PanoTools mailing list archive
|Date/Time:||19-Oct-2010 05:04:54 +0000|
|Subject:||Re: What's a Gigapixel?|
Starting out with a gigapano (with at least 1 gigapixels in it), then crop
it down to 1 megapixel... can of course not justify the image to be called
for a gigapixel pano. Yes, I am exaggerating the cropping here, but still
the principle is the same.
Giga this or giga that... is like talking about megabytes in the 80's. One
day it will be normal to shoot gigapixel images with consumer cameras. Why
not, rather than get stuck on "giga" something that will become obsolete one
day, name such images "deep-zoom panos" / "deep-zoom images" ? These images
allow deep zooming, regardless of them being one gigapixels, a quarter or
Calling a camera for a gigapixel camera when it only has 5 megapixels, would
be unacceptable. Even if the camera can shoot many many images that can be
stitched into a true gigapixel image. We can't just call things something
they are not.
Deep-zoom images... would be completely neutral and accurate (given that
zoom is enabled).
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Don Bain <#removed#>wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Christian Bloch wrote:
> > Is it 1000 or 1024 Megapixel?
> > Personally, I'm not afraid labeling a crisp and clear 500 Megapixel pano
> as Gigapixel, but I was just wondering what's the official definition.
> It is really about resolution isn't it? - other than bragging rights about
> total pixels.
> So maybe we should define it as a panorama, *or portion of a panorama*,
> that would have a billion pixels (more or less) if it were a complete
> equirectangular image. That would be 44,720 to 46,340 pixels wide, right?
> There is usually no point in printing a gigapixel equirectangular in its
> entirety (or viewing nadir and zenith if interactive). So we don't want to
> exclude panoramas at that resolution which have been cropped to just the
> part with interest.
> Put another way, a gigapixel-resolution panorama would have at least 128
> pixels per angular degree at the equator. To be truly panoramic it would
> also have to cover a wide field of view, from a minimum 120° or 140° up to
> As an example, a true gigapixel equirectangular, with 25% cropped off both
> top and bottom, ends up with half a gig of pixels. If cropped again to one
> half its original width it is only one quarter of a gig. But it has the same
> detail, and may be a stronger image if cropped judiciously. I would still
> consider it to be a gigapixel pano.
> A definition such as this will be necessary for gigapixel categories in
> panoramic photography contests. It would be useful to reach a consensus
> before it becomes an issue.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<*> Wiki: http://wiki.panotools.org
<*> User Guidelines: http://wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines
<*> Nabble (Web) http://n4.nabble.com/PanoToolsNG-f586017.html
<*> NG Member Map http://www.panomaps.com/ng
<*> Moderators/List Admins: #removed#
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: