<div dir="ltr">I did look at that, but assuming I understand it correctly something seems off.<div><br></div><div>I'll send feedback to the provided email, thanks.</div><div><br></div><div>matt</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Matthew Hanson<div>Applied GeoSolutions</div><div>(603) 659-3363 x91</div><div><a href="http://appliedgeosolutions.com" target="_blank">http://appliedgeosolutions.com</a></div><div><a href="mailto:mhanson@appliedgeosolutions.com" target="_blank">mhanson@appliedgeosolutions.com</a></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Bradley Chambers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brad.chambers@gmail.com" target="_blank">brad.chambers@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Matthew,<div><br></div><div>Have you looked at <a href="http://www.opentopography.org/index.php/Tools/otforge/points2grid" target="_blank">http://www.opentopography.org/index.php/Tools/otforge/points2grid</a> and the resources linked off of it? That may be useful.</div><div><br></div><div>I believe most of our modifications to points2grid have been to provide support for things like CMake, Windows, GeoTIFF, etc., and not to fundamentally change the underlying algorithms.</div><div><br></div><div>Brad</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Matthew Hanson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mhanson@appliedgeosolutions.com" target="_blank">mhanson@appliedgeosolutions.com</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="h5"><div dir="ltr">Hello again,<div><br></div><div>I'm not sure this is the right list for this question which is more about points2grid, but I thought someone here might have run into this issue.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm creating a tiff of point density from a las file. My las file is 1000x1000 m with about 24 million points. I create a tiff of density (den) using a grid size of 1.0x1.0 and a radius of 0.56. Thus my search area is about 1.0, the same as my grid area. </div><div><br></div><div>I would expect the sum of all my points to be about equal to the total # of points, and the mean pixel value to be about 24. However it's not. I get a significantly higher total - about 37 million points and a mean of about 37. I've adjusted the search radius and it does change, but the numbers are quite a bit higher in all cases than what would be expected.</div><div><br></div><div>Am I misunderstanding what the density output is supposed to be? Or has someone else stumbled across this?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><div><div><br></div><div><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr">Matthew Hanson<div>Applied GeoSolutions</div><div><a href="tel:%28603%29%20659-3363%20x91" value="+16036593363" target="_blank">(603) 659-3363 x91</a></div><div><a href="http://appliedgeosolutions.com" target="_blank">http://appliedgeosolutions.com</a></div><div><a href="mailto:mhanson@appliedgeosolutions.com" target="_blank">mhanson@appliedgeosolutions.com</a></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</div></div></div></div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
pdal mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:pdal@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">pdal@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pdal" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pdal</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>