Join 3,442 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


An 8.6 gigapixel stitched image of an Italian fresco
October 23, 2006 2:05 AM   Subscribe

This [very slow loading, but persevere, it's worth it] website "probably" contains the biggest digital image in the world. Some details are here.
posted by tellurian (56 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Holy crap, that's cool!
posted by nadawi at 2:12 AM on October 23, 2006


Slow loading? No fucking way, man, I'm not going there. Fugghiddaboutit.

No time for that.

Awww... ok, I'm going there now.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:12 AM on October 23, 2006


Actually, that is surprisingly cool.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:18 AM on October 23, 2006


Hey! Ho! Fresco!
posted by Flashman at 2:23 AM on October 23, 2006


what's the image size? I only have a (very flaky) 128k connection, how long will I have to wait?
posted by davehat at 2:23 AM on October 23, 2006


Very cool tellurian, but that audio track is friggin' annoying.

8,6 gigapixels IS very huge indeed.
posted by three blind mice at 2:24 AM on October 23, 2006


how long will I have to wait?

Well, you'll have time to read some Bible chapters, which will come in handy for interpreting the image once it finally appears on your screen.

And that is pretty impressive. Nice interface for moving around and zooming in, too. But yeah, that music... mute is highly recommended.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:27 AM on October 23, 2006


Interesting thing to note: if you zoom without moving anything you go straight to Jesus' bits.
posted by lorbus at 2:31 AM on October 23, 2006


This is great. Thanks
posted by bunglin jones at 2:34 AM on October 23, 2006


Well, you'll have time to read some Bible chapters

Its a good thing I live in a house with 100+ bibbles in it then...

I guess I'll have to skip this for now. Which fresco is it?

about those bibbles... I rent a house from a missionary, she never cleared her stuff out
posted by davehat at 2:53 AM on October 23, 2006


nice
posted by sophist at 2:59 AM on October 23, 2006


OK, someone calculate the file size and then multiply that by the little hit counter at the bottom, 11k or so far. i am curious what kind of bandwidth they are pushing for this thing.
posted by nearo at 3:03 AM on October 23, 2006


It's not that slow loading...
posted by rom1 at 3:07 AM on October 23, 2006


You can even buy (reserve only for the moment actually) a high-res 125x80cm print of this masterpiece on the website for EUR40.
posted by rom1 at 3:12 AM on October 23, 2006


They're serving up the image segments on demand, so unless you're looking at each segment of the image at full zoom you're not downloading the entire image.

Great user interface though, simple and effective. So rare to find flash interfaces like that.
posted by fvw at 3:26 AM on October 23, 2006


Very nice.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 3:27 AM on October 23, 2006


nearo, since they aren't pushing out the 8.6 GP tu every visitor, I'd suppose bandwith isn't that costly, especially since we're dealing with a static image (rather than a video).

There is probably a heavy load on the web server's CPU though, since the server seems to receive requests from the client for specific areas of the pictures which it probably has to extract from the actual 8.6 GP image at runtime (well, there is quite likely some caching going on).
posted by Herr Fahrstuhl at 3:32 AM on October 23, 2006


Hi,

I am a commited Christian and find all this quite blasphemous. I thought you could be thrown off this site for this sort of talk. It really offends me.
posted by Mumbly at 3:49 AM on October 23, 2006


you signed up for that comment? havin a laugh?
posted by twistedonion at 3:52 AM on October 23, 2006


What is blasphemous - looking at a fresco?

*confused*
posted by uncle harold at 3:57 AM on October 23, 2006


I thought I was focussing on the comments. No names were mentioned. I have only just joined, and was looking forward to some clean, interesting dialogue.
posted by Mumbly at 4:02 AM on October 23, 2006


Mumbly, I haven't the slightest clue what you're offended about, but we have a saying around here: "Flag it and move on".

That means if something bothers you, then click on the exclamation point to the left of the offending comment. If the comment is truly offensive, then others will flag it as well. Once a certain number of people have flagged a comment, the admins are notified and they can take appropriate action
posted by Optamystic at 4:04 AM on October 23, 2006


er...exclamation point to the right, that is.
posted by Optamystic at 4:06 AM on October 23, 2006


was looking forward to some clean, interesting dialogue.

Are you pulling MeFi's collective leg? There's plenty of interesting dialogue (well, some anyway), but... clean? Huh?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:06 AM on October 23, 2006



It's using Zoomify, which means it's only loading pieces of it at a time. It's a nifty product and allows exactly this type of display with large images. The bottom line is not that much is being pushed at any given time.
posted by fluffycreature at 4:07 AM on October 23, 2006


awwww, c'mon... if stitched images count then things like Google Maps' satellite images win as the biggest, it'll display at however big you can set your browser window.
posted by XMLicious at 4:09 AM on October 23, 2006


Seems as if I got the wrong end of the stick. My apologies.

I have just re read it all, sorry about that. I am new to this site.
posted by Mumbly at 4:17 AM on October 23, 2006


Hi,

I am a commited Christian and find all this quite blasphemous. I thought you could be thrown off this site for this sort of talk. It really offends me.

I thought I was focussing on the comments. No names were mentioned. I have only just joined, and was looking forward to some clean, interesting dialogue.


Boy are you ever new around here. Wait until you see your first "Christianity is stupid! Give up! Give up!" thread.
posted by loquacious at 4:20 AM on October 23, 2006


Wow you can zoom right in and look at Jesus's enormous cock!
posted by Flashman at 4:23 AM on October 23, 2006


Well, that didn't take long.
posted by loquacious at 4:27 AM on October 23, 2006


My god, you can totally zoom in and see that the painter thought it was all made-up nonsense about carpenters being God and so forth. Talking snakes! Talking snakes!
posted by bonaldi at 4:38 AM on October 23, 2006


I'm on a big screen. The Flash interface is nice, but it's serving up 8.6 gigapixels onto about 1/6 of the total pixels I have to display them.

As Flash interfaces go, that's an excellent one, but it's like peering through a porthole at the Titanic. :)
posted by Malor at 4:47 AM on October 23, 2006


Talking snakes!

Uh, planes weren't invented yet at the time this was painted.
posted by uncle harold at 4:50 AM on October 23, 2006


Wow, that's fantastic thanks tellurian.

it's like peering through a porthole at the Titanic

Exactly. Lots of galleries and libraries use zoomify (more each day) and I both love and loathe it. It's great of course to get better closeups than just a 1Mb image might show but it's equally frustrating when I want to take away a decent sized version. Screencaps and splicing drive me a bit insane (yeah, I do it a lot). I suspect that's a big part of the reason repositories like that style of architecture so much. I'll have to give Autostitch a go.
posted by peacay at 5:22 AM on October 23, 2006


if you zoom straight in, you go right into jesus' crotch.
posted by milarepa at 5:49 AM on October 23, 2006


Wait? What wait? Thank you 100mbit connection.
posted by pmbuko at 5:56 AM on October 23, 2006


Tis' pixelrific! Why do I keep waiting for a Terry Gilliam animation to spring out?
posted by hal9k at 6:41 AM on October 23, 2006


but we have a saying around here: "Flag it and move on".

Some Mefites have that saying. Some of us believe in freedom of stupid, offensive speech, ignore the shit we don't like, and move on.
posted by three blind mice at 6:59 AM on October 23, 2006


My [slow loading] warning was based on my experience. It seems a lot of you have a much faster connection than me. (Jealous, me? No way, not 'alf. Ask me how much disgust I have for the Australian Government's approach to broadband.).
peacay: zoomify… I both love and loathe it. I'm with you there.
posted by tellurian at 7:17 AM on October 23, 2006


The best part of this site is the bit during the load when it tells you that you have to wait, on account of the affluence.
posted by Mister_A at 7:46 AM on October 23, 2006


Wasn't there a post a few years back from a guy who had a 100 or 200 megapixel camera he made? He took a picture of some palace from afar (it may have been the Taj Mahal) and you could read the watch of some tourist a half-mile away.
posted by whoshotwho at 7:48 AM on October 23, 2006


Don't recall the post, whoshotwho, but this PopSci article from a while back details a guy taking 4 gigapixel landscape shots with a reconstituted spy satellite camera. It doesn't include any of the photos, unfortunately, that appeared in the print mag. Very cool, though.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 8:09 AM on October 23, 2006


I think Mumbly was offended by the term Jesus's bits.

I shudder to think how Mumbly will react to the political posts...or the gay ones!

Consider this a warning post, Mumbly. If you cannot handle this you probably will be offended by the front page posts (FPP), nevermind the comments! Your participation is more than welcome, but a thick skin and a slowness to react negatively is definitely needed.
posted by Deathalicious at 8:19 AM on October 23, 2006


Oh, and HEY. Did anyone notice the previous post?
posted by Deathalicious at 8:21 AM on October 23, 2006


Oh, I see. It's always all about the tech and the Jesus, huh. What about the art, man, the *art*?? ;)

Seriously, it's by Gaudenzio Ferrari and can be viewed in a resolution limited only by the constraints of paint and the human eye at the Santa Maria della Grazie church in Varallo, Italy. Nice post.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:38 AM on October 23, 2006


I think Mumbly was offended by the term Jesus's bits.

It's all clear now, and it is blasphemous - how dare anyone suggest that the good Lord would have bits!!! He may have been human but damn it, he was never rude!!!! Have a bit of decency man, I'm outraged now.

Mumbly, want to start a holy war against Mefi? I'll join you.
posted by twistedonion at 8:39 AM on October 23, 2006


Anybody familiar with this work? Gaudenzio Ferrari is the red headed bearded straight edge at the bottom of the crucifixion panel. But who is the Knight on the white horse, in the same panel, staring directly at the viewer?
posted by SonicBoom at 8:40 AM on October 23, 2006


Also: Delft, Netherlands as a gigapixel image by TNO (2004), also using Zoomify. (BBC)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:42 AM on October 23, 2006


I liked this.

Is there a modern equivalent to these?

Do people paint such huge, intricate works anymore?
posted by Merlyn at 9:40 AM on October 23, 2006


Mumbly: I'm of the opinion that more Christians should be committed.
posted by found missing at 9:57 AM on October 23, 2006


I'm curious: is anybody here aware of sites with large images of artwork that don't do the zoomify dealy?
posted by moira at 11:12 AM on October 23, 2006


lorbus : Interesting thing to note: if you zoom without moving anything you go straight to Jesus' bits.

Because the designers of the site know that everyone wants to see the brushstrokes on Jesus' junk at 8.6gp.

That said, I think this is a wonderful idea. I would love to see ultra high resolution photo work of all the old masters. It would allow us to get closer to them then we ever could in a museum.
posted by quin at 11:16 AM on October 23, 2006


Hey, why bash the music, it's some Jazzanova/Tosca/Dzihan&Kamien clip, that cannot be bad.

(on preview 5 minutes later)

Ok, now I see what you mean.
posted by Laotic at 12:15 PM on October 23, 2006


I did some pretty extensive search on the internet and I have discovered that this is, in fact, not the largest continuous zoomable graphical image.

There is this great site called maps.google.com. It contains the picture of the whole earth, so I hear. I have not finished downloading it yet. It has a pretty slow connection.

(No personal snarks, just joking : )
posted by Laotic at 12:32 PM on October 23, 2006


where's waldo?
posted by shoesandships at 5:47 PM on October 23, 2006


Wasn't there a post a few years back from a guy who had a 100 or 200 megapixel camera he made?

You may be thinking of gigapxl, the people who built a 1000-megapixel camera. It's a film camera, but with equivalent resolution. Stunning images, no stitching. Worth a look. These images of the Golden Gate bridge show off the camera's capabilities.
posted by Joe Invisible at 7:37 PM on October 24, 2006


« Older Printed Matter...  |  TSA Alert: US Bans Vegemite.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments