Mapas de declive do ArcMap 10.1 e 10.3 são diferentes

Question

<\/HEAD>Eu estava examinando um mapa de declive que criei no ArcMap 10.1 aproximadamente há um ano. Calcular o mesmo mapa de declive no ArcMap 10.3 me dá resultados ligeiramente diferentes. Algo mudou na forma como o declive é calculado? Usei o mesmo DEM de 100m há um ano e tenho hoje. Além disso, notei que o mapa de declive do 10.1 abre com uma simbologia B&W esticada enquanto o mapa de declive do 10.3 abre com uma simbologia classificada. As capturas de tela abaixo mostram os resultados ligeiramente diferentes, incluindo um aumento no valor máximo do declive.<\/P><\/BODY><\/HTML>

DanPatterson_Retired · Answer

Ok perhaps next time we can leave out the coordinate system.

If... the raster has the exact same extent (check again) in rows and columns and in UTM coordinates AND it has the same cell size and there is a difference.

Is the difference just random? (a screen grab would really help)

Were you using slope in degrees for both OR slope in percent for both?

ThomasNupp · Answer

Here are the results of the raster calculations. As you can see by the range of values and the mean differences the two slope maps are different. 444, 6791100, 1001.15 MBGRIDGenericfloating point32 Bit-3.40282346639e+038absentabsentNoneBasicPermanent3953822.73375472874.114169517274.1141693885922.73375NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_15NMeter (1.000000)Degree (0.0174532925199433)5000000-930.99960D_North_American_1983skipped columns:1, rows:1, ignored value(s): -8.706651687622077.199062824249268-0.068358556105292541.0596882485126030

DanPatterson_Retired · Answer

It looks like the extent are the same and the cell size.

Now subtract them (either in the raster calculator or by using the Minus key).

You should have effectively 0 within floating point error.

Report back

(could just be a symbology thing... in which case, save the symbology from the old raster, and use it for the new raster in the import symbology from... portion of the symbology pane.)