[GRASS-user] problem with disk space. Raster data

[Antonio Rodríguez]

Hi,

I'm performing a couple of treatments over a specific region and my
problems arise when I deal with UTM projection in contrast with
Lat/Lon projection.

1) I import my raster data (Aster Dem) using the properties of the
georreferenced GeoTiff image with wgs84 datum and lat/lon projection
2) I perform, for example, a r.shaded.relief over the data and
everything runs fine. I get my new file in a decent time

The problem arise when after creating a newlocation with the
corresponding lat/lon coordinates transformed to UTM ones I try to
follow the steps above.

1) The import of the new data is OK and I can see the image with no
problem, but...
2) performing the r.shaded.relief process I got a full hard disk
(100%) and an overnight run for the computer

Using r.info for both original data sources I get:

A) Lat/Lon Proj

Type of Map:  raster               Number of Categories: 5988            |
 |   Data Type:    CELL                                                       |
 |   Rows:         3601                                                       |
 |   Columns:      3601                                                       |
 |   Total Cells:  12967201                                                   |
 |        Projection: Latitud - Longitud.                                     |
 |            N: 7:59:59.5S    S: 9:00:00.5S   Res: 0:00:01                   |
 |            E: 75:59:59.5W    W: 77:00:00.5W   Res: 0:00:01                 |
 |   Range of data:    min = -580  max = 5988

B) UTM Proj

Type of Map:  raster               Number of Categories: 6744            |
 |   Data Type:    CELL                                                       |
 |   Rows:         2965                                                       |
 |   Columns:      2282                                                       |
 |   Total Cells:  6766130                                                    |
 |        Projection: UTM (zone -18)                                          |
 |            N: 9055864.24489094    S: 8964905.38350331   Res: 30.67752492   |
 |            E: 244988.11769175    W: 174982.00582445   Res: 30.67752492     |
 |   Range of data:    min = 0  max = 6744

As you can notice, the UTM region is even smaller tha the Lat/Lon one. Any idea?

Thanks!
Antonio

PD: I'm running a Debian Intel machine with 2GB of RAM