DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> the best lens ever made !
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 30, (reverse)
AuthorThread
06/07/2005 03:24:01 PM · #1
I found this when I was looking through the forums at another photography site
the best lens

this lens is ONLY 46kg, about 90 pounds.. not exactly a walkaround, but the image quality and details makes our precious L lenses look like penholders..

try zooming in on the sample image and see the awsome details over 2 miles away :)

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 15:24:15.
06/07/2005 03:50:06 PM · #2
w()()t

pretty trippy...

but do you have a picture of the actual lens?
06/07/2005 03:53:55 PM · #3
I think you've been fooled. This is a gigapixel image from some university, where they wrote a program that automatically takes a lot of pictures and stitches them together.

-Chad
06/07/2005 05:50:25 PM · #4
Originally posted by cpurser:

I think you've been fooled. This is a gigapixel image from some university, where they wrote a program that automatically takes a lot of pictures and stitches them together.

-Chad


Yup, there was a previous thread about it.
06/07/2005 06:32:25 PM · #5
That photo is a composite of a few thousand photos taken with a Canon 600mm f/4L lens...then stitched together.
06/07/2005 06:40:52 PM · #6
Originally posted by doctornick:

That photo is a composite of a few thousand photos taken with a Canon 600mm f/4L lens...then stitched together.


That's not true, and I quote:

"The camera used was a Nikon D1x. It provides 6 megapixel resolution and a FireWire interface with remote-control capabilities. This digital SLR camera needed a long telephoto lens to provide enough detail in the final image and to prevent us ending up with an extremely wide field of view. The lens used was a Nikon AF VR Nikkor 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6D ED."

//www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite599.html
06/07/2005 06:42:13 PM · #7
Originally posted by Philos31:

Originally posted by doctornick:

That photo is a composite of a few thousand photos taken with a Canon 600mm f/4L lens...then stitched together.


That's not true, and I quote:

"The camera used was a Nikon D1x. It provides 6 megapixel resolution and a FireWire interface with remote-control capabilities. This digital SLR camera needed a long telephoto lens to provide enough detail in the final image and to prevent us ending up with an extremely wide field of view. The lens used was a Nikon AF VR Nikkor 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6D ED."

//www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite599.html


There is a similar project where a 600mm Canon lens was used...
06/07/2005 06:45:04 PM · #8
Still actually thinking that this is a lens creating this image is probably one of the funnyest things ever....

I couldnt stop laughing when I red this :P
06/07/2005 07:30:00 PM · #9
Yup, and so what if it was a lens, just imagine the quality of the camera hehehe
06/07/2005 07:56:25 PM · #10
Originally posted by Bolti:

Still actually thinking that this is a lens creating this image is probably one of the funnyest things ever....

I couldnt stop laughing when I red this :P


that only shows how ignorant you really are, thinking those toys we play with are actually top quality stuff..

Hubble has a built in digital camera with a lens, and this is one of the pictures from that camera.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/186827.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/186827.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

it's a picture of something that is 166 lightyears away, that is in kilometers...

15.704.477.144.000.000.000.000.000 kilometers

pretty good details at that distance... with the 1Ds II and 600mm f4 you would probably get a black background with maby a few white dots ;)

so read up on technology before you think your toy is a really good camera.. because it's really not ;)
06/07/2005 08:10:51 PM · #11
Serious question, whats the minimum focus distance on Hubble? Wondered if it would be any good as a macro (not macro how we see it - more like how much detail could it get taking a photo of Earth at maximum zoom if it is a zoom, or is it fixed?)

Message edited by author 2005-06-07 20:11:48.
06/07/2005 08:16:28 PM · #12
Originally posted by Konador:

Serious question, whats the minimum focus distance on Hubble? Wondered if it would be any good as a macro (not macro how we see it - more like how much detail could it get taking a photo of Earth at maximum zoom if it is a zoom, or is it fixed?)


when it was launced there was a rumour that it could take a picture of a newspaper from orbit (155.000km) and you would be able to read the headlines (don't know about the fine print)
06/07/2005 08:17:30 PM · #13
Hmm not bad :P
06/07/2005 08:41:51 PM · #14
Well if this photo is not a stitch, then that guy has been chopped by half or he is a ghost... :-) (see on the right of the photo at the corner of the street near the blue bicycle sign...)

06/07/2005 09:30:18 PM · #15
Originally posted by darix:

Well if this photo is not a stitch, then that guy has been chopped by half or he is a ghost... :-) (see on the right of the photo at the corner of the street near the blue bicycle sign...)


I found him! Kinda like a "Where's Waldo"... Good eyes!
06/07/2005 09:46:06 PM · #16
Here is photo technicals :

Below are some facts and figures about the gigapixel image:

Final image dimensions: 78.797 x 31.565 pixels
Number of pixels in final image: 2,487,227,305 (2.5 gigapixel)
Final image file format: 24-bit colour bitmap
Final image file size: 7.5 GBytes
Number of source images: 600
Number of pixels in source images: 3,537,408,000 (600 images * 3008*1960)
Lens focal length: 400 mm (equivalent to 600 mm on a 35 mm camera)
Aperture: F22, Shutter speed: 1/100, ISO: 125
Horizontal field of view of final image: 93 degrees
Time required to capture component images: 1 hour and 12 minutes
Time required to match overlapping images: 20 hours
Time required to optimise project: 4 hours
Time required to compose the image: 3 full days using 5 high-end pcs
Time required to blend seams / correct misalignments / finalise image: 2 days
06/07/2005 10:30:39 PM · #17
Originally posted by DanSig:

Originally posted by Bolti:

Still actually thinking that this is a lens creating this image is probably one of the funnyest things ever....

I couldnt stop laughing when I red this :P


that only shows how ignorant you really are, thinking those toys we play with are actually top quality stuff..

Hubble has a built in digital camera with a lens, and this is one of the pictures from that camera.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/186827.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/186827.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

it's a picture of something that is 166 lightyears away, that is in kilometers...

15.704.477.144.000.000.000.000.000 kilometers

pretty good details at that distance... with the 1Ds II and 600mm f4 you would probably get a black background with maby a few white dots ;)

so read up on technology before you think your toy is a really good camera.. because it's really not ;)


So, what are you saying, are you comparing this " Only 46 kg lens" to the hubble telescope. Just because you ware way off track and so wrong about this "lens" there is no need for stupid comparisom between a hubble telescobe and a canon Mark II just to change the subject.
06/07/2005 10:49:22 PM · #18
Originally posted by pitsaman:


Time required to capture component images: 1 hour and 12 minutes
Time required to match overlapping images: 20 hours
Time required to optimise project: 4 hours
Time required to compose the image: 3 full days using 5 high-end pcs
Time required to blend seams / correct misalignments / finalise image: 2 days

Sounds like a few of my Photoshop sessions, then toss it when I wasn't happy with it.
(well all but the high-end PC's - I use Windows)
06/07/2005 11:09:40 PM · #19
Originally posted by DanSig:

Originally posted by Bolti:

Still actually thinking that this is a lens creating this image is probably one of the funnyest things ever....

I couldnt stop laughing when I red this :P


that only shows how ignorant you really are, thinking those toys we play with are actually top quality stuff..

Hubble has a built in digital camera with a lens, and this is one of the pictures from that camera.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/186827.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/186827.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

it's a picture of something that is 166 lightyears away, that is in kilometers...

15.704.477.144.000.000.000.000.000 kilometers

pretty good details at that distance... with the 1Ds II and 600mm f4 you would probably get a black background with maby a few white dots ;)

so read up on technology before you think your toy is a really good camera.. because it's really not ;)


I'll wager $10 that the sensor technology in the Canon 1Ds Mark II is far beyond the Hubble's sensor technology. And if the Hubble crew could have had access to Canon's tech back then and calibrated it to their need they'd have used it in a heartbeat. The issue with the Hubble is NOT the quality of it's digicam but rather the quality of it's lens.
06/08/2005 05:34:44 AM · #20
Originally posted by DanSig:

Originally posted by Bolti:

Still actually thinking that this is a lens creating this image is probably one of the funnyest things ever....

I couldnt stop laughing when I red this :P


that only shows how ignorant you really are, thinking those toys we play with are actually top quality stuff..

Hubble has a built in digital camera with a lens, and this is one of the pictures from that camera.
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/186827.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/186827.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

it's a picture of something that is 166 lightyears away, that is in kilometers...

15.704.477.144.000.000.000.000.000 kilometers

pretty good details at that distance... with the 1Ds II and 600mm f4 you would probably get a black background with maby a few white dots ;)

so read up on technology before you think your toy is a really good camera.. because it's really not ;)


I am not even going to answer that :)

Talking about being ignorant and talking about "the greatest lens ever"

Just crawl back into your hole and continue googling Hubble.... hahaha

I am laughing so hard at this.... comparing a Canon lens to hubble....
06/08/2005 06:35:48 AM · #21
More "where´s Waldo":

Find
1. The "IKEA" sign and "McDonalds"
2. The "te Huur" sign
3. A car with the licence plate "FP VG 11"
4. The naked woman toweling off
5. Out at what time was the picture taken?

Quit what you are doing. This is more important!
06/08/2005 08:01:34 AM · #22
it's stitched together.

You can see the stitch lines if you zoom in far enough in places. sloppy.
06/08/2005 08:31:17 AM · #23
NASA technology has always lagged behind classified military technology in terms of ability to photograph Earth as "macro" shots. In fact, there was quite a big deal made in the 70's when Hubble was being designed and built about the military being too stingy with their optical technology, mirror shapes, etc. Conventional wisdom among those who know such things is that Hubble's capabilities, as wonderous as they are, are only a pale ghost compared to the abilities of the CIA's and NSA's most sensitive Earth monitoring satellites.

Also, Hubble can't point to Earth targets anyway. It's against the operational rules and there is no astronomical reason for it to ever do so. They did break the rules a few years ago and let Hubble take a picture of the moon. It was an awful shot of crater Copernicus, which would be equalled by many good amateurs with respectable equipment. Hubble just wasn't made to image huge bright things. It was designed to image far away faint thingies.

Originally posted by Konador:

Serious question, whats the minimum focus distance on Hubble? Wondered if it would be any good as a macro (not macro how we see it - more like how much detail could it get taking a photo of Earth at maximum zoom if it is a zoom, or is it fixed?)
06/08/2005 08:36:24 AM · #24
Originally posted by bogulo:

More "where´s Waldo":

Find
1. The "IKEA" sign and "McDonalds"
2. The "te Huur" sign
3. A car with the licence plate "FP VG 11"
4. The naked woman toweling off
5. Out at what time was the picture taken?

Quit what you are doing. This is more important!


Found everything except the woman, but I found a construction worker wearing a white hat, two lovers on a bench and a seagull on a roof.

For the time of the picture, there's actually two clocks with a time difference of 7 minutes.
06/08/2005 03:06:35 PM · #25
Originally posted by strangeghost:

They did break the rules a few years ago and let Hubble take a picture of the moon. It was an awful shot of crater Copernicus, which would be equalled by many good amateurs with respectable equipment. Hubble just wasn't made to image huge bright things. It was designed to image far away faint thingies.

Originally posted by Konador:

Serious question, whats the minimum focus distance on Hubble? Wondered if it would be any good as a macro (not macro how we see it - more like how much detail could it get taking a photo of Earth at maximum zoom if it is a zoom, or is it fixed?)


//oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/14/content/9914z.jpg
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2021 07:55:01 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 08/03/2021 07:55:01 PM EDT.