50,000 megapixels?!!

[Chann]

http://www.techbriefs.com/component/.../article/14060

Hopefully harddrives will be 1,000 terabytes if this becomes mainstream.

We'll see how photoshop can handle that file!

Chann

[Ads]

[412 Burgh]

I ordered mine last week. Should be in this week!

[jake337]

Advancement of technology is not stopping. So the will use what they learned from this device to build the next, only smaller and more advanced, and again, and again, and again......Moore's Law.....

[Marcelle]

great lol now they just have to create printers printing at that resolution and not in x pass at 320dpi

[sovietdoc]

That's useless. I actually expect the megapixel race to start slowing down when pro dslr's get closer to 100megapixels. Possibly even sooner.

[PNWSGM]

That's useless. I actually expect the megapixel race to start slowing down when pro dslr's get closer to 100megapixels. Possibly even sooner.

How is this useless? I foresee this being used by NASA on multiple telescopes.

[Derrel]

50,000 megapickles??? Canon has announced a 129,000 megapickle camera to counter it!!!

[Ballistics]

That's useless. I actually expect the megapixel race to start slowing down when pro dslr's get closer to 100megapixels. Possibly even sooner.

How is this useless? I foresee this being used by NASA on multiple telescopes.

Telescope megapixels are in the thousands.

[Ballistics]

great lol now they just have to create printers printing at that resolution and not in x pass at 320dpi

This is something I have been curious about. Even at 50 megapixels, would a commercial printer really need more resolution? If I were to guess, I'd say that we would see no difference until very large prints that consumer printers could not make. Of course if someone knows the answer feel free to set me straight.

[Ballistics]

Advancement of technology is not stopping. So the will use what they learned from this device to build the next, only smaller and more advanced, and again, and again, and again......Moore's Law.....

There's got to be a limitation somewhere, and I think even with technology advancing, that a line will be drawn somewhere for some reason.

[amolitor]

Most likely these images are overlapping. They're probably using multiple exposures and multiple cameras covering overlapping zones of the field. They're supposedly getting 510Mpixels out of each camera, if I am doing the math right, which sounds like between 25 and 100 exposures each. Then they smash all these exposures together and produce a computed high resolution image with substantially fewer than 50 gigapixels, but substantially more a single exposure from a single camera would provide.

If you shoot without an aliasing filter and get enough redundant images, you should be able to reconstruct the image right up to the diffraction limit of the lenses you've got. The telescope guys know all about this, I am informed. The keyword to search for is "supersampling"

[pixmedic]

Most likely these images are overlapping. They're probably using multiple exposures and multiple cameras covering overlapping zones of the field. They're supposedly getting 510Mpixels out of each camera, if I am doing the math right, which sounds like between 25 and 100 exposures each. Then they smash all these exposures together and produce a computed high resolution image with substantially fewer than 50 gigapixels, but substantially more a single exposure from a single camera would provide.

If you shoot without an aliasing filter and get enough redundant images, you should be able to reconstruct the image right up to the diffraction limit of the lenses you've got. The telescope guys know all about this, I am informed. The keyword to search for is "supersampling"

+50 internet points for actually knowing about that...Im going to Google supersampling now and check it out.

[unpopular]

There is no reason why Photoshop couldn't handle a 50gp file provided that there is enough memory and scratch space available. A scratch file that big would fragment the hell out of a hard drive, I'd imagine.

[pixmedic]

There is no reason why Photoshop couldn't handle a 50gp file provided that there is enough memory and scratch space available. A scratch file that big would fragment the hell out of a hard drive, I'd imagine.

maybe a swap partition like Linux uses? and a TON of memory...

[unpopular]

maybe a swap partition like Linux uses? and a TON of memory...

I always recommend that people put the scratch disk on a separate partition, or better, a second drive. Photoshop tends to wreck havoc on hard drives, especially with very large files.\

This is perhaps less a concern today with gigabytes of memory and with digital cameras producing smaller files, people tended to scan film in at huge resolutions, but IMO it is still a good idea.