4 ms·
At 15cm resolution, I'd say that the high resolution imagery is arial photographs. Satellite imagery doesn't get much better than 0.5m because of physics and g
by shubb 12y ago
At 15cm resolution, I'd say that the high resolution imagery is arial photographs.
Satellite imagery doesn't get much better than 0.5m because of physics and govmint[1].
Sxfh refers to skybox. They are very exciting, offering satellite video feeds. It's important to note that they don't offer global live coverage - as the satellite flys over the globe, you get a 'strip' of video. So at a given location, you get a very short period of video, and then the satellite has moved on and nothing until another one flies over.
To me, drones or balloons would be the only candidates for providing ubiquitous video coverage of a city for instance (see NPR documentary last year), but even then, cloud is an issue.
I tend to wonder if the best way of observing a city would be to fuse radar from multiple satellites to build a live, cloud immune 3D model of the city surface.
[1]GeoEye hope to achieve 0.34m with GeoEye-2, but will probably only be allowed to release it at 0.5m.
- bnolsen 12y agoyou can schedule aircraft so they cover and area when there's a cloud free (or diminshed) window. Satellites get what they get. For cities like portland that's typically not good enough.
- ZeroGravitas 12y agoMapbox get good results with their post-processing to remove clouds. http://www.wired.com/2013/05/a-cloudless-atlas http://www.wired.com/2013/05/a-cloudless-atlas I'd be intrigued to see how it would look once you zoom in further to city scale. Would you see blurs of cars along roads?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- mikecb 12y agoThe law changed recently. The lower limit is now 25cm, but I'm not sure if that's due to Digital Globe's new satellite or if that is the new legal limit. [1]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/15/digitalglobe-satellite-idUSL2N0N71IX20140415 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/15/digitalglobe-satel...