4 ms·

Am I understanding this correctly that you're saying there is no equipment today that can take pictures at a better resolution than 1 pixel = 0.6 meter? Because

by roel_v 15y ago

Am I understanding this correctly that you're saying there is no equipment today that can take pictures at a better resolution than 1 pixel = 0.6 meter? Because even Google Earth does better than that, so I must be misunderstanding you. Related: what am I misunderstanding when people talk about "satellites had a resolution of about 2 to 3 feet" and I think it's nonsense? How can a 'resolution' be '2 to 3 feet' - isn't resolution always something per something else - amount of detail you can represent onto another display surface? What part is implied here that I'm missing?

coob 15y ago
Google Earth uses both aerial and satellite images.
simonw 15y ago
I believe most of the high res photography in Google Maps and Google Earth is taken using planes, not satellites.
yellowbkpk 15y ago
When someone says a satellite or aerial image has a resolution of 2-3 feet, they mean each pixel in the image represents 2-3 feet on the ground.
pointyhat 15y ago
2-3 feet per pixel. Google earth uses that for imaging at very high scales. They use aerial photography for the rest. Per-pixel, it's definitely mainly aerial photography TBH.
nitrogen 15y ago
A resolution of 2 to 3 feet means that features as small as 2 to 3 feet across can be distinguished, regardless of sensor technology. This is different from saying "2 to 3 feet per pixel" because the resolution of the lens and atmosphere may be worse than the resolution of the image sensor or film. Consider a <$100 consumer digital camera with a hypothetical 12MP sensor (4000x3000 resolution). Suppose you point the camera at a 40' by 30' wall with a highly detailed pattern. Though the actual sensor resolution to wall resolution would be 0.01' per pixel, due to various optical distortions (and possibly the Bayer filter on the sensor), the effective resolution could be closer to 0.05'. Thus, any element of the pattern printed on the wall that was smaller than 0.05' would be unresolvable.

by roel_v 15y ago

coob 15y ago

Google Earth uses both aerial and satellite images.

simonw 15y ago

I believe most of the high res photography in Google Maps and Google Earth is taken using planes, not satellites.

yellowbkpk 15y ago

When someone says a satellite or aerial image has a resolution of 2-3 feet, they mean each pixel in the image represents 2-3 feet on the ground.

pointyhat 15y ago

2-3 feet per pixel. Google earth uses that for imaging at very high scales. They use aerial photography for the rest. Per-pixel, it's definitely mainly aerial photography TBH.

nitrogen 15y ago

A resolution of 2 to 3 feet means that features as small as 2 to 3 feet across can be distinguished, regardless of sensor technology. This is different from saying "2 to 3 feet per pixel" because the resolution of the lens and atmosphere may be worse than the resolution of the image sensor or film. Consider a <$100 consumer digital camera with a hypothetical 12MP sensor (4000x3000 resolution). Suppose you point the camera at a 40' by 30' wall with a highly detailed pattern. Though the actual sensor resolution to wall resolution would be 0.01' per pixel, due to various optical distortions (and possibly the Bayer filter on the sensor), the effective resolution could be closer to 0.05'. Thus, any element of the pattern printed on the wall that was smaller than 0.05' would be unresolvable.