pixel
thekeyislooking
A camera capable of creating images with "unprecedented detail" has been unveiled by US engineers.

The prototype machine - dubbed AWARE2 - has the potential to take pictures with resolutions of up to 50 gigapixels, equivalent to 50,000 megapixels, according to the team from Duke University in North Carolina.

It works by synchronising 98 tiny cameras in a single device.

The machine is likely to be used first for military surveillance.

In its current state the researchers say it can take one gigapixel images at up to three frames per minute.


Undetected images

The camera was developed by a team led by engineer David Brady and Michael J. Fitzpatrick, professor of Electric Engineering at Duke's Pratt School of Engineering, along with scientists from the University of Arizona, and the University of California.

They received funding from Darpa - the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The prototype camera itself is two-and-half feet square (76.2cm by 76.2cm) and 20 inches deep (50.8cm).

"Each one of the microcameras captures information from a specific area of the field of view," Mr Brady said.

"A computer processor essentially stitches all this information into a single highly detailed image. In many instances, the camera can capture images of things that photographers cannot see themselves but can then detect when the image is viewed later."

Getting smaller

Most consumer cameras currently on the market are capable of taking photographs ranging from eight to 40 megapixels.

Pixels are basically individual "dots" of data - and the higher the number of pixels, the better resolution of the image.

The researchers believe that within five years, as the electronic components of the cameras become miniaturised and more efficient, the next generation of gigapixel cameras should be available to the general public.

"The camera is so large now because of the electronic control boards and the need to add components to keep it from overheating," Mr Brady said.

"As more efficient and compact electronics are developed, the age of hand-held gigapixel photography should follow."


--------------

Story from BBC News: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18536170
pixel
MamieMeade
A sham. A hoax. Will never work, and they would mess it up if it did. Photography is doomed because they don't want the general public to be capable of producing anything that rivals the pros. Look at Canon and Nikon cameras. How long do they last? Can they be repaired? You're never going to see good photograpy again. Just like you'll never read a bestseller that was worth reading.
pixel
Lsample
Gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that last post, Mamie. And as far as good photography goes, while I am no pro, I feel as though I am seeing a ton of "great photography" right here on this blog. And while technology and equipment are only part of the story, it seems to me that the technology is moving so fast right now, that a lot of the stuff being posted here is being done with more advanced equipment and technology than even existed ten years ago.
So, as to the very latest technology, I suspect you will see it being used here by photobloggers to post here within ten years. Or less.
Photography doomed? Far from it! I might even go so far as to say that we are currently experiencing a renaissance of sorts? Perhaps one or more of the old timers that have been around longer than I could enlighten us?
pixel
GKorts
Well, Gigapixel photos are nothing new, each of us with a cam and a tripod can do it, with some patience, software and a really strong comp. Very helpful is a photo robot mounted on your tripod. Then make a panorama consisting of, let´s say, 900 photos, stitch them together and you have a gigapixel photo. Problem is only that you need a viewer similar to Google earth to see the details.
PHOTOS
This new cam is just the idea to take all these photos in once.
pixel
Jarvo
A short while ago I was reading some old National Geographic mags whilst waiting at the doctors. When I say old, I mean mid-80s. The picture quality was shocking but the pictures were wonderful. I suspect that the technology the professionals had then has been well surpassed by what is available to amateurs now, but there was still no doubting that these were better shots than you'd expect from an amateur.

The difference between professionals and amateurs isn't down so much to the level of photographic technology available but down to imagination, technical know-how and time available. That and a huge travel/expenses budget of course!
pixel
revenant
I was looking at Koudelka's early theatre work with slow film and clearly an even slower lens. Still better than anything I've seen with all the wonders of digital. As Ansel Adams said, the most important camera equipment lies in the 12 inches behind the eyes.
pixel
ArtBee
Ansel Adams was a wise man.....
pixel
SewerRanger
A gigapixel camera isn't any good if the sensor itself sucks. That's why a 5 megapixel camera phone doesn't look as good as a 5 megapixel DSLR photo.
pixel
MamieMeade
To Lsample: It's a passing fad. Too much gimmickry. Keep in mind that this society was more or less created by Hitler, who lived until 2001. Go try to confirm the visual capabilities of the people who started the computer craze. They are in N. California because they can no longer tolerate the bright light of S. California. Go try to get allowable radiation emissions and actual radiation emissions for TVs and computers. I am talking about billions of particles per hour coming out of these screens at the speed of light and destroying the rods and cones of the eyes. Color blindness is the main indicator that total blindness is eminent. MamieMeade
pixel
GKorts
I am not sure if I understood, it is Hitlers fault that we have a gigapixel cam now? And he lived until 2001? In which parallel world are you living and how could you make it into ours? Only questions but I don´t expect any answer.
pixel
Lsample
I refuse to believe that you are serious about what you say Mamie. And I am very sorry to have made any comment at all. This seems to happen to me every time I put myself out there. When will I learn?
Anyway, I will stand behind my earlier assertion that the technological revolution, while only part of what it takes to produce decent photography, has led to better photography coming from more people than ever before.
And with that, I am going to try very hard to not check back here to see what could possibly come next. Thanks. Out.
pixel
FitrPhotography
Oh that Hitler!!!
wow!!!
pixel
Jarvo
Hey Mamie, I wouldn't worry about just billions of particles an hour from your screens. There's plenty more stuff going on all the time. Every second of your life, every cm2 on your body is hit by 60 billion solar neutrinos. That's a far bigger bombardment to worry about.

Lsample, I don't think you should be sorry at all. It's been a good debate. I think you're absolutely right that technology "has led to better photography coming from more people than ever before".
pixel
Jothindra
Gigapixel cameras! Surely our children will have lots of fun in the times to come.
pixel
MamieMeade
To LSample: You have to be specific. Can you refute anything I say? I can tell you how to prove it. What I say about blindness is true. The founders of the computer industry are all going blind. The emission measurements for computers are nonexistent.
pixel
SewerRanger
I would just like to point out that there are no measurable harmful radiation (obviously they emit some radiation in the form of electromagnetic, UV, IR, etc) emissions from a computer screen - hence no readouts about them. In fact there is nothing in an LCD/Plasma screen that could possible emit harmful radiation. If you're using an old CRT then it's possible, under the right circumstances (over charging the cathode ray tube), for it to emit x-rays, but the FDA has regulations in place so that all CRT monitors have to have fail safes to prevent them.
pixel
liveandletlive
Lol @ Gerd.
The camera sounds fascinating to me. Still, I agree with everyone who says its not so much the camera as the creative force behind it.
That being said, I really need a new camera. I haven't been to easy on mine.
pixel
MamieMeade
To passerine2: Thanks for the info! One of the main factors is that people have been encouraged or told that it is okay to watch TV or use the computer in the dark. That really increases exposure to an extreme for the pupils are dilated so much. As I have written the most pertinent info on eye damage was published in the 50s or early sixties. And that said that TV viewing requires a concentration and focus like nothing ever has and that it was best to watch TV in a well-lighted room. The concentration and focus required to use a computer is much greater for it involves reading printed material. Here's a way to go test the amount of eye damage to the computer wizards in Redding, CA or thereabouts. Go catch them out at night and shine a bright light in their eyes. They will be blinded for a half hour or more, I bet.
pixel
revenant
@ MamieMeade: actually, shining a bright light in computer wizards' eyes will cause a violent reaction because, as you and I know, they're really aliens. Their optical and nervous system must be fairly similar to ours - I defer to your superior knowledge - because shining a bright light into most humans' eyes also causes a violent reaction and prompts the iris to contract - just like the aliens'!

And we have yet to discuss harmful effects of quarks on the pineal gland, especially among adolescent human males (I don't know about the alien variety), the primary indication of which is a tendency to acne and priaprism.
pixel
SewerRanger
To passerine: If the emission is so low that standard measurement tools can't detect them and there is now way they can be harmful at that level, how is that any different then saying "no measurable harmful radiation is emitted?" While, maybe not technically 100% correct, the general idea and meaning is the same. Whatever little bit of radiation thats being emitted isn't enough to harm you.

As for records of the emissions, contact the FDA. Radiation output from TV and monitors has been regulated since 1969. Set's are certified and a written report is given to the FDA to ensure compliance. Submit a FOIA request and the FDA will hand them over (probably won't even take that). I know the current regulations state that a display screen can not generate more then 0.5 mR/hr at a distance of 5 cm. So, while I'm sure they do emit some x-rays, it's on a small enough scale that it might as well be none.
pixel
yellodog
I've just ordered my 41 Mp Nokia. I see I'm doomed to be dissatisfied and blind into the bargain.
pixel
va000119
Anti static, anti glare, and anti radiation filters are available for all computers now.....Current info says 1 in 6 who use computers for a considerable time during the day will get computer vision syndrome.....no u won`t go blind but u may need to get new glasses....I think! )
pixel
MamieMeade
To revenant: Good answer. The eyes should recover in 30 seconds. They have few rods and cones in their eyes; thus it takes a long time to regain vision. You have to be prepared for the reaction. If they are blinded, it shouldn't be a problem.
pixel
MamieMeade
to passerine2: "Standard measurement tools?" I just took my temperature with a candy thermometer, and it looked fine! Anything that the computer industry says is geared to the promotion of the computer industry. Any research on negative components of computers is prejudiced, especially if you are finding it on a computer. They have a lot of names for the aliments that affect computer workers nowadays, but they are all probably symptoms of oncoming blindness. "Trouble with you is trouble with me. Got two good eyes and we still don't see!"
pixel
thekeyislooking
this turned out to be an interesting thread.....
pixel
Reply
pixel
pixel