717 Gigapixel Image of Rembrandt's Nightwatch

(hyper-resolution.org)

565 points gaws | 1 comments | 25 Jan 22 00:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.22s | source

Show context

marginalia_nu ◴[25 Jan 22 11:04 UTC] No.30070494[source]▶

What's a good way of showing extremely high resolution images like this?

I did a few absolutely spectacular renders some years ago of a buddhabrot fractal, I don't remember the resolution but probably at least 100k x 100k, but after weeks of rendering I couldn't show it to anyone. I could only view it piecewise myself, as it didn't fit in RAM.

It's been a bit of a white whale for me.

I also have a high-res animated 4D rotation render that's half a dozen Gb, but can't be streamed online because compression algorithms absolutely massacre the details, and nobody wants to download files that big.

replies(4): >>30070554 #>>30070870 #>>30071311 #>>30071793 #

genewitch ◴[25 Jan 22 11:14 UTC] No.30070554[source]▶

>>30070494 #

I did a bit of looking around at 4k matrix hardware, and it's pricey. There's probably someone making 8k by now, so it's just a matter of paying the high cost. Or get 1:16 1080p or something.

Other than that, 4k HDR TVs are cheap. Obviously 4k is too few, but at least you can make it 75" for under $1000...

As far as animations go, ffmpeg can work miracles.

replies(1): >>30075494 #

1. zamadatix ◴[25 Jan 22 18:09 UTC] No.30075494[source]▶

>>30070554 #

Apart from that needing to be a matrix of over 1200 4k TVs or over 300 8k TVs the problem here is opening and viewing the image not displaying it in full all at once. ffmpeg would run into the same RAM issues, the only approach to viewing such images is to split the image up into separate pieces and make multiple scale levels then feed it into a viewer that understands which pieces at which scale to load.

↑