-
2007.01.17 02:57 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2007.01.17 08:07 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 15:24 "RE: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Ed Grissom
-
2007.01.17 16:27 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2007.01.17 19:00 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.01.17 21:51 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2007.01.17 19:26 "RE: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Ed Grissom
- 2007.01.17 16:20 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 20:22 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 20:52 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
-
2007.01.17 19:26 "RE: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Ed Grissom
-
2007.01.17 21:51 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Frank Warmerdam
-
2007.01.17 19:00 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 22:18 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2007.01.17 08:07 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
- 2007.01.17 03:35 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Frank Warmerdam
- 2007.01.17 08:00 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Joris Van Damme
2007.01.17 19:27 "Re: [Tiff] Elevation Data", by Frank Warmerdam
In any case, when it comes to a recommendation for writers, would you agree that recommending them to stick with the 'intrinsic' range of the samples, as I explained it, is best and most likely to lead to good interchange (as far as there is interchange of floating point image data, at all)?
floating point *elevation* data!
rescaling in the file to some "natural image range" loses all the value of the actual elevations.
Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org