Well, the biggest difference in the comparison between optics and network computers is that for the work in tandem to be meaninful, they havce to work synchronously. The good news is that effective shutterspeeds are in the kHz range.
Oops...If Mega pixels are sufficient, what added benefit does this bring to a daily family photograph?
Watch out memory companies. They would benefit a lot from this more than the end user and the camera manufacturer because remember each Gigapixel photo would take atleast a gigabyte space.
What about taking videos with this monster?
I time lapse gigapixel image would be really awesome. I don't think you'd want to take a picture in real "video" frame rates and at native resolution for the reasons you mention here.
That being said, people to love to look at stuff on Google Maps. This camera can do the same thing in a single snap.
"The research team reckons handheld gigapixel cameras could be in use by consumers within five years"...what is the use if human eye cannot differentiate between the picture taken by some Megapixel camera and this monster camera.
Pictures taken by a gigapixel camera can be broken out into small photos. It may be helpful to journalist to get a good snap shot of a situation, e.g. protest or in a battle zone.
The question is how to squeeze a 2.5 feet by 20 inches camera into a small form factor. The current size is very difficult to keep into a pocket. ;)
Many cameras are "better than the human eye" using wavelengths to see things that we cannot or magnification to pick up microscopic details or distant features that we cannot resolve. What I see remarkable about this one (which will eventually be miniaturized) is the extraordinary resolution of distant details. Actually there is historical precedent. Traditional film has very high resolution and recently historians have been examining old photographs with microscopes and recovering extraordinary detail from panoramic images. We're going full circle.
Sounds like photographic film can still put up a good fight. 50 gigapixels is a square of 224,000 by 224,000 pixels. This could be achieved with a piece of high resolution film [citation below] 2.25 inches by 2.25 inches in an easily portable camera. Large view cameras can achieve extraordinary pixel counts on a wide range of film media.
["Agfa 10E56 holographic film has a resolution of over 4,000 lines/mm—equivalent to a pixel size of 0.125 micrometres—and an active dynamic range of over five orders of magnitude in brightness, compared to typical scientific CCDs that might have pixels of about 10 micrometres and a dynamic range of 3-4 orders of magnitude." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_film]
There are obvious advantages of digital data for lossless transmission and copying. Nevertheless, for the illustrated application of capturing isolated details of panoramic images for subsequent analysis, the region of interest on the negative could be enlarged, printed, and scanned at any desired resolution. Until the massive digital cameras are practical, current film technology can actually meet the need for Gigapixel image data capture.
Think of being able to watch your favorite sport and being in control of where you're pulling the HD (or better) video from. That is one of the great advantages over traditional cameras. The end-to-end frame rate does not support this yet but the sensors are running 14Mpx @ 10+FPS.
Using binning and clipping on the sensor dramatically increases the frame rate and could probably reach reasonable video rates end-to-end.