Talk:List of largest photographs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is the London 80Gpix image included?[edit]

According to the dates given, this was made public after the Sugarloaf image, so the London image never was the biggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landisorphelia (talkcontribs) 03:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I can clear this up, I think the claim is that it is the worlds largest spherical image. It should be labeled as such GregDowning (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mine's bigger than yours[edit]

Now there appears to be a terapixel image available online, with dimensions of 1,029,338,906,850 pixels. See http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/05/worlds_first_te.html, although at almost 3000 GB, who'd want it on their desktop?--kwg06516 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

Maybe someone can obtain the permissions to use the TNO photo on Wikipedia or something... [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk)]] 05:12, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

New World's Largest?[edit]

I heard reports that Boeing now has the world's record for the largest digital graphic in the world for their photo on the Everett's factory doors. The |Boeing Blog mentions it. I'll look around for other sources. I guess it might not be a pure photograph, seems like there was some graphics editing. Any thoughts? CoachMcGuirk 14:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal Project[edit]

I just read an article on popular science about a Graham Flint, and his project dubbed "Gigapxl". He has apparently created 4 gigapixel images using his modified U2 spy plane camera. The article can be found at this link:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/generaltechnology/43f47ce253607010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

I'm not really sure how the updating of a wikipedia article works, but at least this will give someone some newer information.

Google Earth / Nasa Worldwind[edit]

Shouldn't Google Earth or Nasa Worldwind be considered "the largest photograph in the world"? I mean, they are huge mosaics of many photographs, much like that Delft one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by anonymous (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure about Nasa, but definitely not on Google. Go look at Chicago, IL on GE, for example. The angles of buildings relative to the camera and their shadows change noticeably from one grid to the next, indicating multiple photographs as the source. Really, the largest photo should arise from a single shot, which might even overrule hi-rez scans like the one I indicated above.--kwg06516 13:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

dimensions[edit]

1/3 length of a football field - which 'football'? US, Australian, Gaelic, Canadian or just plain football? The use of gallons is also confusing; are these US gallons or imperial gallons? Markb 14:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Earth[edit]

Could Google Earth and similar projects be considered a digital photograph? They are a kind of photostitching/mosaicing like some of the other digital entries, so should there be a mention? Blahbleh 08:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Google Earth[edit]

The difference in these large pictures and google earth is that these pictures are taken from a single point, right? These are terrestrial images, Googles are taken from space and the air. They are also a consistent resolution across the image. Google Earth has a variable resolution texture, high resolution in some areas and low resolution in others.

Fair use rationale for Image:Gigapixel small.jpg[edit]

Image:Gigapixel small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paris 20 gigapixel[edit]

Not yet done, but watch out if I forget: http://www.paris-20-gigapixels.com/en/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.237.251 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modify Digital Photograph Title[edit]

The title Digital Photograph should be reconsidered. Although it was assembled digitally the "Portrait of a Coral Reef (1999)" was shot on film. Perhaps "Digitally Assembled Photograph" would be a better title.

GregDowning (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles Fontayne and William Porter's 17.5 gigapixel Daguerreotypes from 1848[edit]

This Wired article claims that these 8 images are the equivalent of 140 gigapixels. It should probably be considered for the list http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/07/ff_daguerrotype_panorama/all/1

GregDowning (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion of Image Quality for World's Largest Image[edit]

We need some better standards for evaluating the world's most detailed images. There are at several examples of problems from this list of images. The previous highest resolution, "Arches 77 Gigapixels" was an error. If you look at the discussion on http://www.gigapan.org/gigapans/59267/ you will see this image was produced at many times it's native size due to a bug in Autopano. The error was acknowledged by the photographer. This should be listed at its correct resolution (19.4 GP). "Sugar Loaf 152 Gigapixels" is listed as 152 GP but if you compare it to a 5 Gigapixel image shot from the exact same spot 2 years earlier http://www.xrez.com/gallerypano/Gigapixel%20Flash/RDJ01_04_Sugarloaf_color_34w_print_4k.txt.php (my photo) you can see it offers a small improvement in detail but it is not close to the 30x improvement in detail that a 154 gigapixel image of the same quality would produce. (note the gigapan viewer zooms to a 2:1 or 3:1 pixel ratio while the flash player is set to a 1:1 ratio) This is most likely due to pixel density on the chip and optical quality. I don't know if it should be struck from the list but it points to the problem of the actual detail gained from an image which is what people are looking for in resolution.

There is a discussion of this topic by other gigapixel photographers here, http://blog.360cities.net/gigapixel-charlatans/ . Ken Turkowski (computer scientist & lead engineer on QTVR) spoke about the issues of resolution at a panoramic conference in 2002 here, http://www.worldserver.com/turk/presentations/PanoRes640.QTVRSumt.021009.html He also demonstrated MatLab code that could imperially evaluate the true detail represented in an image. I think it is becoming clear that not all pixels are created equally.

Some of the claims on this page are clearly false. For instance the mosaic process for stitching overlapping images require that the photographer loose a little of the resolution on each side of the image. The typical overlap is 20%-33% overlap on each of the four sides. This means that for each image you the only part that is unique to the image is the center 1/9th to 3/5ths. If you look at the claims for the largest image, the "Shanghai 272 Gigapixel" the author claims that he shot 12,000 photographs with a Canon 7D that has an 18 megapixel sensor. Even if he had 0% overlap, which is not possible, he would still only capture 214,990,848,000 pixels, about 50 billion short of his claim. Once the overlap is added in the problem is compounded further. Many of the claims near the top of the list suffer from this problem.

There is an additional issue with the quality of the pixels captured in many of the images. Using a long focal length limits the depth of field of an image. To increase the depth of field many photographers stop down their lens to a very small aperture. The small aperture a problem with diffraction or Airy Disks especially on cameras with high pixel densities on small sensors. By using a small aperture the lens becomes "diffraction limited" and a single point is projected across several pixels reducing the effective resolution.

As this Wikipedia list is the source for media outlets, I think it is important that we more critically assess these images.

GregDowning (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point, GregDowning. With a 100 mm diameter lens, the resolving power for visible light is diffraction-limited to 2 arcsec or 9.7×10−6 radians for a full-colour image (or 1 arcsec for only violet light), corresponding to a spot of 7.4×10−11 steradians. As a whole sphere has only 4π steradians, there can be at most 1.7×1011 distinguishable spots, i.e. 170 gigapixels. Unless an enormous lens or specialised image processing techniques are used, claims of 200+ gigapixels should be taken with a pinch of salt... (Note that the number of spots square with lens size, so a 1 m lens can potentially give 17 terapixels.) 86.30.200.63 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MassiveBlack: A Large-Scale Simulation of the Early Universe 1166 Gigapixels[edit]

This should not be included in a "photograph" article. This is a 100% computer simulated image that never came from a camera or image sensor of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpaerospace (talkcontribs) 16:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Queen's Jubilee Photograph[edit]

At 100m x 37m could this be the biggest print from a single photo? http://www.clickliverpool.com/news/national-news/1216297-sea-containers-house-london-jubileewrap.html DaPi (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several sources claim its height as 70 m: [1] [2] [3] [4] but that doesn't quite fit its apparent aspect ratio. A 37 m height would still make it larger than the Canadian Museum of Civilization print, so if noone objects, I'll replace it in a few days. Anyone got a photo? cmɢʟee 17:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gigapixel Turntables[edit]

The "multiviewpoint terapixel" image listed as the world’s largest image is using a "turntable" technology that is interactive and animates as you drag your mouse over the object. The interactivity drives a sequence of images in such a way that you feel that you are either walking around a subject or turning the subject. The basis for this technique has been around since at least the 1990s; it was a feature of the first version of QTVR and was known as an "Object Movie." There are two issues on how it is being used on the page.

  1. Claiming that this collection of 40 separate seamless images is a terapixel (1000 gigapixels) is not consistent with how we consider a single seamless photo a gigapixel image. All other gigapixel images on the list are a single seamless image. If we were to start considering collections of images the same category as a single seamless image we would also have to claim that a movie running at 24 fps and 2k per frame was 4 gigapixels per minute, and 272 gigapixels per hour and the longest Cinematic Movie Would be several terapixels larger.
  2. The image labeled "first multiviewpoint Gigapixel in the World 18 x 2,3 = 40 Gigapixel, 2011" in addition to having the same issue mentioned above may not be the first "multiviewpoint Gigapixel" turntable style image. The author has not provided a specific date in 2011 that he produced it and there was at least one other done in 2011 http://www.boeing.com/Features/2011/07/bca_737_gigaplane_07_18_11.html . It is also likely that there are many others, this has been a feature of the KR Pano Tools and Viewer for many years.
Agreed. The list is sorted by the pixel count of an image, not a set of images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.115.72.225 (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seconded. I have removed the offending section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald Donovan (talkcontribs) 18:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, I have had to remove the spam posted on this article by Daniel Richter. This garbage has no place here. Gerald Donovan (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of curiosity, what's the link to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.14.97 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

320-gigapixel London[edit]

The Register reported on this new panorama of London on 21 Feb 2013: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/21/bt_tower_360_panorama_london/ 86.30.200.63 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

# Done added by another editor and by me —rybec 03:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blog.360cities.net blacklisted[edit]

I wasn't able to edit the article because it contained links to a blacklisted site. To get around the problem, I did this. I posted about it at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#blog.360cities.netrybec 02:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Order of largest digital photos[edit]

"The following are the digital photographs that have held the record for being the largest in terms of pixel count, beginning with the largest in chronological order (note: large digital images out of chronological order or lacking milestone significance are moved to acknowledgment section)."

What exactly does that mean? How can it be both ordered in terms of size and chonologically? And why are there things in the acknowledgment section that DO have dates attached to them (but not nessicarily listed, on the same note, a lot of them don't have links, despite them being mentioned and linked to here on the talk page) not listed in the main section?98.24.14.97 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of largest photographs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artwork by Bettina Pousttchi[edit]

Surely Bettina Pousttchi's 2009 Echo Berlin at 11m x 20m x 57m made up of 970 sheets covering facades of a whole public building, the Temporäre Kunsthalle Berlin, would qualify as one of the largest multi sheet prints? Jamesmcardle(talk) 11:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to self: tableify this article.[edit]

Boy howdy, does it need it. jp×g 21:41, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why Does People Forget A 1 Terapixel Image a 10 Terapixel night sky image and a 717 gigapixel art image[edit]

I am Ridiculously shocked why people do not want to add a forgotten Terapixel image if not a 10 Terapixel image to the site because they forget also there is an i art image of 717 gigapixel which is also forgotten 2601:CD:4101:5520:441B:2F01:E03F:F72A (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am ridiculously shocked... that you think stuff can be added to Wikipedia without referencing a reliable source. Captainllama (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's one source: [5] - CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]