I like the colouring in the i-cubed imagery, it is more natural looking. it also looks as if it has been sharpened (have a look at the road that runs down on the left hand side) - I think it is better for zoomed out views.
Although for OSM use when tracing, the standard NASA landsat works better. Tim On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:28:30AM +0200, Lauri Hahne wrote: > > I couldn't help noticing that that the Landsat images provided by > > OpeanAerial map look muck worse than the Landsat images downloaded > > directly from Nasa. You can see an example at > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2293670552/sizes/o/ the > > upper image is from OpenAerial map and the lower one from Nasa. > > > > I wonder if Potlatch also suffers from this. > > Depends entirely on where you are. Since colorizing landsat imagery is > a choice of algorithms, those algorithms work better in some areas, and > worse in others. > > In my hometown, I prefer the i-Cubed Landsat over the NASA landsat, > though clearly that's not appropriate in the area you were looking at. > > Regards, > -- > Christopher Schmidt > MetaCarta > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
