Fred,
On 2006-06-14, at 10:32:26, Fred A. Miller wrote:
On Wednesday 14 June 2006 8:57 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
Fred,
On Tuesday 13 June 2006 23:58, Fred A. Miller wrote:
...
The images needs some work....rural areas really lack in sharp
definition. But, the software works fine.
That's the nature of the dataset. The high-resolution images are from
aerial photography, and exists only where someone had a reason to pay
to have it created. The low-resolution images are from satellites.
You'll also notice some states (Indiana, e.g.) have high (-er)
resolution images state-wide, but most do not.
Ok......thanks. Satellite pics. CAN and OFTEN are MUCH better than
what they
have. :(
Optics is what it is. That is to say, the closer you are to the
object you wish to observe visually (or photographically), the better
resolution is available. The size of the lens matters, too, but
there's no getting around diffraction-limited resolution, and
satellites will never read newspaper headlines. And they certainly
won't read license plates! (And you can't "redirect" a satellite, TV
shows like "24" notwithstanding.)
I'm not saying there isn't better satellite imagery than what is
available to the general public, but the fanciful notion that you can
capture as much detail from orbit as you can from a airplane is
absurd and is a reality that exists only in TV and movies (and
paranoid or uncritical minds, I suppose).
Fred
Randall Schulz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
