Comparison - Pictobrowser vs. Traditional Flickr Slideshow

2006-12-30T08:40:00.000-08:00

Takaroa Atoll - GE Split Image Landsat (Right) and Digital Globe (Left)(1:37,000) Using Pictobrowser

Finding Hidden Reefs Using The Color Dodge Effect Using Traditional Flickr Slideshow (TFS)

First some facts - they both require Flickr; you need to spend some money and get the Flickr upgrade account ($19 a year); they both require you to insert HTML code into your post; they both generate the code required; PictoBrowser generates the code in just a few simple steps and then you cut and paste it into your new post on your own blog, TFS is a strictly a cut and paste operation - you cut an old entry, paste it into your new post and insert your Flickr Slideshow ID code 72157594447232890 into the appropriate spot within the HTML code; Pictobrowser requires a minimum of 10-lines of HTML code, TFS requires 2-lines of HTML code; PictoBrowser is not an automatic slideshow, TFS is an automatic slideshow; PictoBrowser includes images Titles; TFS requires that you stop the show and select the slide to see the Titles; neither one allows for the inclusion of lengthy comments as part of their presentations

Okay, that's enought. I happen to like the look of Pictobrowser for my purposes. It is not that I want a slideshow, but I want to display a series of images that tell a story. The TFS is very easy to use.

I will keep tinkering with the two formats until I tinker a successful format.

Oh, by the way. If you would like to give Pictobrowser a try, assuming you have a Flickr account with images, select the INFO button and answer the questions, then cut and paste into your own new post on your own blog and enjoy your creation.

Enjoy!

Comparison - JPEG, MrSid, TIFF and EVS World Map

2006-12-26T15:01:00.000-08:00

Isle of Wight - Landsat Image N-30-50_2000

I recently had a visitor to this site request Landsat ETM+ imagery so they might digitize shorelines to create a map. Global Mapper gives me an option to save a screen shot, along with JGW and PRJ files which allows the image to be loaded into it's proper lat/lon grid. I took the image of Isle of Wight and zoomed to a scale of 1:150,000. I knew there would be image degradation, but I hoped it would be of small significance for my digitizing purposes.

Isle of Wight - Image Detail (JPEG, MrSid and TIFF)

I am spoiled. I work with Landsat ETM+ images for much of my Enhanced Vector Shoreline (EVS) digitizing. All three images started at a scale of 1:150,000. The detailed images are zoomed to a scale of 1:12,500, where I typically do most of my digitizing. Anti-alias pixel smoothing was applied to all three images. I know that this algorithm is a "black box" smoothing technique. I happen to prefer it over the clunky pixel format. But that is another comparison.

The pristine central image is MrSid format. This is a proprietary image compression format, developed by LizardTech, that shrinks Landsat TIFF images into manageable file sizes. MrSid does to TIFF format what MP3 does to WAV format. In other words a tremendous reduction in file size. The top image is JPEG. I use this format for all of my EVS-Islands images. It shrinks the image typically to about 200kb or less. The bottom image is TIFF. This format, reputed to give the "best" image, I seldom work with.

It looks as if both JPEG and TIFF images degrade (blurry). If my work did not require extremely precise digitizing, these images, at this scale (1:12,500), would be fine. Between the JPEG and TIFF images, the TIFF image seems to offer the greatest clarity.

Should my visitor use either image (JPEG or TIFF) to do their digitizing? That is their choice. Both formats give one "okay" clarity. On the other hand, when you have used MrSid format, it is tough to recommend anything else. For the digitizing work that I do, MrSid format is the best available.

I am not a photogrammetrist. If you are, I am certain that there are many strong arguments for using TIFF imagery (original and uncompressed) versus MrSid imagery (2nd-generation and compressed). Any time you manipulate imagery you risk degradation and MrSid formatting manipulates imagery. However, I can see that the superior image for my work is MrSid format. I work with limited storage and MrSid formatted imagery fits easily onto my hard drives. My preferred mapping program, Global Mapper, effortlessly handles these MrSid formatted images. Once loaded, I can work at 1:12,500 scale throughout the world using MrSid format. In short, my EVS World Map will be made using MrSid formatted Landsat images.

10/20/2006 - More and more 1-meter resolution or better imagery is freely available. The Isle of Wight, used in the above example, is imaged at 1-meter or better resolution on both Google Earth and Windows Local Live. However, my last line in the previous paragraph still holds true, the Landsat ETM+ 2000 imagery, which is worldwide in scope, is still my choice for constructing an EVS precision World Shoreline Map. I am keenly aware of NGA's Prototype Global Shoreline (PGA) which used Landsat ETM+ 2000 imagery to construct a Global Shoreline. I have also demonstrated in a number of posts that EVS offers a more precise depiction of the world's shorelines

Enjoy!

GeoPearls - Comparisons

Comparison - Pictobrowser vs. Traditional Flickr Slideshow

Comparison - JPEG, MrSid, TIFF and EVS World Map