[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Satellite images: why 4/hr? (fwd)

This archive contains answers to questions sent to Unidata support through mid-2025. Note that the archive is no longer being updated. We provide the archive for reference; many of the answers presented here remain technically correct, even if somewhat outdated. For the most up-to-date information on the use of NSF Unidata software and data services, please consult the Software Documentation first.

  • Subject: Re: Satellite images: why 4/hr? (fwd)
  • Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 10:30:36 -0700 (MST)

===============================================================================
Robb Kambic                                Unidata Program Center
Software Engineer III                      Univ. Corp for Atmospheric Research
address@hidden             WWW: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/
===============================================================================

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:38:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Gilbert Sebenste <address@hidden>
To: Tom Whittaker <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: Satellite images: why 4/hr?

On Tue, 29 Dec 1998, Tom Whittaker wrote:

> But...if you want to _do_ anything with the imagery then you have to
> remember that it's remapped into a conformal projection and rescaled to
> 8 bit data.  While that's probably just fine for some applications
> (including some ops work), it doesn't lend itself to much multispectral
> research and instruction.  I know we've been using 8 bit data for all
> the imagery so far, but I'd like to see the extra bandwidth also be
> used to increase the precision (as well as more bands).

True, but I'll take what I can get.
 
> Another option for the 1km data would be to have the community agree
> that most of the time they'd only want 1km images over a single,
> limited (say, 640x480) region at their institution, and then to explore
> the use of "pull" technology to move the data.  Sort of like about 120

(cut)
 
> I've always thought that the beauty of the IDD is that we can decide
> what data is appropriate and needed...and don't have to always rely on
> the content of someone else's datastream.

Bingo! And I agree. If a blanket approach is impossible, then "pull"
technology works. And with the LDM, we essentially have it; we only pull
in what we want off the feeds anyway, and we decide what feeds we want.

Gilbert

*******************************************************************************
Gilbert Sebenste                                                     ********
Internet: address@hidden    (My opinions only!)                     ******
Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University                      ****
Work phone: 815-753-5492                                                ***
*******************************************************************************