Re: Re: photo

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004, mat churchill wrote:

> Very interested to know how you get on with photo scenery Jon.
>
> I got the Getmapping photo scenery CD over Christmas and have put a tile
> into flight gear.
>
> The CD uses the Enhanced Compressed Wavelet (ECW) image format which is
> non Linux at the moment apparently.
>
> http://www.terracolor.net/ecwinfo.htm
> http://remotesensing.org/gdal/frmt_ecw.html
>
> The CD comes with the ERmapping windows program that views & converts
> the .ecw file to ESRI Bil + Geospot, Geotiff, .bmp and jpegs.
> I ran it OK using codeweavers wine on my Mandrake box and got it to
> produce a single 2.1GB jpeg.

Hmm, geotiff is handy - precalibrated images are always a bonus (even if
you just extract the calibration data and convert to something else!)

> Not quite as good as I had hoped for but still good, have hand stitched

I found it looks ok once you're up to a couple of thousand feet - below
that it starts to look rather blocky.

> a tile over Lands End airfield and the nearby hill carnbrea the last
> hill in England. Done by hand the hill and airfield look very accurate.
> Some screenshots can be seen here:
>
> http://freespace.virgin.net/mamaloucos.circus/Flightgearweb/index.html
>
> I'm aware that spending a weekend tinkering with one scenery tile does
> not provide any solutions for world scenery building, it just looks nice

How did you place that? I've been fiddling with tguserdefas a means of
easily generating the polygons for the textures. It may be possible to
automate something processing geotiff files to extract the position data,
then write a tguserdef xml config file.

> I would'd like to have a go at cutting up the 2.1GB jpeg of cornwall
> using the tools David is talking about. One thing I have noticed while
> attempting to hand match some higher res gshss coastline with a photo
> tile is that unless well matched the coastlines look very bad.

I've found that the Image::Imlib2 perl library is incredibly useful for
chopping/stitching/converting images.

> It looks like we're interested in a similar thing here, so more than
> willing to help if needed, but unfortunately am not a coder.

I'll happily tweak code, but I'd definitely not describe myself as a
programmer (The results are generally not pretty :-).

-- 
Jon Stockill
[email protected]