Markus M: > > >> > But it does not make sense to use a pan band as seeds when segmenting > > >> > the other bands. Seeds are typically the result of a previous run of > > >> > i.segment or the result of a previous classification of the same > > >> > data.
Nikos A: > > >> Then I have inserted a small mistake in my tests/workflow. Wanted to > > >> drive "finer objects" (from Pan) in bigger ones (based on MS). > > >> Will adjust. MM: > > The seeds map does the opposite. You probably want to do pansharpening > > first. NA: > Ha-Yey :D I did (in some cases). Just for completeness, ehm... I was too fast. So, I did use sharpenned images only in 2 trials, however, as I can actually see in the history. The exact same process in two different Mapsets (same Location), QuickBird2 data: --%<-- i.segment msx_hpf out=segments_msx_hpf_seeded_t0.02 threshold=0.02 minsize=4 seed=segments_pan_t0.01 memory=3000 iterations=1000 -->%-- It worked in one case (repeated to be sure) and it failed in another! In the failing case, before the ERROR message, there are multiple WARNINGS issued: .. WARNING: Region consists of only one cell, nothing to update .. The other 2 (out of 3) failures were simply using (wrongly) the Pan seeds to segment the MSes. The region was set to 0.6m ns/we resolution (working in a UTM projection). [ Minsize set to 4 so as to be close in objects that can be tree crowns... Not sure how much sense this makes, but it didn't hurt also as I can see in the final classification results. I also repeated this at least once (as I can remember) with the resolution set to 2.4 and minsize adjusted to 1 then. ] Now, I have re-ran the "failed" one and I get this strange: .. 0..5..10..15..20..25..30..35..40..ERROR: Invalid region id -1489 .. I went after looking all of the details of the involved maps. The only "strange" thing I can see (which I caused) is that the region is 0.6, the seed (segments_pan_t0.01) is also 0.6 while the group of Pan-Sharpened images are (each) of 0.60017817 (ns) x 0.60016801 (we) resolution. Is this my mistake? The resolution(s) should be identical, right? Thanks for shedding light, sorry for crunching time away, N _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
