http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz...
What do you think about that? That's unbelievable, I can't believe people actually need that, a computer can't even show that many pixels so there is nowhere where you can actually see the whole image with the same quality it is stored in the memory.
"and 18 minutes of video requires 3.5 terabytes of space." LOL It sounds crazy but remember Moore's law. When the IBM PC came out it had a maximum memory of 640 kb. Not megabytes, kilobytes! Bill Gates himself thought nobody would ever be able to use more than that. My first digital camera was 1 megapixel, and that was considered 'professional' in those days.
160 megapixels sounds outrageous, but if it was possible, and cheap enough, I'd want it! All things being equal, more megabytes is better. It means not just more resolution but more color saturation, better 'tones', etc. Digital cameras still can't match 35mm cameras for resolution, but even 35mm cameras are not all that great as film cameras go. Imagine a digital camera with the resolution and sharpness of a 4x5 view camera! It will come in time. coo, i like dirty videos i do wit my camra Report It
Wow! I wonder what that thing weighs! it cant be 160 mega pixels it must be a mistake it has to be 160 pixels as in 1.6 mega pixels. It could be a 16.0 megapixel camera. And even a 16 MP camera is questionable as far as picture quality due to the possibility of noise in the image. theres plenty of 16 and 32 mp cams out there, thats a new one at 160 - could be for real heard of funnier!
when would you need that much resolution if your doing fine art like recording the Mona Lisa or something, looks fairly impracticle for snap shots i would think. far better off shoting 8*10 transparency and getting a 100mp scan
a OMG! thats a massive camera I wonder how much will it cost. wow!
this being said, remember that each one of our eyes has no less than 125 million pixels (and an estimated 500 million pixels once adjusted for the auto-follow / auto-complete of scenes), on an area about half the size of a postage stamp (way, way smaller than that gadget you mention), and the whole eye weighs a couple thousand times less than that camera. And each eye is stabilised, has near-instant focus, min focusing distance 1.5in, full auto aperture/shutter mode, very high dynamic range from near full darkness to bright sunlight on the snow, etc.
So maybe that huge and expensive camera is good - but you and I and most of us have got two cameras w comparable/better specs, and we got them for free, too!
take care | 