Hi Gerd,
all screenshots show the same part of the same map:
- the first pair with the dedicated Typ-file
- the second pair with a matching transparent Typ-file (all polygons,
lines and points are transparent/invisible with this Typ)
Inside a pair the screenshots differ in the detail-settings of BaseCamp - see
the dark overlay at the bottom.
• 1: dedicated Typ - low detail BaseCamp
• 2: dedicated Typ - high detail BaseCamp
• 3: transparent Typ - low detail BaseCamp
• 4: transparent Typ - high detail BaseCamp
I wanted to point out, that the contrast of the DEM lowers when viewing higher
details in BaseCamp.
It´s clearly visible on the transparent view how less bright/dark the shading
gets in higher details.
I would prefer to see the HIGHER contrasting DEM over all detail-settings in
BaseCamp.
Question is how to adjust it. As the different strength in shading is rendered
- shouldn´t there be a reason for it?
Any dem-dists, interpolation and overview-dem-dist combinations behaved as
expected regarding DEM details - but not the contrast.
Any eventual mistake in my style I hope to disregard by the transparent view to
the map.
Jan
> Am 09.07.2018 um 17:29 schrieb Gerd Petermann
> <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> to be honest, I don't even understand how you produce the two different
> screen shots. If you prefer one of the two,
> why/when do you use the other?
>
> Gerd
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: mkgmap-dev <[email protected]> im Auftrag von jan
> meisters <[email protected]>
> Gesendet: Montag, 9. Juli 2018 16:25
> An: Development list for mkgmap
> Betreff: Re: [mkgmap-dev] DEM contrast option?
>
> Which resolution exactly do you mean?
> I already described that I tried different values for dem-dists (including
> one single resolution).
> This, of course, has a huge effect on DETAILS, but not on CONTRAST.
>
> Anybody has an idea how to adjust contrast?
>
> Am 05.07.2018 um 20:20 schrieb Felix Hartmann
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>:
>
> You should only use one single resolution
>
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, 19:31 jan meisters,
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Tried a lot of dem-dist variations: fixed resolution as you hinted,
> decreasing and even inverted steps.
> Unfortunately nothing changed the shown behavior.
>
> What I´d like to see is the same CONTRAST in the shading over all resolutions.
> In higher resolutions the darks of the DEM are clearly brighter, whatever
> dem-dists used.
> With the blank screenshots I wanted to show that there is no additional
> (higher resolution) polygon in my style eventually hiding the DEM.
>
> Had some success (at least on DEM contrasts) mixing levels and
> overview-levels, but that obviously breaks the rest of the map.
>
> Jan
>
>
> Am 04.07.2018 um 21:14 schrieb Felix Hartmann
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>:
>
> if you have several dem resolution levels in mkgmap - then it will lose in
> detail (in order to zoom in/out faster). You could just create the map is a
> single dem resolution - then detail level is always the same.
>
> On 4 July 2018 at 18:52, jan meisters
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I just made my first map with the new DEM-option and I´m impressed. Pretty
> easy.
> But I wonder why DEM shading looses contrast in higher resolutions in
> BaseCamp:
>
> <1DEM_low.jpg><2DEM_higk.jpg>
>
> My Style has background poly 4a and 4b (both transparent), however they are
> not mentioned in polygons. I wouldn´t know how to tag them anyway.
> And even with a completely blanked typ-file the difference is visible:
>
> <3DEM_low-e.jpg><4DEM_high-e.jpg>
>
> HGT´s are 3“ data from
> viewfinderpanaramas.org<http://viewfinderpanaramas.org/>
>
> To keep the contrasted DEM up to higher resolutions/zooms I played with all
> DEM-options from help, and also with transparencies, but that had no effect -
> the softer shading remains.
>
> I see the switch in Basecamp somewhere between assumed resolutions 20 and 22.
> How is this switch defined? Is there a value to adjust this?
>
> Jan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Felix Hartman - Openmtbmap.org<http://openmtbmap.org/> &
> VeloMap.org<http://velomap.org/>
> Schusterbergweg 32/8
> 6020 Innsbruck
> Austria - Österreich
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
> _______________________________________________
> mkgmap-dev mailing list
> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
>
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
