Thought you and the other photographers might be interested to see the resolution from whatever the heck this Gigapan camera is. I need to google it a bit more to understand but if it has the word Giga in it, It is automatically gigacool in my books.

I'm not sure what the total distance is for this shot on Oboma's Capital Building Cermony but at 1,474-Megapixel, you can identify faces anywhere in the crowd. Conspiracy theorists will love this.

Fillscreen Gigapan Viewer

Article.
.

I agree, gigacool!

Any good digital camera can do that. It's the gigapan camera mount and software that makes this possible. It stitches together any number of shots into a seamless panorama.

Zoom into the bottom right hand side of the picture, the guy standing with his back to the camera in the walkway, next to the fence ... half of the invisible man!

Oh wait, I found his legs. Travel along the front side of that fence in the direction towards the top of the photo, you can see his legs. Almost fully accounted for.

I'm no expert but even with the stitching process (which definitely had it's issues on the seams if you look close) at the furthest distances in this picture, I'm thinking that most consumer digital cameras wouldn't capture that much detail. Of course, I am not a photographer or camera expert so would gladly accept being corrected as I will have learned something new.

Hey Murph!
Yes, pretty cool! According to the article, the camera is an off-the-shelf Canon G10.

Then I definitely learned something. I need to play with my zoom features more. I used to get crappy results with my old HP as soon as I used any digital zoom (optical was great. However, the new Canon has surprised me.

I was confused by the title.
"How I Made a 1,474-Megapixel Photo"

The Canon is a couple of decimal places short of 1,474 Megapixels but now I understand that they were not talking about the cameras resolution, per say. Should have read it closer.

Digital zoom, whether on a still camera or on a camcorder, will always give a crappier result, as it doesn't "zoom in" at all, but rather just crops the sensors' size down further and further, giving you less pixels to work with.

This I knew. So would the 5x optical zoom on his camera been sufficient to bring out the detail presented, or did he delv into a bit of digital zoom, do you think.

This is the part I still don't get. I pictured optical lenses the size of a spotting scope to absorb the clarity at that distance and didn't think digital zoom could produce the results either.

I need to go do some experimenting. Now where can I find a few hundred thousand people. Perhaps my nemesis army of geese will return?


Sorry. I'm noobier at cameras than I was about speakers when I first joined in here.