A whole lot of pixels.

[marz71]

Hello fellow panorama friends!

There’s a new baby in town: https://holmenkollen360.com

2 terapixels. If each pixel were 1×1 cm and you lined them up in a straight line, you could go around the world 511 times or go to the moon 53 times.

That’s a whole lot of pixels :-)

[Erik Krause]

Am 05.11.25 um 09:50 schrieb 'marz71' via PTGui Support:

> There’s a new baby in town:https://holmenkollen360.com
>
> 2 terapixels.

An image behind a paywall and no technical details, how boring.

And the real resolution can be doubted anyway: At a width of 2 297 216
pixels a lens would need to resolve more than 6300 pixels per degree.
This is the diffraction limit for a hypothetical 800mm lens at f/3.2 or
a 1200mm lens at f/4.8. No such lens exists, and it is very unlikely it
would be diffraction limited wide open. Maybe a high end amateur
telescope like the Celestron CGX-L 1400 could reach this, but the depth
of field would be so narrow and the bokeh so awful (due to its mirror
construction) that it would be unusable for this purpose.

My guess is, this image was shot pretty closed down for depth of field,
which would cause a diffraction limit of around 1000 px/°, resulting in
a panorama of an effective width of 360 000 pixels, or at full
spherical, about 65 Gigapixels. Anything beyond that size are blurred
pixels.

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de