Billion-Pixel Pictures Allow Ultra-Zooming

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what's a thousand-megapixel picture worth?

Such "gigapixel" pictures allow viewers to zoom in from say, a panoramic view of President Obama's inauguration to the solemn expression on his face—as in one of the new technology's most famous applications.

For scientists—many of whom gathered in Pittsburgh last week for training in new gigapixel technology—these ultra-zoomable images are becoming tools to improve the study of archaeology, geology, biology, and more.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

I see this technology being extremely useful in the UFO field. Imagine if we could have such technology to be able to zoom right up to the UFO and see every detail.

Anyone on ATS have a big budget? Get one of these!

And here's the GigaPan website that National Geographic refers to:
gigapan.org...

For UFO's we could just put the focus on infinity and start shooting away.. anyone got a gigapixel camera ;D? (actually it works with stitching hundreds of photos together, it seems!)

[edit on 28-5-2009 by scraze]

UFO's sure...

what about pr0n?

reply to post by jjkenobi


pimples, warts, imperfections and all...


ewww

To bad most of the pictures of UFOs are taken with cell phone cameras that have had their lenses apparently wiped with a chicken wing.

Are UFOs drawn to Hooter's locations?

Originally posted by WickettheRabbit
To bad most of the pictures of UFOs are taken with cell phone cameras that have had their lenses apparently wiped with a chicken wing.

Are UFOs drawn to Hooter's locations?

Well hey hooter's does have some pretty amazing hot wings...

Hey I live in Pittsburgh!

Anyway, this really isn't that new of news. The government has been using 1GP cameras for a few years now, so has the military.

*And I don't mean to spy on you or anything conspiracy-related*

I'm just saying, the technology has been out for a few years now, and I guess now its being made semi-publicly.

These have been around for years. I remembered seeing one on Fazed.net a loooooong time ago so I checked there. The original pic they had linked was a 2.5 gigapixel from 2004 but it seems to not be working now.

The 13 gigapixel shot of Harlem from 2007 is amazing. These enormous photos are not without fault though.

Look at the most recent Yankees Stadium photo. If you look behind home plate all the way back to the wall, then look at the section to the right of the GE sign, then look 6 rows back and two seats in from the aisle you'll see a woman who seems to be missing half of her head. Link

Even these amazingly high definition photos would not be proof for skeptics if applied to UFO research. Like I've seen so many on here say, a lot won't believe until they experience it first hand.

reply to post by Magnivea


I agree, and i cant help but feel the same way. Regardless of what 'evidense' people are given there is always going to be plenty of room for disagreement.

Hell, even if i actually experienced a close encounter id doubt my senses.

Look at this woman from the Harlem-13 photo, she looks like a ghost
I don't see how the camera could capture the sidewalk lines behind her.

reply to post by bl4ke360


From what i know these pictures are created by joining together large numbers of smaller pictures. The effect was probably created by two images being merged over eachother. Thats my guess anyway.

There's a point I would like to make about photographing UFOs.

It sure is still part of speculation to a degree, but some analyses have detected energy fields around UFOs, and as a matter of fact, we never got so far a clear shot of a UFO that resisted debunking. All those that resisted are not totally clear. In fact, it seems that our process of imaging is somewhat blurred by the presence of that field. I refer in particular to the analysis of the triangle photographed over Petit Rechain in Belgium in 1989. I have published a translation of a news article as well as the extensive latest analysis of that picture in this thread and the results are quite stunning.

That would mean, if these analysis proof to be entirely correct, that we would never have a way to photograph a UFO clearly with our current methods of imaging/photographing/grabbing picture in general, as it is blurred.

To help stand my point, I'd like that everybody remembers how many of the conclusive cases include somewhat blurry pictures (to a degree) and how most if not all the clear shots (Adamski, Meier, just to name those 2) were more or less easily deemed fakes, including by the non skeptics analysts. If I remember well, the famous shot issued by Adamski was later proved to be a street lamp in LA (or San Francisco?), but I can't be bothered right now to research that (that guy is a waste of time, and an insult to serious ufology, imo).

Anyhow, the point is that even if we all could use billion pixel cameras to photograph UFOs, we would likely end up having a more detailed blur!

For the anecdote, another case where the presence of intense fields has been more or less proved is the famous "Amarante" case, described in detail in the GEPAN "Note technique n°17". I have not found so far a complete translation of that case in english, but a simple research will give you a few links mentioning it. One remarkable thing about this case is how the grass directly under the object observed has straighten up vertically during a second or two at the precise instant the object departed, in a perfectly vertical, very high speed, trajectory "as if sucked up by the air" according to the witness. Tests in laboratories have established that in order to produce an electrical field able to produce that effect on the grass, it would have to be of at least 30KV/m, which is enormous...

I don't think we'll ever be able to capture a clear shot of a UFO unless either it is totally stationary (less intense fields?) or landed on the ground, still (in which case it is reasonable to assume that the fields around the object can be reduced or zeroed).

[Edit to add:]
I have a complete version of that Note Technique n°17 in French for anyone interested. It is a 62 page Word document. I plan to translate those docs one day... but it is quite some work! Maybe some time in the future...

[edit on 31-5-2009 by SpookyVince]