- --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
>

If you're not concerend with DOF, then the only parameter determining resolution is the physical aperture size, ~2.4m for the Hubble telescope. This would be a panorama 27 million pixel wide, and the hyperfocal distance 10568km. From these results you can conclude that we have miserable wether right now preventing me from riding my bike.

> Thanks for that Helmut. I have caught the same question once upon a time,

> but since I am not into math at all, I simply accepted there being no limit

> at all.

>

> My thinking went: If one uses the Hubble telescope to zoom in as far as it

> can, then shoot a 360 pano, the result would surely be more than the 512

> meters. And for an even bigger pano, one could use the coming James Webb

> telescope for the same, and get many times bigger pano as a result.

>

> Am I completely off track in that thinking? If I am, then what is it I

> missed?

Helmut Dersch - :) ouch! 27 million pixels ... that's a panorama 72 kilometers wide and 36

km high.... MOAP (Mother Of All Panoramas), miniaturizing Mt. Everest,

which is "only" a little under 9 km's above sea level where highest.

Many thanks for the numbers, quite interesting to think about.

Trausti

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 3:23 AM, hd_de_2000 <der@...> wrote:

>

>

> If you're not concerend with DOF, then the only parameter determining

> resolution is the physical aperture size, ~2.4m for the Hubble telescope.

> This would be a panorama 27 million pixel wide, and the hyperfocal distance

> 10568km. From these results you can conclude that we have miserable wether

> right now preventing me from riding my bike.

>

> Helmut Dersch

>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >:) ouch! 27 million pixels ... that's a panorama 72 kilometers wide

There's no hard-wired link between pixel count and physical size. At

300ppi (approx 118 pixels/cm) you'd be looking at a panorama of only

1.42 miles or 2.28 km wide...

...heh. Did I really say "only"?

k- hey groovy, that's the width of this pano - 192000 pixels :-)

http://www.360cities.net/prague-18-gigapixels

it seems that any larger gigapixels out there have been refocused to shoot each row (which i did not do, shooting this)

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "hd_de_2000" <der@...> wrote:

>

> While browsing some online gigapixel panoramas, I wondered what physical resolution limits exist based on fundamental optical laws. Combining diffraction limit & depth-of-field formulas yields a universal minimum hyperfocal distance h for photographing 360 degree panoramas:

>

> h = width^2 * 1.39 * 10^-8 m

>

> Some numbers: w=10000 pixel: h=1.39m

> w=192000 pixel: h=512m

>

> This limit is independent of lens and sensor, but may not be reached with some lens/sensor combinations.

>

> For close-up panoramas a similar formula for the minimum object distance a and a desired depth-of-field da may be derived:

>

> a/h = da/a (da << a)

>

> Example: if the desired depth of field is +/- 10%, then with the same numbers as above, the minimum object distance is 0.139m fo the 10000 pixel wide panorama, and 51.2m for the 192000 pixel wide panorama.

>

>

> Helmut Dersch

>

> PS

> The exact formula is

> h = width^2 * lambda/(4*pi^2).

> Probably someone has calculated that before, but I did find no reference.

>