7d used to break panorama record

So, props to the 7D!

http://www.canonrumors​.com …reak-a-record/#more-12942

or if you want to skip over that, just go straight to the source:

http://btlondon2012.co​.uk/

looks like the manufacturer of the panorama automated head has a picture of the setup here:

http://www.dr-clauss.de …/news/item/242-london-320

In so many threads here where it is discussed the advantages of using a crop camera, inevitably someone always states something along the lines that a crop does not have more "reach" or "zoom" ability, ending with some argument over the semantic use of these words. But I would imagine that is probably the main reason the 7D was chosen here, for that arguably-imaginary "reach." And I assume they thought the 7D IQ's plenty good enough for such a project whose whole goal was to maximize picture quality.

(Not sure, but sorry if this was previously posted.)

Anyway, choice of camera aside, still a really cool project. 256gb of ram on the workstation! That's like the amount of memory I've seen on $$$ high-end blades used at work!

I'm amazed the whole thing looks so continuous and integrated. It had to have taken quite some time to take all those exposures and things inevitably had to have changed between the first shots and the last right?

I spent an hour yesterday zooming around that pic. Last September we stayed in a hotel right near that tower. I zoomed in to many of the places we visited. I found the US Embassy and Lord Nelson's statue at Trafalgar Square. I also found a couple spots where things changed between shots or the shots didn't quite line up right, but over all the quality is amazing. The other odd thing is how zooming in very far causes the image to suddenly look like it has a film over it.

Here are a couple of images where things look a bit odd.

This woman is missing part of her foot.

I saw this on the digital picture the other day too. Thousands and thousands of pics stitched together to make the final image!

I saw that too. That is pretty sweet. I wonder how big the original file is. 48K files times roughly 20mb/file is 960k MB almost 1TB. That is my guess.

I bet that one lady will never sunbathe nude again over there on Hanson St, you can never be too careful these days.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15645119
I bet that one lady will never sunbathe nude again over there on Hanson St, you can never be too careful these days.

no way.
Thats funny, you have to be kidding.

That's not a car, it's a transformer that lost his front bit! Nice PC hardware though, and Autopano Giga really is probably the only stitching software that would piece something like this together automatically.

Edit: I did some calculations...
They say a theoretical print at normal print res would be 98x24 meters in size, assuming a 300dpi, that works out to:
1,157,481 x 283,464 pixels - or 328,104,194,184 pixels total - either their metric is very approximate or they rounded down some 8 gigapixels...

A theoretical 10,000 x 10,000 pixel uncompressed 8-bit Tiff works out to about 300.1mb at 100 million pixels, dividing up the GP count we get:
328 billion pixels / 100k = 3281 x 300.1mb = 984,641MB

So yes RHChan, your guess was off only by 24.6GB of data, but this is assuming 8-bit uncompressed Tiff (which I think it is). Unfortunately, a formatted 1TB hardrive only has 931GB of space, so it's a wee bit too big to fit on one such drive.