Re: [photo-3d] Re: Hyperstereo artists?, aerial topography

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

John A. Rupkalvis wrote:
> Regarding satellite imagery, the resolution, while astounding, still
> cannot match that of aircraft flying at 1,000 to 2,000 feet altitude
> (625 to 1250km).
> 

I think you meant 625-1250m (approx. 2000-4100 feet), not kilometers.

> Also, the other problem with satellite photography is that some part
> of the world is always covered with cloud cover, so it is not
> possible to cover all areas in the same pass.  Rather, mosaics are
> gradually built up from "sections" as they are revealed.
> 
> This is why I question whether the entire world has been covered at
> this time.  With today's technology it might be easier to get full
> coverage of the moon or Mars than the earth.
> 

The moon has been done several times over the years.  Most recently by
Clementine and Lunar Prospector.  Mars has been mapped a fewtime, but
it also has seasonal conditions (sand storms) that cause problems with
sattelite images.

> Also, I feel that it is quite likely that most if not all of us live
> in areas that have been covered and are available, since high
> security areas are usually restricted as to public access, let alone
> residency.
> 

Actually I live in a part of Queens (a borough of NYC) that seems to
have rather spotty coverage (based on various online satellite image
resources).

Of course if you've seen Men in Black you know that I live near where
they store the UFOs, and that could explain everything.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"