I'm not quite sure I understand the response from Jody. If she's asking about
the corner coordinates, then yes, they are in lat/lon order, i.e.
Corner Coordinates:
Upper Left ( 2.445, -101.307) ( 2d26'40.63"E,101d18'25.06"S)
Lower Left ( -31.566, -101.307) ( 31d33'57.98"W,101d18'25.06"S)
Upper Right ( 2.4446182, -86.1893900) ( 2d26'40.63"E, 86d11'21.80"S)
Lower Right ( -31.5661050, -86.1893900) ( 31d33'57.98"W, 86d11'21.80"S)
Center ( -14.561, -93.748) ( 14d33'38.68"W, 93d44'53.43"S)
The bigger concern is why making a WCS 1.1.1 getCoverage request with the full
bounding box (-120.0038771,-65.0093883,-44.9961229,65.0093883) will result in
an image of width/height 2055x3562 (as expected, the size of the original
tiff), whereas giving a smaller bounding box
(-101.30696,-31.566105,-86.18939,2.4446182) gives a response scaled to the
original width resulting in an image of w/h 2055x4624 (instead of 414x931, as
expected). Is this by design to scale the response to its original width?
Thanks.
From: Jody Garnett [mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 12:19 PM
To: Bessette-Halsema, Dominique E
Cc: geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-users] FW: Response Geotiff comparisons between
Geoserver 2.2.4 and 2.5
Interesting, can I ask you to double check which answer is correct? For WCS it
is likely that the result is expected in lat / lon order (in which case this
change represents an issue being fixed).
Jody Garnett
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Bessette-Halsema, Dominique E
<dominique.besse...@gdit.com<mailto:dominique.besse...@gdit.com>> wrote:
When I did the following request,
/geoserver/imagery/wcs?service=WCS&version=1.1.1&request=GetCoverage&identifier=goes_13.IR.1km&BoundingBox=-101.30696,-31.566105,-86.18939,2.4446182,urn:ogc:def:crs:OGC:1.3:CRS84&format=geotiff
I noticed differing metadata information when I do a gdalinfo on the returned
decoded tiff file. (Attached above.)
The main differences being that
For 2.2.4,
- the width/height is 414x931 (as expected, since it's a slice of the
original 2055x3562 image)
- the Band 1 Block=256x256
- the corner coordinates are correct
For 2.5,
- the width/height is 2055x4624 (the original being 2055x3562)
- the Band 1 Block=2055x19
- the corner coordinates lon/lat values are swapped
Does anyone know if there is some configuration with the tile sizing that was
done for Geoserver 2.2.4 that we missed for Geoserver 2.5? The large Band
Block sizes are large (i.e. 8220x14 for a 8220x974 image) even when we directly
bypass the satellite coverage plugin and request it through Geoserver 2.5's
built-in GeoTIFF plugin.
Any insight will be helpful.
Thanks,
Kristine
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-users mailing list
Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infragistics Professional
Build stunning WinForms apps today!
Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-users mailing list
Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
