On Mon, June 17, 2013 22:58, Nikos Alexandris wrote: > Markus Metz wrote: > >> Feeding the test values and the evi(2) formula to r.mapcalc, the >> results are more or less in the expected range, still beyond [-1, 1], >> but not much. > > [cut] > > Yes, but feeding the "suspect" values in r.mapcalc, still gives, > correctly, > large/out of range (regarding EVI's expected range) result(s). > > Anyhow, just to have a quick-check on "r.what", should I upload the bands > in > question somewhere? Would anyone have the time to explain/check why > r.what > gives different results depending on the extent/resolution for the same > coordinates? Which, might be expected, but why does "g.region rows=1 > cols=1" > set the resolution to... see below:
[...] >> > g.region -pagc e=784935 n=2695215 rows=1 cols=1 res=30 > -------------------------------------------^------^-----^^ >> > >> > n=2695230 >> > s=2621340 >> > w=658560 >> > e=784950 > > ----------vvvvvv >> > nsres=73890 >> > ewres=126390 > ----------^^^^^^ rows and cols has precedence over res, but res=30 plus -a still has an effect, so you get an extension that is in multiples of 30, with a resolution equal to the total extension, since you asked for one row and one col. Moritz _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
