http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/20/seitz-6x17-digital-shoots-at-160-megapixels/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 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/_>]]>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/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 6:34PMhttp://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 6:37PMhttp://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 6:45PMhttp://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/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/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/
"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/
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/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 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/
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/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/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 2:06AMhttp://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 3:54AMhttp://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/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f933.cfm]]>Sep 21st 2006 7:05AMhttp://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 2:25PMhttp://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 21st 2006 6:50PMhttp://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 22nd 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 22nd 2006 9:34PMhttp://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/
I'd rather buy the film version of the camera at a fraction of the price and get the most expensive film scanner I can find, it still won't cost as much as this....]]>Sep 23rd 2006 4:31AMhttp://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/And how much to modify it for Astrophotography? Help Mr. Huetech!!! ]]>Sep 25th 2006 1:10AMhttp://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 26th 2006 4:52PM