Google Earth Beta

Note: I downloaded Google Earth vers. 4 (beta). The resolution was
supposed to be better???? I find that the resolution is the same as
before, when one "focuses" in on a location, the picture becomes
blurred when you get closer, what does "better resolution" mean? Sid
Kraft, .

wrote:
Note: I downloaded Google Earth vers. 4 (beta). The resolution was
supposed to be better???? I find that the resolution is the same as
before, when one "focuses" in on a location, the picture becomes
blurred when you get closer, what does "better resolution" mean? Sid
Kraft, .

Note: resolution depends on source material; the views are from myriad
sources, including even "adjusted" oblique photos. I understand the
poor-quality image areas are improved when better source material is
available.

When you say, " ... supposed to be better ... " what made you suppose
so?

--
Frank ess

In article ,
"Frank ess" wrote:

Note: resolution depends on source material; the views are from myriad
sources, including even "adjusted" oblique photos. I understand the
poor-quality image areas are improved when better source material is
available.

When you say, " ... supposed to be better ... " what made you suppose
so?

You may be better results from Google Maps, which can be accessed via an
ordinary browser.

Google are constantly updating their satellite images, but it's a huge
task to get the entire Earth at sufficient resolution to tell the sex of
a tomcat on the ground. Certainly Christchurch, New Zealand has had it's
data updated & improved enormously this year.


--
~IRO
(enzed = nz)

IRO wrote:
it's a huge
task to get the entire Earth at sufficient resolution to tell the sex of
a tomcat on the ground.

I think we can safely assume that a tomcat is male without subjecting it
to satellite based investigations... )

IRO wrote:
In article ,
"Frank ess" wrote:

Note: resolution depends on source material; the views are from myriad
sources, including even "adjusted" oblique photos. I understand the
poor-quality image areas are improved when better source material is
available.

When you say, " ... supposed to be better ... " what made you suppose
so?

You may be better results from Google Maps, which can be accessed via an
ordinary browser.

Google are constantly updating their satellite images, but it's a huge
task to get the entire Earth at sufficient resolution to tell the sex of
a tomcat on the ground. Certainly Christchurch, New Zealand has had it's
data updated & improved enormously this year.


I noticed much improvement in England, and some US areas. Images of
Niagara Falls are almost like aerial photos!

On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:12:15 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

I noticed much improvement in England, and some US areas. Images of
Niagara Falls are almost like aerial photos!
That is because they are aerial photos :-)
If you see New York GIS and/or Sandborn in the copyright section of
the image, it is aerial photograph.

--Rolf

Rolf T. Kappe wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:12:15 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

I noticed much improvement in England, and some US areas. Images of
Niagara Falls are almost like aerial photos!
That is because they are aerial photos :-)
If you see New York GIS and/or Sandborn in the copyright section of
the image, it is aerial photograph.

--Rolf

Makes sense. They look rather like the photos I took from a helicopter
while I was there. Actually better than the ones from MS Local Live site.