FYI, getting a page error of the 404, page not found variety…
I can see “nothing” from here…
I took my son there when he was 10-ish and we looked at all the landmarks. Amazing how many famous landmarks you can see!
That’s one of my favorite things when we go to NYC. Finding landmarks and historically famous/interesting stuff. My wife puts up with it pretty well…
Two things from my last time in the city -
E.V. Haughwout Building. Extremely cool building in SoHo. Mary Todd Lincoln had White House China made there.
“The building was different from other cast-iron buildings of the time: because it fronted on two streets, it would need two cast-iron facades, the weight of which might bring down the structure. To avoid this, rather than hanging the facades off the brickwork, as was usually done, Gaynor and Badger convinced Haughwout to allow them to use the strength of the cast-iron itself to support the building. This use of a structural metal frame was a precursor to the steel-framed skyscrapers that would start to be built in the early 20th century; in fact, some consider it to the first skyscraper”
Charlton-King-Vandam Historic District
I LOVE all the Federal style row houses here.
“The Charlton-King-Vandam area was part of the estate of “Richmond Hill”, a Georgian mansion built in 1767 and said to be one of the most beautiful mansions in Manhattan. It was used by George Washington during the American Revolution as a headquarters and later became John Adams’ Vice Presidential Mansion when the new country’s capital was New York City. Aaron Burr bought the mansion, and after living in it for a time and using it as the site of lavish parties, it was Burr who, in 1797, mapped the property, dividing it into lots and laying out the grid of three streets, which would become Charlton, King and Vandam. After Burr’s duel with Alexander Hamilton, he lost control of the estate to John Jacob Astor, the leading land developer of the time, who paid off Burr in 1817 and proceeded to develop the area.”
URL cc @Mindysan33
I leave detecting the difference as an exercise for the reader
Is pixel count the right measure for the size of a photo? How does this compare to film (say full-frame Velvia)?
Cool, I would be able to see my house but for the school next door. That’s some freakin rez!
I think this compares to dozens of ROLLS of Velvia!
Edit: res of 35mm film is hotly debated, but 20mb is a common number, and getting above that means perfect lenses and conditions. If you accept that, then a 20 gb image is 1000 film frames.
I can get there from the second link you posted, not from the link on the top of the page, however.
OK, I’ve poked around, this guy is claiming 87MP for 35mm, or 175MP to compensate for interpolation loss on the digital side. Full-frame he’s claiming over 2 GP for a frame, so more like 10 frames from a full-frame camera. If he’s right (and not just a filmiophile) then the question is whether anyone has ever stitched 10 full-frame shots into a panorama.
I saw that site, and clearly he has an axe to grind. He also says some stupid shit like “Pros don’t shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4” or 4x5." Like I said, it’s subject to debate. But my takeaway from other sites was when you got to real world vs theoretical it was much lower.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.