Is this a mini cemetery? Squished between tall buildings? http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/?v=-296....
yes it is
What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
21–30 of 93 posts
Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
#22These controls are obnoxious.
It's the exact opposite on a touch device.
Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
#23I know this is evil and you should not do it, but just for the doability, here's a JavaScript that removes the censorings (like http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/?v=-154....):
javascript:$("*").filter(function(){if(this.currentStyle)return this.currentStyle["backgroundImage"]==="url(http://360gigapixels.com/black.png)";else if(window.getComputedStyle)return document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(this,null).getPropertyValue("background-image")==="url(http://360gigapixels.com/black.png)"}).remove()
){kind=link}
Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
#24Honestly I thought I was going to see some visualisation of a 1px high image vs. various other long things. E.g. " At a pixel density of 330ppi this image would be longer than 1000 Starship Enterprises* ". Alas, no. > What a 600,000 megapixels wide picture looks like (oddly-even.com) 23 points by lukedeering 1 hour ago | flag | 12 comments Megapixel: I do not think it means what you think it means. > A megapixel (MP…
At, 330 ppi you talking 28,000 miles but I don't think all the enterprises where the same length. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Enterprise
Edit: The next gen enterprise was 642.5 Meters so a little over 70,000 of them.
PS: The NASA enterprise was a test platform and not space worthy.
Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
#25Honestly I thought I was going to see some visualisation of a 1px high image vs. various other long things. E.g. " At a pixel density of 330ppi this image would be longer than 1000 Starship Enterprises* ". Alas, no. > What a 600,000 megapixels wide picture looks like (oddly-even.com) 23 points by lukedeering 1 hour ago | flag | 12 comments Megapixel: I do not think it means what you think it means. > A megapixel (MP…
We have 600 * 10^9 pixels, at 330ppi resolution this would correspond to 1.828 * 10^9 inches, or 4.618 * 10^7m, i.e., about 46200km.
Now, there are different Starship Enterprises of somewhat varying lengths, but let's take NCC 1701-D, because that's the first one I found data on. Wikipedia puts its length at 642.5m [1]. Thus, it ould be about 71880 Starship enterprises for the given length (not accounting for any other dimensions of course).
More interesting, it's a bit more than the circumference of Earth (~40000km).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701-D%2...
Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
#26A similar thing done with London. http://btlondon2012.co.uk/pano.html Also funny: http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/?v=60.1,... Playing a table-top game: http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/?v=66.3,... Baseball: http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/?v=89.1,...
The table-top game they are playing is Shogi.
Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
#27I love the fact that he has taken the photos with the 400mm/5.6, which is a very affordable, lightweight, quite old lens that is supersharp.
Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
#28Looks like a photosphere.
Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
#29I know this is evil and you should not do it, but just for the doability, here's a JavaScript that removes the censorings (like http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/?v=-154.... ): javascript:$("*").filter(function(){if(this.currentStyle)return this.currentStyle["backgroundImage"]==="url( http://360gigapixels.com/black.png)";else if(window.getComputedStyle)return document.defaultView.getComputedStyle(th…
Maybe you should rather describe what it in the picture to satisfy reader curiosity.
Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like
#30I expected to see more people in the picture. I hardly can find one. Maybe they were edited out.