When we first spotted this new cam from Seitz, our jaws hit the floor and rebounded a few times. No, it's not the
highest megapixel count we've seen, but this megalith of a camera shoots at 160 megapixels to create a native 6 x 17-cm image, is packed with an ISO range from 500 to 10,000, a read-out speed of 300MB per second, and a shutter speed of 1/20,000th second. So the next question is, how are you going to store such huge image files (nearly 1 GB per uncompressed full panorama), certainly not on your off-the-shelf
16GB SDHC card, nor the
upcoming 64GB CompactFlash cards -- but rather via gigabit Ethernet to Seitz's "state-of-the-art computer system", which translates to a decked out
Mac mini. So what will this much imaging power cost you? 45,500 Swiss francs ($36,266) for the "mobile version" and 42,300 Swiss francs ($33,715) for the "studio version", and we're assuming that the Mac mini is included for that price. However, given that this camera isn't quite what you'd front for a down payment on a
Swiss châlet, the 6x17 Digital surely must be affordable to average working-class Zürich banker set, no? You can catch a glimpse of this bad boy at the upcoming
Photokina expo in Germany, or can throw down some serious Swiss coinage now to pre-order this gargantuan cam, which won't become available until early 2007. Also, be sure to click through for two more glamour shots.
[Thanks, Amanda H.]
Read
posted September 20th 2006 6:03PM
ehh i have a few of those lying around the house
isnt it too small?????!!!!!!!!!?????
i wonder .....it might be lost from my pockets!!!!!as its too small.......
what would u carry for the camera cover a suitcase??????
hahaha
Well ........ we all would need Drill instructor at Marine Corps boot camp very soon .... :))))))
I'm dribbling!!!! I would SLEEP with it!
come on dudes, this huge camera will be at the dimension of a normal 3.2 mp after 5-6 years. Scientists have made an mp3 player with 500 terrabytes memory (yes, five hundred terrabytes of memory) and this mp3 player has the size of an ipod.
I dont think there is a screen sharp or big enough to actually display how great a picture might be if one was taken. I figured out if you really wanted to see if this camera is really a 160mp camera. (Because for all you know there could be a small camera in that big case LOL) but If you wanted to try and really test this sucker out, get a 300mm or 600mm lens or whatever the most MM lens you can find for this and shoot as far away as you can and when you go to look at the picture, see how sharp it is because if it is 160mp, then the picture should still be sharp. What do you guys think?
How long of an index finger do you need to press the shutter button while holding that bad boy?
that blokes tiny!!
Pretty small screen >_>
The screen apears to be normal size like on most digital SLRs
Holy (*@&# that's big...
WOW thats hot, too bad in the world of evolution, people look something as silly as the screen size. This has to be the ultimate landscape digital camera.
M
Damn, I keep forgetting the password!
how would a 160mp image look like!?
Take any Hasselblad 6x6 and then scan the positives at 4000dpi = 9000x9000 dpi - just shoot 3 or 4 snaps at 15 degree increments and digitally combine usinga pano software = 1/10th the cost. final image = 9000x36000 pixels.
in my solution, the only drawback is the motion between snaps - sounds like this cam needs a full second to write the entire image - so it's not perfect either.
I'll keep my hasselblad for now.
thats like a HD still picture camera
160 is nothing when next to this beast http://www.gigapxl.org/.
But still, we're going to look back on this in 10 years and laugh at how huge it is. We'll probably have this shit in our cell phones by then. lol
I need a towel.
The screen ain't small, the camera is just huge.
Something like this will probably be used a lot in the studio, not just for landscapes. Pano software just won't cut it. It's great for making pretty good landscapes, but to fool yourself into thinking it's a solution for professional studio shots ignores basic things such as lens distortion, highlights, and reflections.
Not to mention that comparing it to a scanned film image is just wrong, because as proven by a couple of experts, digital pixels capture more image info compared to film granuals. Film granuals are actually more like binary; they're either developed or undeveloped, and a small patch of them is needed to create a shade.
But thanks for playing!
bloody hell, I would sell my granny for one of those!
Daddy needs a new cam. :D That bad boy is crazy....I'm well and truly amazed.
I can't imagine why it's so ginormous. I rented a 6x17 film camera once to do a photo for a 60 ft. billboard, it was much smaller than that.
it's a scanner! boo.
Wrong. That screen is not small at all. in fact is a Plasma Screen, but comparing to the size of the whole camera it looks that small. :D
Gee... it doesn't come with the lenses... I'll keep using my Cybershot
Are you sure it's not 6x17in? 6x17 cm ain't so big...
"Mobile version" Haha... For some reason I can't picture a "mobile version" of that thing.
Omg can this shoot video ? HDV reinvented
crap that is HUGE
http://www.roundshot.ch/pictures/Seitz-6x17-handheld.jpg
highest-def porn...EVAH!!
If I could afford it, I would buy it.
"pha' you call that a camera, this, is a camera."
Show all those compact camera users who's boss.
Wow, maybe this will make me a good photographer!
Thats huge!
They should stick one of those on Atlantis
Wait, it's not even an SLR? thats kinda pathetic considering the price.
All digital cameras are HD. This goes way beyond that. There was something like this in PopScie a while back, but it was custom built. This would be great to put on a satellite to get super hi res images of the Earth. Just think how far you could zoom in!
Can I get one as a camera phone? Or maybe it'd be a phone camera.
talk about huge...
Wow. And I thought the gigapixel project was insane... :)
Say Cheese!
ho-hum. Let me know when the 1 gigapixel one comes out.
Are we supposed to picture with it or just stare at it?
For the previous comment, that is neither cm or inches that is feet.
But speaking of crazy resolutions here is an interesting article for HD evolution... well for the theatre anyways from last year.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/features/1719/beyond-hdtv.html?print_page=y
Highlignts include 22.2 surround sound - and I thought my 7.1 was nice ;)
7,680x4320 native resolution urg!
"NHK is demo'ing Ultra HD on 440-inch (36.7-foot) screens which makes sense, because watching it on a regular-size set would have about as much impact as viewing an HDTV program on a cellphone." lol
"and 18 minutes of video requires 3.5 terabytes of space."
Wow... That is the only way to accurately describe the sheer size of this thing.
I saw the picture in the origenal post, then scrolled down to the second one, and thought the screen looked small, then I get to the picture with a person in it, and DAMN. That is one BIG camera. The screen is actually probably around 4x6 inches, a pretty damn big screen it is just dwarfed by the camera.
They forgot to crop out around his neck. tools.
I'll take two of them.
No mention of the weight?
hah, try to get that through airport security...
"hah, try to get that through airport security..."
Seitz 6x17 Digital owner: "I swear, it's just a camera."
dude , is this some kind of joke?!