3 ms·
It is perfectly possible that the interpolated image is a better statistical fit to reality than the source image. This is more intuitive with height data. Fo
by 7952 4y ago
It is perfectly possible that the interpolated image is a better statistical fit to reality than the source image.
This is more intuitive with height data. For example a 100m grid could have a 10m cell right beside a 20m cell. A point on the boundary between both cells is more likely to be at 15m than either 10m or 20m. And you can improve that estimate using other nuances. Picking a predicted value can be more truthful.
I agree that caution is important but that is true with any imagery analysis. A human analysing imagery will already be using a lot of intuition as it is.
- Tostino 4y agoBut without this, all you have is a blurry image, in which you cannot accurately make out the details. You may wait until you get a better image due to different atmospheric conditions, to determine what they actually were. With this, you may get something hallucinated which looks very unexpected. Or in military contexts, maybe looks like a threat.
- 7952 4y agoSomeone with a little training and practice can get lots of information out of these kind of "blurry" images. You can make educated guesses based on understanding of the real world. Imagine you are looking for swimming pools to find water to fight a wild fire. All you have is a "blurry" image. That blue shape on the image could be a weirdly shaped tent or patio. And that would be very obvious on high resolution drone imagery. But 99% of the time it will be a pool and that is good enough. All data has limitations and this is no different.
- Tostino 4y agoThat is fair enough, I was weighing the cost of getting it wrong very highly (probably more than I should have).
- mistrial9 4y agoshiny plastic has smoother reflections, pleasing mathematically.. reality is noisy and full of exceptional things