[OSM-talk] Landsat vs OpenAerial Landsat (in JOSM)

[tim]

I like the colouring in the i-cubed imagery, it is more natural
looking. it also looks as if it has been sharpened (have a look at the
road that runs down on the left hand side) - I think it is better for
zoomed out views.

Although for OSM use when tracing, the standard NASA landsat works better.

Tim

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Christopher Schmidt
<crschmidt at metacarta.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:28:30AM +0200, Lauri Hahne wrote:
>  > I couldn't help noticing that that the Landsat images provided by
>  > OpeanAerial map look muck worse than the Landsat images downloaded
>  > directly from Nasa. You can see an example at
>  > http://www.flickr.com/photos/97105578@N00/2293670552/sizes/o/ the
>  > upper image is from OpenAerial map and the lower one from Nasa.
>  >
>  > I wonder if Potlatch also suffers from this.
>
>  Depends entirely on where you are. Since colorizing landsat imagery is
>  a choice of algorithms, those algorithms work better in some areas, and
>  worse in others.
>
>  In my hometown, I prefer the i-Cubed Landsat over the NASA landsat,
>  though clearly that's not appropriate in the area you were looking at.
>
>  Regards,
>  --
>  Christopher Schmidt
>  MetaCarta
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  talk mailing list
>  talk at openstreetmap.org
>  http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>