File :-(, x, )
SEITZ 6x17 BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
I'LL LAUGH AT YOU ALL WHEN I GET THIS HUGE BITCH!

(160 megapixel)

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
sage for old and reposted (sorry burt, haha)
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>234630

LOL bugger..

ARE there any reasonably priced panorama cameras? im all interested now!
>> Mr. Higgzbuffonton !!Xsltv1VWxZT
>an ISO range from 500 to 10,000
wow
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>234635

lurk more
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>234641
i was looking for that one
thanks anon
>> Anonymous
>>234645

CAN'T WAIT FOR BEETHY PANOS

SHOOOOOOOOPPPP DA WHOOP to the max
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
     File :-(, x)
>>234650
i actually tried one.. only once.
it kinda looked pretty shit

may as well post it
i even tried to closely follow vincent's advice, but it still ended up looking like poop
maybe i'll try again later

Abort trap (core dumped)
>> Anonymous
beethy doing lomo

oh lawd, divide by zero
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>234651

...whats wrong with that pano? is that the "shit" one?
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>234673
well, i'm not really pleased with the result i guess
>> Mr. Higgzbuffonton !!Xsltv1VWxZT
>>234651
/r/ vincent's advice,
in b4 another lurk moar lol...
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
     File :-(, x)
>>234692

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:26 09:10:45Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1150Image Height1708
>> Mr. Higgzbuffonton !!Xsltv1VWxZT
>>234720
thanks so much beethy!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>234651
i played with your picture, i tried to fix the sky but i dont really know if it worked because with things like that im never happy, but it looks better to me. it could stand some work on the right side. i also messed with the rocks in the foreground i think those look much better.
took out borders to make it more likable to 4chan

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:14 00:53:53Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height384
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>234784
yea, that actually looks better

thanks!
(nobody's ever done this for me, haha)
>> Anonymous
>>234790
its a pretty good picture, i just though the rocks sucked.
it would be nice to say any other /p/erson would do the same.
>> Anonymous
>>234796
+1 T
>> Mr. Higgzbuffonton !!Xsltv1VWxZT
>>234790
btw, how many pictures across is it, if you happen to remember?
>> Anonymous
>>234790
I'm not being all "haha, devianTARTfag GTFO," just saying why, it's because your pictures are usually already processed, and processed to the extent where any further editing someone could do from an Internet file would degrade the image quality like crazy.

It takes flat files to do that with. Your files aren't flat.
>> Anonymous
I would much rather deal with shooting with normal four or sixteen gigabyte cards and reloading every four or sixteen shots instead of schlepping a computer around. What the fuck are they thinking with that?

Oh, and now looking on the company's website I see the news article is talking about uncompressed TIFFs (950 mb), whereas unprocessed raw files are only 307. So that's a really strange design decision to make you carry a computer with you to shoot. Who would shoot anything but raw with something like this?

But yes I would love to have one, even with schlepping the computer. But no, I don't want to part with 42,300 Swiss Francs.

As far as cheaper pano cameras with higher quality than>>234641, there's plenty of film ones. They're not cheap, for the same reason Leica's aren't: limited market, great craftsmanship. But someone who wanted one instead of a semipro DSLR with good glass could do it. The cheapest one with a lens on B&H is a kit of a Horseman 6x12 body with a 90/6.8 lens, for $3,874.95, just about $500 ahead of a D300 with 24-70/2.8 VR, or $800 ahead of the 5D with 24-105/4 IS L, or $300 more than the D700 with the 24-120. Not cheap at all, but there's at least several people on here who have found setups like those affordable. I guess it depends whether you want panoramic or digital, or whether you're crazily loaded and can have both.
>> Anonymous
damn thats costly
>> Anonymous
>>234651
>>twelve_apostles_by_beethy.jpg
>> Anonymous
>>234843
Yeah, Beethy, where the fuck did you get that title from? There's not twelve of anything in it, or any Christian iconography. There's not even a fishing boat or something off-the-wall obtuse like that.
>> Anonymous
if this makes you horny, also see
Kodak's 50-megapixel medium-format sensor
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9985480-1.html
>> Anonymous
>>234851
It's the name of the place you retards. It's in Australia.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>234843
>>234851
like the other anon said...
i went for a less emo title and named it after the location of the shot!

i believe there used to be twelve little rock thingies sticking out of the ocean... now there's nine or something?
i don't really remember.. but that's what the place is still called anyways.
it was beautiful

if any of you ever go to australia, take a tour of the Great Ocean Road (near melbourne)
not to be missed.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>234800
i don't remember the exact number as i deleted the originals....
but i believe it's around eight or ten.
quite a few.
>> Anonymous
>>234651

good example of how to almost pull off a pano but end up fucking up in the end.
this thing is like 66% awesome on the left, and 33% fail on the right.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>234883
i agree
right failed
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>234629
goddamn, its perfect for travel photography!
>> Anonymous
howd u get your hands on this camera? 36k wtf
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
goatse camera is goatse.
>> Anonymous
>>234944
Cannot unsee.
>> p-_^t !GZis3Q2bgo
>>234629

ive held one of these bad boys while i was on a trip in switzerland quite heavy amazing pictures though
the downfalls of the camera is that you have to buy a tablet pc to view your pictures for a camera that already costs 25,000 euro's