[GRASSLIST:1778] Re: i.ortho.photo on osx
ian_macmillan at umail.ucsb.edu
Mon Nov 17 11:13:41 EST 2003
Markus, thanks for the response. I do have a dem which covers the entire
photo area. It is a little larger in fact, is that a problem? Should I crop it
so that it is the same size as the photo in area? The dem is at 10m
resolution, just like I want the projected orthophoto to be. I made the DEM
with s.surf.rst from a 30m dem, doesn't seem like that should make any
difference from a "normal" dem. In any case the elevation range is only ~540
meters. Is this too much? What is the biggest elevation range that you have
gotten to work?
The r.univar report for the dem is here:
Number of cells: 432276
Arithmetic mean: 775.406
Standard deviation: 132.813
Variation coefficient: 17.1282 %
Thanks a bunch, ian
Quoting Markus Neteler <neteler at itc.it>:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 12:38:05PM -0800, Ian Macmillan wrote:
> > Hi all, anyone out there successfully used i.ortho.photo on max os x
> > I have been having bad luck with it. I consistently get a weird tiling
> > with highly distorted images. A good example can be found here.
> > www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~ian_macmillan/calico.tif
> > I have a previous post that explains exactly what I did to get this image
> > (1702). As far as I can tell, I have done everything by the book.
> > have any advice?
> > Thanks a bunch
> > -ian
> a similar problem we also face (on Linux, so it's a bug in the i.ortho.photo
> Some things to check:
> - do you have a DEM which covers the area of the target orthophoto,
> all at the same resolution?
> - what's the elevation difference in that area
> (r.univar tells you min and max etc)
> We have the impression, that the algorithm is somewhat unstable in regions
> with a large elevation range.
> Markus Neteler
More information about the grass-user