Highest resolution picture in the world
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
70 comments displayed.
#19 to #7
-
anon (01/10/2016) [-]
You could calculate up something resembling the resolution of the eye by measuring the limits of resolving power and multiplying by FOV. Around 1 arcminute is a common resolution limit for most people and a 180 degree by 135 degree field of view is the norm. That gives around 87 megapixels. So, yes, this photo has much better resolution than your eyes.
That said, the brain's post-processing can actually boost effective resolution by watching how quickly adjacent 'pixels' change with small eye movements. This ability can apparently also be trained and improved. For instance, some people in a task to align two vertical lines can do so to within single-digit arcseconds accuracy, despite this degree of accuracy far surpassing calculated theoretical limits based on the size of our photoreceptive cells. For reference, my math puts the pixels of this image at just below an arcsecond across.
That said, the brain's post-processing can actually boost effective resolution by watching how quickly adjacent 'pixels' change with small eye movements. This ability can apparently also be trained and improved. For instance, some people in a task to align two vertical lines can do so to within single-digit arcseconds accuracy, despite this degree of accuracy far surpassing calculated theoretical limits based on the size of our photoreceptive cells. For reference, my math puts the pixels of this image at just below an arcsecond across.
#28 to #19
-
limberlarry (01/10/2016) [-]
Wouldnt the resolution of your eye be equal to the number of discrete nerves leading away from your rods and cones? Quick wiki check gives a total of about 95 million rods and cones which is fairly close to your number
#51 to #23
-
kinginthenorth (01/10/2016) [-] My eyes are like 480p.
Not completely ****** , but just enough to be annoying.
Not completely ****** , but just enough to be annoying.
#84 to #51
-
friedgreenpomatoes (01/10/2016) [-] Mine are 144p at best. I can see clearly less than a foot (30cm) in front of me without my glasses.
#4
-
GmCity ONLINE (01/09/2016) [-] How big was that one of London? You could see into peoples offices it was awesome.
#8 to #4
-
yujisakaii (01/10/2016) [-] 360gigapixels.com/london-320-gigapixel-panorama/
apparently 320 giga pixel
apparently 320 giga pixel
#73 to #59
-
themanwithavoice (01/10/2016) [-] Yes ******* department? I would like to file a claim.
#83 to #8
-
doctorpibber (01/10/2016) [-] Holy **** I found my workplace! My house is literally on the other side of the Wembley stadium.
#81 to #74
-
orangadink (01/10/2016) [-] When your bro skips leg day, so you have to do extra legs to make up for his sins
#64
-
rolaids (01/10/2016) [-] Camera Seller, I'm going to the mountains and I need your highest resolution camera
#72
-
usernameistaken (01/10/2016) [-] I still can't see why kids love the taste of cinnamon toast crunch...
2/10
2/10
#16
-
loganmadder (01/10/2016) [-] I see your ice and raise you the universe
www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/
can somebody explain why there are so many lights though, im sure those aren't all stars
www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/
can somebody explain why there are so many lights though, im sure those aren't all stars
#75 to #16
-
imthenewguy (01/10/2016) [-] Welcome to the wonderful world of image noise, my good man. It happens when the exposure times are way too ******* high for the camera's sensor to handle, or the exposure times are normal, but the sensor's light sensitivity was kicked into hyperdrive. Basically, what this does is: It creates a bunch of colored pixels that don't necessarily represent anything. It's kind of annoying when you try to take deep space pictures. If your camera settings are off, you'll get a bunch of noise.
For more info, refer to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise
For more info, refer to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise
#17 to #16
-
loganmadder (01/10/2016) [-] Didn't open it before I posted, legitimately just got shivers looking at the image with full zoom thinking about how many organisms or populated planets must be there right now
#20 to #16
-
uninstall (01/10/2016) [-] yeah no homie, those are all stars/ other cosmic light-producing entities, which are in most ways very closely related to the formation and existence of stars. Also, judging by just the broad image alone, I'm going to let you in on another secret
this image is just of our galaxy alone. and not even a full image of it. There are about as many galaxies in existence as there are stars in this picture
this image is just of our galaxy alone. and not even a full image of it. There are about as many galaxies in existence as there are stars in this picture
#18
-
ldnelson (01/10/2016) [-] >can't read license plate off the cars at that distance
Are they even trying?
Are they even trying?
#70
-
theoldfritz (01/10/2016) [-] you just uploaded a 365.9-gigapixel gif
And people ask why admin wants to limit the image size to 4mb
And people ask why admin wants to limit the image size to 4mb
#65 to #41
-
Gandalfthewhite (01/10/2016) [-] i remember this pic being so high res i could see a hair somewhere on the bun
#57
-
thunderchild (01/10/2016) [-] Come back with a terapixel image thay lets me see people having sex in their 15th floor apartment from a mile away
#42
-
steswethesecond (01/10/2016) [-] only 16 gigapixels of Machu Picchu but still pretty cool
www.gigapixelperu.com/Welcome.html
www.gigapixelperu.com/Welcome.html
#35
-
newmapsofhell (01/10/2016) [-] Somewhere in there is at least two animals visibly having intercourse.
#30
-
heartbleed ONLINE (01/10/2016) [-] It''s not a single picture tho, It's a ******* of small pictures stitched together.
