3 ms·

The difference is that Google is using low-res satellite imagery, rather than high-res drone imagery. Maybe that will change now that they've bought Titan Aeros

The difference is that Google is using low-res satellite imagery, rather than high-res drone imagery. Maybe that will change now that they've bought Titan Aerospace.

estebank 13y ago
Google uses drone imagery for some cities, San Francisco being one of them, using different angles to create the 3D model of the city, and satellite imagery for the rest of the planet. It's exactly what this company is doing. From what I can see, Google Maps also uses different textures depending on the viewing angle. Check out https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.762346,-122.4268632,67a,35y,90h,39.6t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501367f076adff https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.7623... and rotate the image. Check out the trees to see the seams of the different pictures used to create the textures/models.
- jim-greer 13y ago
  That's pretty low-res to be drone imagery. If you look at that same area using the Google Earth plugin, it says that it's satellite imagery: http://i.imgur.com/qCEE7cB.jpg http://i.imgur.com/qCEE7cB.jpg (updated screenshot to be from the same angle you have)
  - kbenson 13y ago
    I'm not sure why you think it's lower res. It looks about equivalent to me. The trees look a bit odd in Google maps, but the quality of the building windows and cars looks about the same.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - jim-greer 13y ago
      Here's a more nuanced theory: The building fronts, cars, etc look great because they are from street view. The roofs, treetops, etc, look terrible, because they are from satellite.
      - dandelany 13y ago
        The roofs, treetops, etc. look terrible because the depth data is significantly lower resolution than the photos. This causes the deformed polygons you're seeing... The actual resolution of the photos of the roofs/treetops are just as good as everything else, they're just stretched over bad 3d data.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    That's too much detail for landsat. I don't have any idea what they are using there, but they do pull in a lot of aerial photos from the U.S. government. Those photos are (largely?) taken from piloted planes though.
  - bla2 13y ago
    I think some of the cities that have come online more recently are a bit higher-res ( example: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Copenhagen/@55.6686089,12.5867786,126a,35y,0h,58.31t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x4652533c5c803d23:0x4dd7edde69467b8 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Copenhagen/@55.6686089,12.... ). Maybe they'll reprocess San Francisco eventually.

The difference is that Google is using low-res satellite imagery, rather than high-res drone imagery. Maybe that will change now that they've bought Titan Aerospace.

estebank 13y ago

Google uses drone imagery for some cities, San Francisco being one of them, using different angles to create the 3D model of the city, and satellite imagery for the rest of the planet. It's exactly what this company is doing. From what I can see, Google Maps also uses different textures depending on the viewing angle. Check out https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.762346,-122.4268632,67a,35y,90h,39.6t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x80859a6d00690021:0x4a501367f076adff https://www.google.com/maps/place/San+Francisco,+CA/@37.7623... and rotate the image. Check out the trees to see the seams of the different pictures used to create the textures/models.

jim-greer 13y ago
That's pretty low-res to be drone imagery. If you look at that same area using the Google Earth plugin, it says that it's satellite imagery: http://i.imgur.com/qCEE7cB.jpg http://i.imgur.com/qCEE7cB.jpg (updated screenshot to be from the same angle you have)
- kbenson 13y ago
  I'm not sure why you think it's lower res. It looks about equivalent to me. The trees look a bit odd in Google maps, but the quality of the building windows and cars looks about the same.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jim-greer 13y ago
    Here's a more nuanced theory: The building fronts, cars, etc look great because they are from street view. The roofs, treetops, etc, look terrible, because they are from satellite.
    - dandelany 13y ago
      The roofs, treetops, etc. look terrible because the depth data is significantly lower resolution than the photos. This causes the deformed polygons you're seeing... The actual resolution of the photos of the roofs/treetops are just as good as everything else, they're just stretched over bad 3d data.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  That's too much detail for landsat. I don't have any idea what they are using there, but they do pull in a lot of aerial photos from the U.S. government. Those photos are (largely?) taken from piloted planes though.
- bla2 13y ago
  I think some of the cities that have come online more recently are a bit higher-res ( example: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Copenhagen/@55.6686089,12.5867786,126a,35y,0h,58.31t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x4652533c5c803d23:0x4dd7edde69467b8 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Copenhagen/@55.6686089,12.... ). Maybe they'll reprocess San Francisco eventually.