room and reproducing it in a way to allow virtual movement
    *through* it. More fun!


    - Al.
     
    Al Denelsbeck, Dec 2, 2003
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "William Graham"
    In a large cup?

    (and then fill it up the rest of the way).
     
    Annika1980, Dec 2, 2003
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: stacey
    If you want cheap then buy cheap.
    I'm sure you're very happy with your JamCam, but I prefer quality.

    Btw, I already have the Super 70-200 f/2.8L and a 2x TC. So why do I want the
    400 f/5.6L?

    Two reasons:
    1. It's sharper than my current combo.
    2. I can't afford the 400 f/2.8L IS.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 2, 2003
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    Gregg Guest

    why bother with that junk .... just go for the 400 f/4.0 DO
     
    Gregg, Dec 2, 2003
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Max Lyons Guest

    There's nothing particularly innovative about it. It's been done
    I'm curious as to what, precisely, you mean by "it" in this paragraph?
    The concept of stitching images together? Stitching this many images
    together? Stitching images to achieve this level of resolution?
    Something else?

    Also, I'm curious about the undersea/coral walls work. Can you point
    to any web resources about this? Was this technique used to create
    high resolution photographs of coral?
    One of the main differences, as I see it, is that I'm using my
    technique to create landscape photographs, not satellite imagery,
    maps, etc.
    Some folks might disagree with this. Digital does have some
    advantages over film, the most of important of which (to me) is the
    almost complete lack of grain/noise.

    Max Lyons
     
    Max Lyons, Dec 2, 2003
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    Max Lyons Guest

    Other than an obvious excercise, what was his point? According to the
    I did it for a number of reasons as outlined on my page:

    1. The personal challenge.
    2. An interest in writing the software necessary to create the image.
    3. An interest in pushing the limits of conventional print
    sizes...doing something a little different from the rest of the crowd.
    I'm also interested in the work of photographers like Andreas Gursky.
    I suppose one might consider his massive prints to be "photographic
    masturbation". However, there seem to be a large number of people
    willing to pay an awful lot of money for it, so my guess is that your
    assessment may not be shared by everyone.
    Of course this argument can be continued for ever. Bigger film/sensor
    sizes combined with more component images will yield ever increasing
    amounts of detail. (However, increasing the film/sensor size by any
    given factor probably doesn't augment the resolution as much as a
    similar increase in the number of component images.) If one gigapixel
    doesn't clear your threshold to be considered "real resolution", fair
    enough.

    Thanks for your insight.

    Max Lyons
     
    Max Lyons, Dec 2, 2003
    #20
    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.