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: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org