4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI'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 agoHere'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 agoThe 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 agoThat'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 agoI 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.