topic Re: How do I covert Scientific E Notation to number in ArcGIS? in ArcGIS Spatial Analyst Questions

How do I covert Scientific E Notation to number in ArcGIS?

Shareful — Sat, 20 Feb 2021 04:36:48 GMT

While analyzing a dataset of NASA, I'm having a Scientific E Notation number like 7.60907e-06. Do you know how do I covert it into the real number in ArcGIS?

Pls suggest. A screenshot is attached for your understanding.

Re: How do I covert Scientific E Notation to number in ArcGIS?

DanPatterson — Sat, 20 Feb 2021 10:20:02 GMT

It is a real number... you just have to move the decimal place six places to the left

a =7.60907e-06 float(a) 7.60907e-06 "{:16.10f}".format(a) # ---- use ' 0.0000076091' # --- now for a brain twister a = 7.60907 * 1e-06 a 7.609069999999999e-06 # --- floating point representation # ---- now a = 7.60907e-06 * 1000000. 7.60907

Re: How do I covert Scientific E Notation to number in ArcGIS?

Shareful — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 07:05:19 GMT

@DanPatterson many thanks. I'm so sorry, I'm not so good at ArcGIS so far. Would you kindly let me know how do I execute it? Using Raster calculator or what?

Re: How do I covert Scientific E Notation to number in ArcGIS?

DanPatterson — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:08:15 GMT

Raster calculator would be the easiest.

But why would you want to multiply the raster by 100000 since it will change your actual values.

Your values are small, perhaps you could tell us what the values represent in the first place

Re: How do I covert Scientific E Notation to number in ArcGIS?

Shareful — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 12:22:06 GMT

I want to change the number, because it (Scientific E Notation number) does not allow me for any further spatial analysis. Even I can't convert from Raster to Point too. Small number is fine for me.

I can't multiply 100000 with the raster image too.

Re: How do I covert Scientific E Notation to number in ArcGIS?

DanPatterson — Sun, 21 Feb 2021 14:20:54 GMT

Raster to Point (Conversion)—ArcGIS Pro | Documentation

either floating point or integer rasters can be used... which is strange because scientific notation is still floating point.

did it work when you scaled up the values?