POST
|
Hello, I have 2 adjoining DEM rasters that I have combined into a single, continuous raster using Mosaic To New Raster. The two source rasters overlap, and both have some 0 pixel values around their edges. Here's the overlap of one atop the other: [ATTACH=CONFIG]34792[/ATTACH] Here are the options I am using in the Mosaic to New Raster tool: [ATTACH=CONFIG]34794[/ATTACH] In order to deal with the overlap and the fact that some of the pixels at the edge = 0, I set the Mosaic Operator to Maximum. Raster values are in Meters and range from 0 to 1,683, so I use 32 bit unsigned as the Pixel Type. The mosaicked raster looks fine at the boundary. However, at the southeast edge, there is some odd banding that is happening in the display. This is how it looks at 1:125,000 scale, with 2 odd bands of pixels at seemingly odd ranges from the neighboring pixels: [ATTACH=CONFIG]34795[/ATTACH] One of the odd band of pixels goes away when zoomed in at higher scales, but one remains. Here it is at 1:60,000: [ATTACH=CONFIG]34796[/ATTACH] At scales higher than 1:1:57,311, both odd bands of pixels disappear and the raster looks "normal". Here it is at 1:50,000: [ATTACH=CONFIG]34797[/ATTACH] Why the odd display, and why only at smaller scales? Looking at these again, it appears as if the odd bands of pixels are "ghosts" of other parts of the raster.
... View more
06-21-2014
07:55 AM
|
0
|
1
|
927
|
POST
|
We're still on 10.1. The 3D Analyst Tutorial html pages are right there in the online help, but there's no data. Why?
... View more
06-15-2014
06:01 PM
|
0
|
0
|
1066
|
POST
|
Thanks, Larry. I think I get it. First, because I'm working in SP NAD83 Feet, I need to convert the MaxPS to meters, then apply the equation. So, for MaxPS 270, that converts to about 80 meters. Plug that into the equation, and I should see the image at scales higher than about 300,000. When the MaxPS is 1, that's about 0.3 meters, so I don't see the image until I zoom in to about 1:1,100 meters. The extent of all four tiles in my study area is just over 1:7,000. So, when I increase the MaxPS up to 6, that's 1.8 meters and computes to a scale of 1: 6,800, and so the image appears. Now my question is, why don't I have overviews generated for the master mosaic dataset? Even after building overviews, there are no additional footprints and attribute records in the footprint layer. Overviews were created for the three component mosaic datasets, so why not for the master mosaic dataset, which is a mosaic of all three? And why would creating the master mosaic compute such a small MaxPS for the 2009 mosaic in the first place?
... View more
05-27-2014
08:40 PM
|
0
|
0
|
561
|
POST
|
Hello, I am creating a composite mosaic dataset from three other mosaic datasets, each of which holds four orthophoto tiles from different years: 2004, 2009, and 2013. The goal was to create a time-aware layer and use the time slider to demonstrate this functionality for my students. The extent of the tiles are the same across years and the coordinate system is all state plane (feet), the only difference between the datasets is that the 2009 photos are higher resolution (0.5 ft) than the 2004 and 2013 (1 ft). After I combine the mosaic datasets into the master mosaic dataset and enable time on the layer, ArcMap does not display the 2009 set when the time slider comes to that year. It's footprint appears, but nothing else, and the other two years display just fine. At first, I tried using "build overviews" to see if that would fix it. It didn't. Then, I looked at the master mosaic dataset's footprint layer. I noticed that identical values are produced for MinPS, MaxPS, LowPS, and HighPS for the 2004 and 2013 sets in the master dataset's footprint attribute table. The LowPS for the 2009 orthos is (expectedly) 0.5, reflecting the higher resolution of this series. However, the MaxPS value is set to 1 for the 2009 set, while for the 2004 and 2013 sets the MaxPS value is 270.(Please see attached screenshot of the attribute table showing.) [ATTACH=CONFIG]34089[/ATTACH] I still wasn't quite sure what the MaxPS field does even after reading the help article on cell size ranges, but I changed it to 270 for the 2009 set, as it was set for the 2004 and 2013 sets, and then it displayed. In order to understand this better, I kept changing the value until I discovered that the image would appear if I set the value to 6 or greater. When set to 5 or less, the image would not appear when moving the time slider to 2009. I would LOVE it if someone can explain to me why so that I can explain it to my students! Thanks! -Neil
... View more
05-26-2014
06:16 PM
|
0
|
3
|
2986
|
POST
|
This is happening to one of my students. She's using the trial download of 10.1 from ESRI on a laptop with Windows 7. Performance seems otherwise OK.
... View more
02-18-2013
04:50 PM
|
0
|
0
|
1559
|
POST
|
Recalculating the spatial index did nothing, but making a copy of the mosaic dataset did. Thanks for the help.
... View more
12-06-2012
11:37 AM
|
0
|
0
|
1308
|
POST
|
Thanks for the reply, Gordon. But running the build footprints tool (and accepting all the defaults) mungs up the footprints. [ATTACH=CONFIG]19653[/ATTACH] I've tried this with another set of rasters - smaller set, lower resolution, and no overlapping rasters - and those footprints get munged up as well. I tried reducing the number of vertices, and that helps but does not eliminate the problem. I did not change the defaults otherwise. [ATTACH=CONFIG]19654[/ATTACH] There's another problem I'm having with that second dataset, which Ill probably just write into another post.
... View more
12-02-2012
10:02 AM
|
0
|
0
|
1104
|
POST
|
I've created a mosaic dataset for orthophotos for two adjacent towns. There are several overlapping tiles along the town boundary, and the tiles in each town are different sizes. This shouldn't be a problem for a mosaic dataset from what I've read - however, after following the work flow http://help.arcgis.com/en/arcgisdesktop/10.0/help/index.html#/The_workflow_and_tools_to_create_mosaic_datasets/009t00000039000000, there are gaps along the town boundary where the tiles overlap... But only over some: [ATTACH=CONFIG]19501[/ATTACH] If I load the individual tiles where the gaps appear, it seems that some of the larger tiles along the boundary include white space in the actual image. The screenshot below shows one of the tiles with white space obscuring the mosaic dataset "Footprint" boundaries for the smaller tiles. [ATTACH=CONFIG]19502[/ATTACH] So, from what I understand about how the ZOrder field in the "Footprint" boundary is supposed to work, if I set the value lower in the small tiles and a higher for the larger tiles, the smaller tiles (with photographic information throughout the space) should display on top and the larger tiles should be the background. So, I set ZOrder = -1 for all the smaller tiles and 1 for the larger tiles. That seemed to work, but then I when I built overviews and zoomed back out I see the same gaps, though they have shrunk a bit (compare to the first screenshot). [ATTACH=CONFIG]19503[/ATTACH] I found a post in the forums describing a problem that seemed to be similar to what was happening for me (http://forums.arcgis.com/threads/48759-Mosaic-dataset-overviews-appear-black-have-gaps-in-some-parts?highlight=mosaic+raster+gaps). So, I followed the advice written in by gsumerling and recreated the mosaic again, this time running the Build Footprints tool after loading rasters into tthe mosaic, though that seems redundant since I had "Update Cell Size Ranges" and "Update Boundary" boxes checked in the Load Rasters window (I also had calculate pyramids and statistics checked, and was careful to leave "Update Overviews" unchecked). Then, I ran Build Overviews and did NOT edit the ZOrder field in the table. Got the same result as in the first screenshot. Can anyone see where I'm going wrong in the process, here?
... View more
11-24-2012
11:48 AM
|
0
|
4
|
3042
|
POST
|
Thanks for the reply, Mike. Another thing I tried was taking the bounding coordinates of the largest layer in the map and using those coordinates for the map extextent. The result is worse. Do people creating maps and services on their own ArcGIS servers have the same problem? This has to be configurable, somehow. If it can be done on ArcGIS Server, why not on ArcGIS.com? The offset when loading for the first time makes the map look unprofessional to me, not to mention a little confusing for the users, especially new users.
... View more
09-16-2012
10:31 AM
|
0
|
0
|
305
|
POST
|
I know this is an old thread, but I was just having this issue myself and trying to find out how to deal with it. What I think the originator of this thread was describing was the difference between how well Maplex seems to label contour lines with how poorly they appear after converting to annotation. I've attached two screenshots. The first (LabelsByMaplex.jpg) shows the generous placement of labels by Maplex (shown with a halo around the labels): [ATTACH=CONFIG]13330[/ATTACH] Contrast this to the comparatively stingy placement once converted to annotation (LabelsAnnotation.jpg), shown using feature outline masks (a little harder to spot): [ATTACH=CONFIG]13331[/ATTACH] I've not found anything else on this so far.
... View more
04-08-2012
05:08 PM
|
0
|
0
|
585
|