The Sharpest Ever Global Earth Map 204
Roland Piquepaille writes "The GLOBCOVER project, started by the European Space Agency (ESA), has a very simple goal. It will create the most detailed portrait of the Earth's land surface with a resolution three times sharper than any previous satellite map. The image acquisition will be done throughout 2005 and use the Medium Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MERIS) instrument of the Envisat environmental satellite. To create this sharp map, the GLOBCOVER project will analyze about 20 terabytes of data gathered by the European satellite. When it's completed, the map will have numerous uses, 'including plotting worldwide land use trends, studying natural and managed ecosystems and modelling climate change extent and impacts.'"
'hello mum' (Score:5, Funny)
Re:'hello mum' (Score:2)
Actually, this is a great idea. Have a contest in which participants vie for the honor of having the most interesting display seen from space.
We could have categories like:
Re:'hello mum' (Score:4, Funny)
just a thought.
Re:'hello mum' (Score:5, Funny)
This has been proven to work (Score:2)
Re:'hello mum' (Score:4, Funny)
Now that would be one hell of a computer science Ph.D. project: "Investigating the 'Where's Waldo' Imaging Algorithm for the Detection of Nude Figures in Satellite Photos"
Re:'hello mum' (Score:5, Funny)
you accidentally put the word no in there..
its a minor typo, but it really should be "notice to Californians: more nude sunbathing".
Re:'hello mum' (Score:5, Funny)
Re:'hello mum' (Score:2)
Re:'hello mum' (Score:2)
Yeah, Californians need to stop doing that. If the rest of the nation can't figure out the difference between a male plug and a female socket, they have no one to blame but themselves.
That research was actually done (Score:2)
Re:'hello mum' (Score:2, Insightful)
The satellite imagery for this is being recorded at a resolution of 300 m. For comparison, the most zoomed in you can get on GoogleMaps is 2 m per a pixel.
Re:'hello mum' (Score:5, Funny)
But 300 is more than 2, so it must be better. That's why we're all salivating for 64-bit Minesweeper. Because it will be better than 32-bit Minesweeper.
Haven't you learned anything from TV commercials?
Digital is always better than analog, even when it isn't.
More is always better than less, even when it isn't.
More candy. More soda. More monkeys. More thermonuclear weapons.
Re:'hello mum' (Score:3, Interesting)
If that's the case, why does the article say it has "a resolution three times sharper than any previous satellite map"? Were the images that Google uses from aerial photography--that is, pics taken from airplanes, not satellites? I'm confused here.
Re:'hello mum' (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between stuff like google maps, and that sort of data (from the Quickbird or Ikonos satellites, with resolutions better than a meter) and MERIS (the instrument used for GLOBCOVER) or MODIS (the NASA equivalent. There before MODIS, slightly lower resolution, but you can get the data for the FTP site without the hassles you have to go through to get MERIS data. But I rant...) have poorer spatial resolution (MERIS full resolution is 300m, and MODIS is 500m), but better spectral and temporal samp
Re:'hello mum' (Score:2)
Re:'hello mum' (Score:2)
Re:'hello mum' (Score:1)
Way to go for the pr0n download... 3 billion subjects to choose from
Re:'hello mum' (Score:5, Funny)
Re:'hello mum' (Score:2)
Medium? (Score:5, Funny)
Surely the High Resolution Imaging Spectrometer would be more appropriate?
Re:Medium? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Medium? (Score:2)
MERIS (Score:5, Funny)
Niles will be happy to hear she's orbiting the planet...
First thing we're all looking for ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First thing we're all looking for ... (Score:2)
'
t
n
e
r
a
p
I can see my house!
(This text added so that my fantastic comment can get through this fantastic filter.)
Re:First thing we're all looking for ... (Score:2)
Re:First thing we're all looking for ... (Score:2)
Re:First thing we're all looking for ... (Score:2)
And, who is that guy with my girlfriend?
Re:First thing we're all looking for ... (Score:2)
Name the movie.
Re:First thing we're all looking for ... (Score:2)
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Oh (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh (Score:2)
Google it up! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google it up! (Score:1)
Re:Google it up! (Score:5, Interesting)
How do they filter those images out, anyway? These satellites have much better views than the typical U2 spy plane - is this a tacit agreement between defense and the satellite operating company, or does the defense department get a crack at the images before they're released to the public?
300m resolution (Score:2)
At 300 meter per pixel resolution, you're not going to see many details anyway.
Re:Google it up! (Score:2)
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001511.html [defensetech.org]
Area 51 isn't filtered.
Re:Google it up! (Score:2)
Re:Google it up! (Score:2)
Of course, that's just what they WANT you to think...
Re:Google it up! (Score:2)
The U.S. federal government also had a strangle-hold on most earth-observing for quite some time, so it's possible that no one got an eye in
Re:Google it up! (Score:2)
Area 51 [google.com]
Re:Google it up! (Score:2)
115d47m30sWx37d16m30sN
Brings Area 51 right up on Google maps, an old photo at limited resolution. But other satellite services have published better images, see: http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/groom.htm [fas.org]
We all know the really good stuff is underground, and the odds of a classified plane being on the runways is pretty slim. Especially when the companies publish when they'll be collecting images. So no, there's no real supression of commercial satellite
Re:Google it up! (Score:2)
How the heck would you know?
Re:Google it up! (Score:2)
Re:Google it up! (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is that google is not limited in what it has a
Typo? (Score:2)
Surely the resolution will be better than 300 m, or am I missing something?
Re:Typo? (Score:4, Informative)
The resolution of this bird is 300 meters, in many more wavelengths than just visible - multiple longband IR, optical, synthetic apeture millimeter radar.
It's like the difference between a 1920x1080 one bit per pixel image and a 640x480 Truecolor image.
I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
(BTW, I *highly* recommend checking out World Wind [nasa.gov] if you haven't seen it. It is one of the most awesome programs ever to exist, bar none.)
Re:I don't understand (Score:1)
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
(BTW, I *highly* recommend checking out World Wind if you haven't seen it. It is one of the most awesome programs ever to exist, bar none.)
Unless you're running a non-Microsoft operating system. Guess I'll have to wait until I get home.
Re:I don't understand (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I don't understand (Score:2)
I think I have figured out what they mean, though. They claim the sharpest ever *map*, not image. I guess that means they are going to be creating a map of the globe with zones classified into different land cover types, something like this [esa.int], not necessarily a global image. However the line between a "map" and a "false color image" is bein
Re:I don't understand (Score:2, Informative)
The Earth's Flat (Score:2)
Let's hope a vessel doesn't go too far west of North America.
Yes, but... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:2)
Up to a certain point, large breasts are entertaining. But at that scale, they're not good for much unless you plan to cover them in snow and ski down them.
"Dude, you should've seen it. Stan got wicked air off Nipple Peak, but fractured his collarbone landing on the Z-cup slope."
okay.. (Score:1, Insightful)
I want my planet! (Score:5, Informative)
Well but isn't this data for which I've paid with my tax euros already? Why does the public who financed it not get free access to that data?
While we're at it, can other Slashdotters perhaps point to links of freely available satellite imagery? Is there any kind of systematic coverage of the planet we live on which is freely available to everyone who does happen to live here?
Re:I want my planet! (Score:2)
Get Nasa WorldWind (Score:3, Informative)
There are some issues with Landsat7 data, but hopefully they will get fixed soon.
Its awsome piece of software! offers 7m resolution globally and offers 1m resolution for USA.
On the other hand, ESA has always been stingy in giving access to data. It took them a while to release Titan images; as opposed to Nasa who makes them available almost instanteneously.
I guess thats the difference between the cultures!
Re:Get Nasa WorldWind (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't run on free operating systems though... Doesn't let you even look at the source code. But I still applaud NASA for such a great project. That's really the right spirit -- well almost :-).
Re:Get Nasa WorldWind (Score:5, Informative)
No, you'll have to download it yourself [sourceforge.net] and fire up your favourite text editor to do that.
Re:Get Nasa WorldWind (Score:2)
Re:I want my planet! (Score:5, Interesting)
You see, I work with data from both ESA and NASA for Earth Observation. And many of the people of the communities which would be served by these data are annoyed by the attitude. The way NASA works is to produce a number of products for scientific and research based work, and chuck'em into some web site. You go and download. ESA, on the other hand, requires you to write a proposal, which is peer reviewed and blah blah blah. Eventually, they send you a bunch of CDs with the data you didn't want, 2 years later than expected and to an address in Italy when you wanted them in the UK (personal experience). They claim the peer review stage and proposal submission help to show decision makers (politicos) in member states the useful and brilliant things people do with the technology they invested their cash on. The result is an infrautilisation of the ESA data, or it's very limited use in research environments.
On the other hand, NASA gives the data away, people download it, piss about with it for a few days, and from time to time, you get businesses using it, people realising they can get a paper out of it... Essentially, it gets used.
To be fair with ESA, they are making efforts to streamline the processes, but management seems to work that way. Due to its transnational nature, ESA is a bit like the EU: no country wants to pay in, but everybody wants subsidies, contracts... ESA is just the same, which is sad. A far stronger scientific presence at the top would greatly improve things...
Re:I want my planet! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I want my planet! (Score:3, Informative)
How Much for a Copy? (Score:2)
Sharpest Map? (Score:3, Funny)
Globetrotting@Home, anyone? (Score:1)
Is this nitpicking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do writers insist on making these kind of useless comparisons? Is there any research that indicates the average book contains the equivalent of one megabyte of data? Especially one megabyte of imagery? Will this really help a layperson quantify a terabyte?
This just in: The human brain is capable of storing an
Re:Is this nitpicking? (Score:2)
That said, I don't quite get how they get 20. A typical novel has roughly 50,000 words, for, say, 250,000 characters. It's not clear to me how analogizing characters to either bits or bytes gets you to a megabyte book.
Schedule? (Score:1, Redundant)
oh well...
So... (Score:4, Funny)
So the most important question is how big does my sign have to be?
Re:So... (Score:2)
This big [google.com] (0.95km tall)
vegetation (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:vegetation (Score:3, Funny)
Re:vegetation (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, there is more vegetation on the planet now than there was 100 years ago
I call bullshit.
State your references or admit you're pulling 'facts' out of your ass.
Re:vegetation (Score:2)
The total amount of large-tree standing timber in the US has increased by 30% since 1950. US forestlands covered 732 million acres in 1920; today they cover 747 million acres.
Re:vegetation (Score:3, Insightful)
US forestlands covered 732 million acres in 1920; today they cover 747 million acres.
A gain of 15 million acres over 85 years.
Roughly 176,471 acres gained a year.
Meanwhile, worldwide, we are losing rainforests to the tune of 1.5 acres per second [rain-tree.com].
That works out to 47,336,400 acres lost a year...more than 268 times the rate forestlands are growing in the U.S.
Re:vegetation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:vegetation (Score:2)
Re:vegetation (Score:2)
Unless the US has been hiding it's mighty amazon rain forest from the world.
Re:vegetation (Score:2)
Ha ha! (Score:2)
Very funny post
House-spotting (Score:1, Redundant)
--Rob
240 bits per pixel = lots'o'data (Score:3, Insightful)
Multispectral data is great for identifying ground cover (e.g, classifying the types of plants, health of plants, minerals, etc. on the ground). Sometimes, it's more valuable to know the materials on the ground than to see the geometric detail.
Wrong calculation (Score:3, Informative)
As the page on MERIS [esa.int] says, it is a 'pushbroom imaging spectrometer'. 'Pushbroom' means that instead of a rectangular field of view like a normal camera, it has a line-shaped field of view. An image is formed by continuously observing the s
Multispectral images and "unmixing" low-res pixels (Score:3, Informative)
Good point and that seems plausible, but is not entirely true. With a good pixel-mixing analysis you can resolve stuff inside the pixel. The key is having a clean spectral model for the terrain versus water and being able to say that a given pixel looks like its 90% trees and 10% fresh water. "Unmix" enough pixels and you can string them together to find streams smaller than 300 m wide that
publicy available? (Score:1, Insightful)
Could this mean ... (Score:2)
"Sharp" maps, huh, Roland? (Score:2)
How about "higher resolution?" Or are you actually talking about a map that I can cut myself with?
Because honestly, Roland... your prose make me want to cut myself. And I stopped that in high school.
300m 15-bands... great for analysis, not pictures (Score:5, Informative)
The reason this data is interesting is its 15-band nature and the amount of analysis and extraction that can be done from it.
For pretty pictures, there are plenty of better sources.
Google maps fanboys, have no fear... (Score:3, Insightful)
uh... (Score:2)
Why is this news now? (Score:2)
Seriously, are we going to help create the maps? No. Are we going to be able to provide assistance in any way? No. Is there anything to see yet? No. So why not post a story once the maps are out?
Cool. (Score:2)
How about remote places? (Score:2)
It's the AMERICAN way. (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but if I wanted to make the "Sharpest Ever Global Earth Map," I'd use a High Resolution Imaging Spectrometer. Or maybe this is about job security, ensuring they can do it all over again next year. Ah, mediocraty.
Somebody needs to tell the ESA that doing a half-assed job is the American way, damnit.