![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dominic Sexton" wrote in message ... In article , John Tyson writes The small images are definitely not usable. They definitely are here. Only on a few of them have I felt the need to use Google Earth to zoom in on part of the image that shows something unusual. I can make out some detail on the screen, but as you say they are almost black. Mainly though, the pixel resolution in the images is much coarser than if you go to the Google Earth location. I think they should probably have emphasized that in the instructions, since some people may be trying to search the small images. I'm sure many are and in my experience that is perfectly acceptable. One thing I found useful, in both the presented images and the Google Earth view, is to load the image into photoshop and enhance the contrast; on my screen the Google Earth image is also very dark and lacks contrast. Sounds like you might benefit from adjusting your monitor: http://www.users.on.net/~julian.robi...st-monitor.htm If it is an LCD flat panel you may want to experiment with the angle you view it from too as that can have a marked influence on the brightness and contrast. -- Dominic Sexton I retract my original statement about the pixel resolution being too coarse; in reality it's about as good as what you get in Google Earth. The Google Earth imagery "looks" better, but this is subjective I think; the detail you can resolve is about the same in the small image and in Google Earth. (By my calculations the pixel interval in the small images is about 1.5 feet. The title of the kml file implies 1 meter resolution, but it's not clear if this is the pixel interval in the original imagery or some other measure of the image resolution. In any case, the 1.5 feet of the small images seems adequate for the job.) Regarding the monitor adjustments: You are probably right; I'm using an LCD monitor, and the normal settings don't pull out details in the lowest levels, even at optimum viewing angles. As far as I know I don't have any way of adjusting the brightness/contrast/gamma on the monitor, so going to Photoshop or some other image processing seems to be my only alternative to pulling out detail in the imagery. I was thinking about this today while away from my computer, and it occurred to me that the darkness of the basic imagery may have been intentional; if they expect the airplane to be significantly brighter than the background, they may have darkened the normal imagery so a brighter object would stand out. If anyone knows the coordinates of some of the wrecks they have found I think it would be interesting to look at these in order to get a better idea of what to look for. John |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Tyson" wrote in message ... If anyone knows the coordinates of some of the wrecks they have found I think it would be interesting to look at these in order to get a better idea of what to look for. John Sorry Clarence; I did read your earlier message, but overlooked your asking the same question ![]() John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help search for Steve Fossett | Dan G | Soaring | 45 | September 21st 07 08:13 PM |
Steve Fossett search | Don Pyeatt | Aviation Photos | 9 | September 11th 07 06:16 PM |
Fossett's reported fuel shortage | Gary Evans | Soaring | 7 | March 3rd 05 08:03 PM |
FWD: Look at this internet patch for Microsoft Internet Explorer | Charles S | Home Built | 15 | October 2nd 03 08:08 PM |