PDA

View Full Version : A big digital portrait camera



Randy Moe
23-Mar-2014, 14:55
http://gizmodo.com/900-megapixel-portraits-turn-the-human-face-into-a-craz-1545799593

Leigh
23-Mar-2014, 15:16
Hmmm... 600 individual photos. I wonder how long it takes to shoot those?

So we've advanced back to the late 19th Century... exposures several minutes long and subjects in head braces.

Or you could buy 600 Canon 5D Mark II cameras with lenses, and 600 remotes to trigger them.

- Leigh

Randy Moe
23-Mar-2014, 15:18
Gotta be kinda ugly too. I don't need that sort of detail in a portrait.

Maybe they will soften the image or discover Petzvals...

LOL


Hmmm... 600 individual photos. I wonder how long it takes to shoot those?

So we've advanced back to the late 19th Century... exposures several minutes long and subjects in head braces.

- Leigh

Leigh
23-Mar-2014, 15:27
Maybe they will soften the image or discover Petzvals...
The mind boggles.

600 Petzval shots computer-edited into a high-res digital display.

- Leigh

Randy Moe
23-Mar-2014, 15:30
Yep, sure glad I didn't fixate on that camera style.

I'll stick with film.


The mind boggles.

600 Petzval shots computer-edited into a high-res digital display.

- Leigh

jcc
23-Mar-2014, 22:46
Hmmm... 600 individual photos. I wonder how long it takes to shoot those?

So we've advanced back to the late 19th Century... exposures several minutes long and subjects in head braces.

Or you could buy 600 Canon 5D Mark II cameras with lenses, and 600 remotes to trigger them.

- Leigh

Hmmm... 600 you say... http://www.filmsnotdead.com/2014/01/23/the-do-not-crop-winner-jefferson-chang/

David A. Goldfarb
24-Mar-2014, 01:17
I saw something on this, and the detail shots didn't look particularly more detailed than an equivalent portion of a decent 8x10" transparency made with strobes and a not especially modern lens.

jcc
24-Mar-2014, 01:21
I saw something on this, and the detail shots didn't look particularly more detailed than an equivalent portion of a decent 8x10" transparency made with strobes and a not especially modern lens.

You're referring to this comparison? http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/film.vs.digital.1/index.html

David A. Goldfarb
24-Mar-2014, 01:28
You're referring to this comparison? http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/film.vs.digital.1/index.html

No, never seen that. Just looking at the detail shots from the "900 megapixel portrait" mentioned in the original post and what I've seen under the loupe in my own 8x10" portraits. The robot arm and 600-shot map seem like a gimmick to me, and a better result with no stitching-associated distortion could be achieved with an ordinary 8x10" camera in one shot.

richardman
24-Mar-2014, 01:40
Jefferson, your project is pretty awesome. Good luck!

jcc
24-Mar-2014, 01:42
Jefferson, your project is pretty awesome. Good luck!

Thanks! Didn't mean to hijack the post though.

VictoriaPerelet
24-Mar-2014, 02:39
And the most of humanity is more than happy with selfies.

Jim Andrada
24-Mar-2014, 17:42
And working like this with humans in close proximity to robotic arms is extremely hazardous. One minor programming error and you could be photographing the back of your head - from inside the front of your head. Mixing people and robots like this is an absolute no-no without well marked "keep clear" zones, safety fencing, etc. to keep people outside the largest possible area the arm could reach, safety cut-outs, etc etc.

This is an invitation to disaster.

richardman
24-Mar-2014, 18:44
Jim, programmers never made errors!

http://www.wired.com/software/coolapps/news/2005/11/69355

Jim Andrada
25-Mar-2014, 00:21
No, of course not!

Enjoyed the link and the e(n)tomolygy of "bug"

When I was an undergraduate at Harvard we still had the Mark IV and Mark I along with a Univac I. The Mark II had been sent to the Naval Weapons Lab in Virginia where I later worked, although by the time I got there in 1962 the Mark II had been replaced by the NORC (Naval Ordnance Research Calculator. At that time Computers were the people who banged away at desktop calculating machines.)

I'm within a few months of 55 years in the computer business and I'm probably the only one who wrote bug-free code (ie, no extra charge for the bugs)

arca andy
25-Mar-2014, 04:21
Isn't 10x8 supposed to be equivalent to 600mps? So two 10x8s, shot at the same time and then stitch the resulting images...1200mps and jobs a good'un! Or how about one of those high powered Betterlight backs...would that work? Or using an ultra large format camera...?
In fact I bet someone in this here community has got close to the a 900mp portrait, but whether they realise it or not is a different matter!