To all doubters....

[Soocom1]

This is a link to the gallery of the Gigapixel Project.
For those unfamiliar, the Gigapixel project is in short, Ultra Large DIGITAL photography, thy type used for military applications from the Cold War adapted to civilian use.

The images are approx 4Gp, or 4,000Mp.
the images are impressive when you consider that the ones taken at the Indy 500, the images of people can be blown up to passport quality.

So much for APS sized sensors.....

http://www.gigapxl.org


http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery-Parasail.htm

 

[Unimaxium]

Well, it's only sorta digital photography... If I remember right, they shoot on ginormous LF film and then scan it in, don't they? I wonder, does it still count as digital if they do it that way?

 

[Big Mike]

I thought it was just a bunch of smaller exposures stitched together.

 

[markc]

This one looks to be scanned film, so it's not digital capture. There was another one where they stiched many digital images together.

 

[ksmattfish]

...the Gigapixel project is in short, Ultra Large DIGITAL photography

It definately starts out as film photography. He uses the term "gigapixel" to make people think he's doing something new, but ULF photography has been around since long before film was introduced. The gigapixel guy's camera is not even as big as many photographers are using. He's shooting 9"x18", and there are ULF photogs out there shooting 20"x24" cameras. There have been even bigger cameras made.

The only significant difference I see between the Gigapixel guy and other ULF photographers is the marketing hype he's using. He has a fancy tripod, and vacuum film holder, but others have come up with, and been using this stuff before. His claims about the special abilities of the secret military film and scanner are sort of hokey; you would get amazingly fantastic results with any modern film or scanner. The power is in the massive size of the film, not in any of his new fangled gizmos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Large_Format

http://www.ronkleinphotos.com/

http://www.clydebutcher.com/

http://www.mamutphoto.com/

http://www.bigshotz.co.nz/other.html

http://www.fiberq.com/cam/index.htm

http://www.carlweese.com/atp.html

http://www.patrickalt.com/

 

[ksmattfish]

I wonder, does it still count as digital if they do it that way?

IMHO, a scanner is just another digital camera, so once it's been scanned if people want to call it digital photography that's fine with me. Where I get bent is the Gigapixel Guy's insinuation that the digital part is needed to get the level of resolution/detail. You can get the same mind blowing quality without ever getting near a computer, just using traditional darkroom processes.

Now if someone made a huge digital scanning back, I'm sure it would blow away film. Then again daylight exposures would be 20+ minutes, which is a downside if you photograph things that move.

 

[Luke]

interesting, and, imagine doing macro with this: You would literally reach the physical limits of quality, because you see, atoms would be several pixels across!! and you can't see atoms, because they are only particles that get wobbled by light waves. Freaky eh

 

[ksmattfish]

Some people claim that 8000 dpi is the limit for scanning film. Beyond that you won't get anymore detail. Scanned at 8000 dpi a lowly 4x5 neg (the smallest of large format sizes) is 1,280,000,000 pixels, or a gigapixel. If you believe film maxes out at 4000 dpi, it's still a half a gigapixel. 8x10 film would be 4 gigapixels at 8000 dpi, or 2 Gp at 4000 dpi.

You can buy a 4x5 press camera used for $250 or less, so for anyone interested in "gigapixel" images the cameras are out there and waiting for you. Can you believe that this sort of quality is possible and affordable, and has been for decades? Who dumbed us down, and got us all to accept significantly lower quality? Cough, cough...canon...cough, cough...nikon...cough....

 

[mysteryscribe]

I have begun shooting 4x5 on a simi regular basis. When I shoot negatives and get them dead sharp, then scan them at even 1200 dpi the quality of the digital image is amazing. It will more than rival my sil d200 image. Pluse it has a depth not there in the digital captured image. I can't explain it just very differnt looking.

and it was Leica who convinced us small was better.

 

[Tiberius]

"Affordable" is a relative term. Shooting Digital is incredibly cheaper than shooting 35mm and even that's cheaper than shooting large format. And scanners that could pull 4000dpi or higher are insanely expensive.

 

[ksmattfish]

"Affordable" is a relative term. Shooting Digital is incredibly cheaper than shooting 35mm and even that's cheaper than shooting large format. And scanners that could pull 4000dpi or higher are insanely expensive.

Well, as they say, you get what you pay for. Actually I'd disagree with your assumption that digital is cheaper than film. For some people yes, for others no. I can't believe how much I've spent on digital photography in just the last 1.5 years. I don't think I've spent as much on 4x5 in the last 8 years. Yes, on a per shot basis my 20D is cheaper than shooting my Speed Graphic, but I'm not sure that's always the best way to judge value.

Also, I could go forever on the 4x5 gear I have now, only purchasing more film and chems and paper. It's unlikely I won't feel compelled to upgrade every few years with digital, and it's not just a new camera, it's a new computer to run it too, batteries, new memory, etc... And if I was shooting medium format digital the price would probably be higher than shooting film.

Overall if money is an issue, I'd recommend giving up on photography, it's just expensive no matter which way you go. When my life is over I will have spent a whole lot of money of film, and a whole lot of money on digital.

I bought my Microtek scanner that will go to 6000 dpi for about $500 2 years ago. It does not do a good job with 35mm, but it does a great job with medium format and 4x5. Actually, I only scan my 4x5 negs at 3000 dpi. That's good for 40"x50" at 300 dpi. I've never had a print made larger than 24"x24" so 4x5 is sort of overkill, but if someone wanted to buy a huge print tomorrow, I'd be ready.