[GRASS-user] calculate pixel areas with starspan

[Matthew Perry]

On 11/24/06, maning sambale <emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a bit of update:
> Starspan is faster processing Gtiff (I'm using Byte) compared to
> native GRASS raster.
> Although I have not timed it precisely, its around 10 times faster.

I've experience similar performance with starspan. I've not done any
precise tests but a 10x performance decrease sounds similar to my
experiences.

I've used starspan with arcinfo grids, gtiffs and erdas imgs with very
good performance; GRASS rasters seems to be the exception. It is odd
since starspan uses GDAL for raster access and normal GDAL operations
don't seem that much slower on GRASS rasters.

-- 
Matthew T. Perry
GIS Analyst / Software Engineer
National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS)
work: perry at nceas.ucsb.edu
web: http://www.perrygeo.net