http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/ Engadget Comments for Seitz 6x17 Digital shoots at 160 megapixels http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Feb 29th 2008 4:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/
i wonder .....it might be lost from my pockets!!!!!as its too small.......

what would u carry for the camera cover a suitcase??????
hahaha]]>May 17th 2008 8:02AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Aug 25th 2008 5:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 9th 2008 7:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 11th 2008 8:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Nov 28th 2008 5:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Apr 9th 2009 4:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Aug 21st 2009 4:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/_>]]>Sep 20th 2006 6:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Oct 17th 2007 2:16AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/M]]>Sep 20th 2006 6:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/
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.]]>Sep 20th 2006 6:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/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]]>Jan 12th 2009 8:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/
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!]]>Sep 21st 2006 4:43AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:30PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/]]>Sep 20th 2006 6:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 6:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 7:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 7:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 7:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.roundshot.ch/pictures/Seitz-6x17-handheld.jpg]]>Sep 20th 2006 8:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 7:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/
"pha' you call that a camera, this, is a camera."
Show all those compact camera users who's boss.]]>Sep 20th 2006 7:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 7:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/
They should stick one of those on Atlantis]]>Sep 20th 2006 8:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 8:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 8:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 8:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 8:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 8:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 8:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 9:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 10:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/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."
]]>Sep 20th 2006 11:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/
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.]]>Sep 20th 2006 11:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 11:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 11:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 20th 2006 11:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 21st 2006 12:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Seitz 6x17 Digital owner: "I swear, it's just a camera."]]>Sep 21st 2006 1:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/Sep 21st 2006 2:06AM