Live data from Hacker News

What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like

oddly-even.com

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like

#51

quite a few windows have a red triangle in them, f.e. http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/?v=-154.... what do they mean?

Emergency entrances for fire / rescue. You are not allowed to put anything in front of those windows, so that firefighers know they can break those windows to easily gain access to a building. They can then be used to help people escape, or get more firefighers into the building.

i see, makes sense. thanks!

Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oth…

I'm really interested as to why you two consider a fictional space ship a good "underbelly feeling" measure of size. I like Star Trek, but I have absolutely no feeling for the size of the Enterprise. I'd believe it if you said it was 3km long, but also if you said that it was 400m long. Not meant as a harsh criticism though, I like the math and the geekiness :)

if it helps, the largest cruise ships are around 300m long.

Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oth…

I'm really interested as to why you two consider a fictional space ship a good "underbelly feeling" measure of size. I like Star Trek, but I have absolutely no feeling for the size of the Enterprise. I'd believe it if you said it was 3km long, but also if you said that it was 400m long. Not meant as a harsh criticism though, I like the math and the geekiness :)

I remembered it has around 700m, but didn't remember the exact figure. You could probably also ask either of us about the inner workings of transporter or the warp field dynamics ;). It's a geek thing.

You spend too much time with something, it feels natural to you ;).

Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like

#57
Sometimes in art galleries you see these very large photographs. I'm always annoyed that these don't have all the details. If you look from far enough they look nice, but once you go closer you see just the rasterization pattern.

I would like to see posters made out of these gigapixel images and printed with such high quality that you could actually take a closer look and it would reveal something new.

Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like

#58

Sometimes in art galleries you see these very large photographs. I'm always annoyed that these don't have all the details. If you look from far enough they look nice, but once you go closer you see just the rasterization pattern. I would like to see posters made out of these gigapixel images and printed with such high quality that you could actually take a closer look and it would reveal something new.

> ... printed with such high quality that you could actually take a closer look and it would reveal something new.

Last time I was at the NC Museum of Art, they had on display a wall-sized aerial composite photo of the grounds. Next to it was a box full of magnifying glasses and a plaque inviting you to do exactly that.

Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oth…

I'm really interested as to why you two consider a fictional space ship a good "underbelly feeling" measure of size. I like Star Trek, but I have absolutely no feeling for the size of the Enterprise. I'd believe it if you said it was 3km long, but also if you said that it was 400m long. Not meant as a harsh criticism though, I like the math and the geekiness :)

This might help: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpgyrIlhoyw

It's missing the rear end, but it's about half of the ship's total length.

Re: What a 600,000-megapixel-wide picture looks like

#60
post #29

I 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.

On that particular link, a vague shirtless dude dressed in a towel at the kitchen sink.
Post reply on HN