# 4 Giga-Pixel Camera has been invented...



## SilentRaven (Feb 7, 2005)

...and it looks amazing. 

Check it out...
Article:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66498,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

Image Gallery:
http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm

oh and i also have to mention...it was all made from hardware used in the Cold War...


----------



## Corry (Feb 8, 2005)

This should probably be moved to general Q&A...this forum is for discusing famous photographers and stuff like that...Maybe  nice mod will come along soon and move it!


----------



## Floyd (Feb 8, 2005)

How des this relate to historical photographers?  perhaps the "the doctor is in thread should also be in Q and A but stickied?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Feb 9, 2005)

Because that thread is for general Q&A.
This is for specific and technical - all the areas not covered by the above.
Has anyone asked a question about neo-post-modern deconstruction up there recently?
And I did it because nobody came here to talk about photographers.
I find it odd that so many people take up photography professing an interest but do not want to discuss the subject at any level other than 'what camera should I buy'.
There is an awful lot more to being a photographer than owning a camera.

This seems to have become a random thread...


----------



## photogoddess (Feb 9, 2005)

Hertz - Funny thing is... your thoughts are right along the lines of what Malachite and I were discussing earlier tonight. It would be wonderful for new photographers to actually study and learn the art or craft of photography instead of simply asking for the step by step instructions on how to get a specific shot. 
After attending a high end workshop this last weekend, with many professional photographers in attendance, I was amazed that there were a few of them that were getting good shots completely by accident. Normally, it would have been annoying that they were asking Photo 101 questions but I think that all of us realized that they were there trying to learn. 

Personally, I like the "Dr. Is In" thread. There is a wealth of information rattling around in your head.   :mrgreen:


----------



## SilentRaven (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, if you went and checked out the gallery...the photos were taken by him...using a camera he invented...

if he's not famous now, he will be.
and plus, i never read anywhere that this was only for famous ones.

and the reason its not in the General Q&A thread is because that thread says, "Ask all of your general photography questsions here!"
well...i never had anything to ask, only something to say and to show...because, well, i thought someone would find it interesting and appreciate how crisp and clear those pictures really are.
I did not expect people to have the first reaction of "this is in the wrong place."
It just seems to me that you're more interested in the organization rather that the topic that is being discussed on these forums. Well best of luck with that.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Feb 11, 2005)

The reaction was prompted by the fact that this thread is for Discussion. It says it clearly in the title. Along with 'A place to discuss the work of other photographers, famous or otherwise.'
Your first post was to tell us that a camera had been invented. Forgive me if I seem dense but how is that a discussion?
If you had started a _discussion_ by asking a suitable question it would be a different matter but it was presented as a fait accompli.
Why we are so hot on organisation is that if we were not, then random posting would soon make this board unusable.
People generally come here to share ideas and ask questions, but for it to work there must be structure and order so that people know where to look. How easy would an encyclopaedia be to use if the subjects were just shoved in randomly?
You will also find that people tend to only look in on the sections that interest them so if people look in to find a post that doesn't fit in with the topic they can get a little nonplussed.
It will only work, too, if people are tolerant of each other and each other's reactions and opinions. And that works both ways. 
I am sorry that you have been upset by the reaction you got here - but then again it does say 'expect varied opinions'.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 11, 2005)

Post 'em all, and let mod sort 'em out! 

The gigapixel project is as much hype as photography.  He hasn't invented anything.  He has assembled a highly precise (in focusing and film plane concerns) large format camera.  While his photographs are competent, they aren't that exciting, although I'm sure that the prints are stunning.  There are lots of other folks doing large and ultra large format film photography, many quite creatively, and some would blow this guy out of the water with the amount of info they are getting in an exposure.


----------



## terri (Feb 11, 2005)

> Post 'em all, and let mod sort 'em out!



Hear, Hear!!     :thumbup: 

Sometimes something _can_ just be tossed out there to facilitate a discussion, with no direct question asked, but_ to invite comments that can lead to discussion_.  There are plenty of threads that start that way, with little more than the poster saying: "Discuss."     

So post away, people!     It's all good!


----------



## Alison (Feb 11, 2005)

Well, first I was going to move it, now people are "discussing" and it's Friday so what the heck, I'll let is stay :mrgreen:


----------



## Alison (Feb 11, 2005)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> other folks doing large and ultra large format film photography, many quite creatively, and some would blow this guy out of the water with the amount of info they are getting in an exposure.



Any good sites to visit to see some large format work, Matt? I'll fully admit that I am shamefully ignorant of other famous (or otherwise) photographers. We studied Ansel Adams in my photography class and that was about it. I would love to see some examples of large format work if you have some handy.


----------



## terri (Feb 11, 2005)

AlisonS said:
			
		

> Any good sites to visit to see some large format work, Matt? I'll fully admit that I am shamefully ignorant of other famous (or otherwise) photographers. We studied Ansel Adams in my photography class and that was about it. *I would love to see some examples of large format work if you have some handy.*




Does he have some handy...?   Careful Alison - have you seen this guy's LF cams???     

Those things are built so beautifully, I just love to look at them...I can't wait till I get the chance someday to use one out in the field.   They're like little works of art!


----------



## Alison (Feb 11, 2005)

:lmao: I have seen the collection and went :shock: I've always wanted to try a medium or large format.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 11, 2005)

AlisonS said:
			
		

> Any good sites to visit to see some large format work



It's very hard to get the quality of LF photography to come across in a low res web pic.  I suggest checking out an art museum or gallery where some LF work is being displayed.  The gigapixel guy is shooting 9" x 18" negs.  Large format typically covers everything from 4" x 5" to 20" x 24" film; bigger than 8" x 10" it is sometimes called ultra large format.

Here is *the* site on large format photography

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

Here is a list of web sites that have something to do with LF

http://www.greenspun.com/boohoo/related.tcl?page_id=TuanLF


----------



## photogoddess (Feb 11, 2005)

AlisonS said:
			
		

> :lmao: I have seen the collection and went :shock: I've always wanted to try a medium or large format.



You'll get to try some in JT. My gear isn't nearly as nice as Matt's but I'll be bringing some large and medium format stuff for anyone that wants to try it out.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 11, 2005)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> It's very hard to get the quality of LF photography to come across in a low res web pic.  I suggest checking out an art museum or gallery where some LF work is being displayed.



Check out this post for an example of what I mean.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=168907#post168907

At 3200 dpi, which is the best my scanner can do film, although not the best resolution film can be scanned at, my 4x5 negs are 204 mega pixels.  The file sizes are larger than 1 gigabyte, and crash my computer everytime.


----------



## aggiezach (Feb 11, 2005)

I'm always amazed at large format stuff, the negatives and the prints from those negatives! My ultimate photographic goal is to use large format equipment. Of course that requires time and money (both of which I am low on at the moment  ) PG, if you really don't mind, I would love to use some of your equipment at JT!  That would definitely make my weekend! 

While that digital camera is pretty cool, I still haven't seen a digital print that can rival the quality I've seen in traditional prints and negatives! Just my .02 cents. 

Zach


----------



## terri (Feb 11, 2005)

> While that digital camera is pretty cool, I still haven't seen a digital print that can rival the quality I've seen in traditional prints and negatives!



Film geek.   :twisted:


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Feb 12, 2005)

I think the relationship between film and digital is the same as the relationship between black & white/colour or film/video.
Why do people see b/w photos as Art and colour as not being quite so good? (although attitudes seem to be changing with the advent of digital).
How is it that you can tell the difference between film and video? Despite everything being done the same there is a qualitative difference.
Photography has always struggled to be more than a poor second cousing to High Art. It has been criticised for being 'immediate'. Perhaps digital is too 'immediate'.
A painter could toil for months or years whereas a photographer can do it in a day or two. Now with digital it can be achieved in minutes.
Perhaps digital is too accurate?


----------

