Re: Google earth.


"Matt Giwer" <jull43@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote in message
news:46c0201e$0$29672$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tedd Jacobs wrote:
"Matt Giwer" wrote...

<snip>

If someone has paid for and made
available small areas, fine. Maybe the
company did it for advertising and good
will to sell the service for other
locations. But the issue is still the
number of images and the time to collect
them increases with the resoltion. Twice
the resolution, four times as many. Four
times the resolution, 16 times as many.
You can take it from there.

Eventually the entire world may be down
to the resolution of a blade of grass but
at some point overhead images cease being
of more use unless your purpose is
espionage.

i'm confused... either you dont get out
in the field and do archaeology much or
dont realize the history and applications
of aerial imagry. i can understand the
comment on resolution, but as for use...

Go back in the tread and see how the
discussion got here with Peter Jason only a
couple posts back. The I could read he was
trying to imply some kind of google-earth
conspiracy to show only low-res images.


It *is* a conspiracy, and it's *all*
about the money.

I'll bet archaeologists have to pay Google
for extra hi-res shots of archaeological
sites, and magnetometer scans too. They can
probably order shots in raking light, and IR
& UV versions.

I couldn't see a *single* papyrus plant in
the Sudd Swamp! I had to travel to the local
zoo where they have a wonderful example
growing in a duck pond.






.

Quantcast