| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/29/2005 12:47:33 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 01:02:35 PM · #2 |
"However, as technology has advanced, the bar has been raised to 4,000 megapixels; a figure that we expect to reach within the next several months." --- I WANT ONE!!!!
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 01:08:51 PM · #3 |
I like the "PORTRAIT OF AMERICA" idea, that would be in one shot, correct?
Message edited by author 2005-11-29 13:09:10.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 01:23:43 PM · #4 |
As far as I know, each picture is just "one shot." The camera is a composite of multiple sensors, etc. It's pretty cool. Fully zoomed in...it could definitely use a run through Neat Image :-)...but when you have 4,000 megapixels to work with, I don't think there's anything to complain about.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 01:26:35 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 01:32:18 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by chafer:
As far as I know, each picture is just "one shot." The camera is a composite of multiple sensors, etc. It's pretty cool. Fully zoomed in...it could definitely use a run through Neat Image :-)...but when you have 4,000 megapixels to work with, I don't think there's anything to complain about. |
It's a film camera. I should start calling my pentax 67 a 85mp camera...
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 01:48:16 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Originally posted by chafer:
As far as I know, each picture is just "one shot." The camera is a composite of multiple sensors, etc. It's pretty cool. Fully zoomed in...it could definitely use a run through Neat Image :-)...but when you have 4,000 megapixels to work with, I don't think there's anything to complain about. |
It's a film camera. I should start calling my pentax 67 a 85mp camera... |
Now that is funny. |
|
|
|
11/29/2005 01:50:51 PM · #8 |
yeah, film, they just scan it in at extremely high resolution.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 02:00:34 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by longlivenyhc:
yeah, film, they just scan it in at extremely high resolution. |
So do I. ;o)
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 02:08:13 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Gigapixel Website:
Digital scanning of 9"×18" negatives has been performed on two CCD-based scanners; these being the LH Systems model DSW500 and the Vexcel Imaging model VX4000DT. The DSW500 employs a 2044×2056 Kodak MegaPlus 4.2i CCD and provides resolution which can be varied continuously from 50 to 250 pixels/mm. Correspondingly, the 768×494 CCD in the VX4000DT provides resolution to 118 pixels/mm. For purposes of scanning Gigapxl™ test negatives, we have used resolutions of 50 and 80 pixels/mm. While the VX4000DT’s format of 10"×20" permits a 9"×18" negative to be scanned in a single step, the 10"×10" format of the DSW500 calls for a pair of separately scanned areas to be spliced in software. Such splicing has, however, proven to be straightforward. Meanwhile, the larger CCD of the DSW500 provides a distinct advantage in terms of scanning speed; the time required to scan a 9"×18" negative at 80 pixels/mm being 19 minutes, compared with 90 minutes for the VX4000DT. As a consequence, most of the Gigapxl™ images scanned to date have been done on the DSW500. |
19 minute scan @_@
Message edited by author 2005-11-29 14:08:40.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2005 03:13:59 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by longlivenyhc:
Originally posted by Gigapixel Website:
Digital scanning of 9"×18" negatives has been performed on two CCD-based scanners; these being the LH Systems model DSW500 and the Vexcel Imaging model VX4000DT. The DSW500 employs a 2044×2056 Kodak MegaPlus 4.2i CCD and provides resolution which can be varied continuously from 50 to 250 pixels/mm. Correspondingly, the 768×494 CCD in the VX4000DT provides resolution to 118 pixels/mm. For purposes of scanning Gigapxl™ test negatives, we have used resolutions of 50 and 80 pixels/mm. While the VX4000DT’s format of 10"×20" permits a 9"×18" negative to be scanned in a single step, the 10"×10" format of the DSW500 calls for a pair of separately scanned areas to be spliced in software. Such splicing has, however, proven to be straightforward. Meanwhile, the larger CCD of the DSW500 provides a distinct advantage in terms of scanning speed; the time required to scan a 9"×18" negative at 80 pixels/mm being 19 minutes, compared with 90 minutes for the VX4000DT. As a consequence, most of the Gigapxl™ images scanned to date have been done on the DSW500. |
19 minute scan @_@ |
My coolscan 8000 is just a little slower. okay a lot. It takes like ove an hour...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 10:42:44 AM EDT.
