Pixel blooming in Google Earth

"/\BratMan/\" wrote in message
...

"Jeff R." wrote in message
...
I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
Earth, at:

150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S

(and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?

Here's nice starburst one.
52°30'40.78"N 4°56'59.52"E

Thanks for that.
That shows the sort of reflection/sensor overload that I'd expect to see in
a conventional-type digital camera sensor. My camera shows the same
diffraction spikes if I stop it down far enough. (Not a function of
over-exposure.)

Yet the original post shows bleeding which is more consistent with an
overloaded flatbed scanner, or the type of CCD camera that astronomers use
on the back of their telescopes.


It just gets me wondering what sort of imaging setup is used by Google. Two
posters have suggested aircraft rather than satellites... I wonder.

....and thanks for all the comments to date.

--
Jeff R.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 09:39:08 +1100, "Jeff R." wrote
in :

Yet the original post shows bleeding which is more consistent with an
overloaded flatbed scanner, or the type of CCD camera that astronomers use
on the back of their telescopes.

That's more a function of the vintage of the sensor -- CCD sensors have
gotten more resistant to blooming as the technology has improved.

It just gets me wondering what sort of imaging setup is used by Google. Two
posters have suggested aircraft rather than satellites... I wonder.

Both.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Jeff R. wrote:
"/\BratMan/\" wrote in message
...
"Jeff R." wrote in message
...
I happened upon these two rather impressive blown highlights in Google
Earth, at:

150°59'49.49"E 33°49'0.68"S

(and a hundred metres or so north of that) and and just wondering... Is
this common in Google's sat shots? Anyone seen others?

Here's nice starburst one.
52°30'40.78"N 4°56'59.52"E

Thanks for that.
That shows the sort of reflection/sensor overload that I'd expect to see in
a conventional-type digital camera sensor. My camera shows the same
diffraction spikes if I stop it down far enough. (Not a function of
over-exposure.)

Yet the original post shows bleeding which is more consistent with an
overloaded flatbed scanner, or the type of CCD camera that astronomers use
on the back of their telescopes.


It just gets me wondering what sort of imaging setup is used by Google. Two
posters have suggested aircraft rather than satellites... I wonder.

...and thanks for all the comments to date.

I expect Google does very little of their own imaging, if any. Most
photos would be purchased from a variety of other sources, such as NASA
and other space geo-imaging outfits, with close-zoom images coming from
assorted aerial-photo suppliers.

Satellite photos can only get you so much detail - even the best sensors
and lenses can't magically dissipate atmospheric interference, haze,
pollution, and so on. Small detail could only come from sources WITHIN
the atmosphere. Mosaics would have to be compiled over faily extensive
time frames to cover the entire surface of the globe without cloud cover
and other such interference, so you'll have varying light conditions
from one area of the surface to the next, as well.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:50:49 GMT, Matt Ion wrote
in tncij.70$wx.9@pd7urf1no:

I expect Google does very little of their own imaging, if any. Most
photos would be purchased from a variety of other sources, such as NASA
and other space geo-imaging outfits, with close-zoom images coming from
assorted aerial-photo suppliers.

Copyright notices are on the Google Earth main screen.

Satellite photos can only get you so much detail - even the best sensors
and lenses can't magically dissipate atmospheric interference, haze,
pollution, and so on. Small detail could only come from sources WITHIN
the atmosphere. ...

Military surveillance satellites are capable of amazing resolution by
means of such things as active and adaptive optics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_optics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Jeff R. wrote:

It just gets me wondering what sort of imaging setup is used by Google. Two
posters have suggested aircraft rather than satellites... I wonder.

If you can see buildings leaning it's not satellite.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:58:27 GMT, Paul Furman
wrote in :

Jeff R. wrote:

It just gets me wondering what sort of imaging setup is used by Google. Two
posters have suggested aircraft rather than satellites... I wonder.

If you can see buildings leaning it's not satellite.

Why would you think that? Satellites can and do photograph at an angle.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)