Related: A desktop photo scanner can get 6400 dots per inch over 8.5*11 inches. That is 3.82976 GigaPixels with 32 bit colors.
See also: PetaPixelProject.com with many 10 to 100 GigaPixel images. They use “Atlas Browser Based Viewer” that seems to work. I am not recommending it, just noting they seem to be able to show large lossless? images fairly readily.
“GigaPixel” on Google search has 930,000 entry points – a fairly mature topic. “PetaPixel” is mostly commercial now, but I see “2.2 Gigapixel photo”. For the Internet, I want consistency and ease of use for 4.8 Billion users if they want to do science, not pretty pictures.
Go down a ways and there is a 24113*23588*3 lossless image of Titan PIA17655 “Titans North Full Resolution” at photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/target/titan That is 568.777444 MegaPx. People do share useful forms, but most web images use lossy formats. What is ExaScale for, if not to share real data?
Oh, I get your point. Twitter itself won’t store much. But that does not prevent anyone from sharing by link. I felt obligated to learn what Twitter is doing, can do, and ought to do. Nice work you are doing!! I think Internet sharing should be lossless.
Here is a 10848*10848 image in jpeg, so almost completely useless. That is 117,679,104 or 117.679 MegaPixels. And the same image in GeoTiff (lossless). star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk. Just need a link to a file.
Yes, there are lossless formats offered. But you gave a lossy format first and that is the one probably copied, that ends up all over the Internet. Thank you the beautiful image, but more thank you for the beautiful data.