AnsweredAssumed Answered

A couple of odd bugs in using rasters in 10

Question asked by meghan89 on Oct 26, 2010
I have a .SID of my entire town that will not display in 10.  I changed registry settings, changed the name of the file, moved the file, stripped out all extra .aux and pictometry files and got nothing.  Other SIDs will display, this one wont.  So I took my tiles and put them in a new file geodatabase.  EVERY file that ended in _ne.tif (each tile has a directional suffix _se, _sw, _ne, _nw) would not import into the new database, I had to rename them individually.  Very, very strange.

Then I imported all my tiles into a new file geodatabase and WOW, the color is so much more brilliant than the SID used to be! But that file geodatabase of rasters is 10G*, which is huge - even though it renders fast as lightning that's a lot to throw on a laptop for our field crew.  So I made mosaic which is 672 kb, yet there is a haze over the mosaic which I now realize was is the same as the SID.  I have attached jpeg files to illustrate the difference.

I would like to know why the color is so much more hazy in the mosaic/sid.  I'm aware there's a huge level of compression in the file, 10G to 672kb is an enormous difference, but is there a way to reach a middle ground where I preserve some of the brilliance in exchange for a smaller file size?

*I tried multiple raster file types for my file geodatabse, I used the LZ77 compression which saved me a gig of space versus not compressing them at all.  Any further efforts in compressing or compacting the geodatabase not given any results in decreasing file size