Log in

No account? Create an account
Welcome to the future - Her Most Regal Majesty, the Queen of Snark
void where prohibited, except by law
Welcome to the future
I find the privacy implications of this gigapixel photo pretty darn scary.

(link via cryx)
15 comments or Leave a comment
ewx From: ewx Date: February 17th, 2006 02:41 pm (UTC) (Link)
Google Earth/Google Maps is not that many resolution doublings away from the same sort of thing in some regions...
bellinghman From: bellinghman Date: February 17th, 2006 02:47 pm (UTC) (Link)
A large white rectangle has privacy impications? Or is something just failing to display?

(In other words, what bit of security-bypassing plug-in does it need?)
bellinghman From: bellinghman Date: February 17th, 2006 02:49 pm (UTC) (Link)
Ah, my favourite. Flash.
chrisvenus From: chrisvenus Date: February 17th, 2006 02:50 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm not convinced it says anything more about privacy than a high zoom lens does. Least, I'm assumign that you could get that level of detail from a lens with good zoom. Binoculars I'm sure will do the trick nicely too.
ewx From: ewx Date: February 17th, 2006 02:58 pm (UTC) (Link)
Slightly wider field of view than your typical telephoto lens...
davefish From: davefish Date: February 17th, 2006 03:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
Not if you move the camera :)
ewx From: ewx Date: February 17th, 2006 03:15 pm (UTC) (Link)

Mmm. To my mind the privacy implications (such as they are) of large, detailed images like this are the ability of just anyone to browse them from their desktop. For instance I don't have to travel across the country, perhaps indeed with a camera, to see someone's back garden, I can just look it up on Google Earth (though I don't get to choose when the picture was taken, at least until Google start putting up their own satellites).

I think on reflection thoug I agree with the point that there's not really much privacy lost here - any who really wanted to spy on you could have done already; at most, new technology has made it cheaper and easier to do so. Not such a different case from unauthorized widespread copying of films and music being made easier by new communications technology., perhaps?

davefish From: davefish Date: February 17th, 2006 03:03 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm guessing that it was taken with a moderate zoom lens, with lots pictures stiched together.

Digiscoping is now becoming popular with birdwatchers, which essentially puts a telescope on the end of your digital camera. Extremely zoomy.
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: February 17th, 2006 03:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
I strongly doubt it. You wouldn't be able to take that many photos simultaneously.
davefish From: davefish Date: February 17th, 2006 03:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
Whack the camera on a gimball, tell a computer to do it for you. It was how it was taken (You just can't get that big an imager yet.)

I've seen one of these before, and I recall the discussion where people tried to find artifcats from the stiching (Like one person in it twice, and things like that)
karohemd From: karohemd Date: February 17th, 2006 03:17 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, the next commercial step is this.
22 megapixel medium format, baby.
the site doesn't like Firefox much but you should be able to see the page)
davefish From: davefish Date: February 17th, 2006 03:26 pm (UTC) (Link)
You should look up a company called Phase One, they do digital backs for MF, and have made the unusual step of publicising their anticipated product line over the next year or so, which leads up to a 37Mp product.

I think the cutting edge for military reconiassance is more like 80 -100 Mpixels (Strictly priced just like the Hotel de Paris, if you had to ask, you can't afford it.)
karohemd From: karohemd Date: February 17th, 2006 03:39 pm (UTC) (Link)

I like the idea of digital backs. When you have a really nice analog camera you'd like to keep and continue to use for film, you can just swap out the back for a quick trip. Leica do it as well, IIRC.

Oh, I'm sure the military will have some nicer kit.
From: mooism Date: February 17th, 2006 03:44 pm (UTC) (Link)
They weren’t taken simultaneously: In one place you can see the join between half a moving bus and half a moving car.
wimble From: wimble Date: February 17th, 2006 07:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
Similarly, if you zoom in on the road, you can see the edges of the shots: the light levels change perceptibly between one image and the next.

In fact, if you look, there's an access gap along the grass verge of the road (toward the bottom of the picture). There's a red car parked just beyond that (by the second tree), and the road quite distinctly changes colour next to it, with straight edge joins. This gives the size of an individual image: about 30 feet square. You need only need to move the zoom control far enough to be above the "+" symbol of the control panel to see it.

So I'd estimate that the entire image has been stitched together from approximately 50 horizontal images, and 30 vertical.
15 comments or Leave a comment