[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
20000720: GINI to netCDF (cont.)
- Subject: 20000720: GINI to netCDF (cont.)
- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:13:13 -0600
>From: David Harper <address@hidden>
>Organization: NCAR/RAP
>Keywords: 200003012325.QAA04248 McIDAS-X GINI netCDF
Dave,
re: Lat,Lon comparisons at UL and LR corners are within 2 parts per 1000
>Actually I made that same comparison. I think the problem is in the image,
>not the coordinates. When we look at it in Zebra, White Sands and the river
>are displaced relative to the coordinates.
I looked up the location of White Sands in an atlas and get a location
of 32:50N, 106:20W. Given that the white sands themselves cover quite
a bit of ground, there is no telling if the numbers I get back from the
center of the white sand feature represent the location listed in the
atlas. My listings show that the east-west size of the sands is only
about 0.39 degrees across (at 32.9N). A shift of 0.5 degrees would,
therefore, be quite noticable. Also, when I load the original GINI
image or its AREA copy in McIDAS and put a high resolution map on it, I
get very good agreement with the location of the Rio Grande and the
Texas/Mexico border.
To see how the image looks in McIDAS (with brightnesses exaggerated so
that the river and the sands can be seen easily), please check out:
http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/staff/tom/whitesands.gif
Can you provide me with browser loadable rendition of what you are seeing
in Zebra?
>Have you compared the actual data values at those points? That might be
>more telling.
The comparison for Lat,Lon and data values is:
point netCDF brightness McIDAS AREA brightness
------------+---------------------+-----------------------------
1,1 75 74
800,800 83 82
point netCDF Lat,Lon [deg] McIDAS AREA Lat,Lon [deg]
------------+---------------------+-----------------------------
1,1 36.32418N 110.7891W 36.32222N 110.79055W
800,800 29.71597N 101.4901W 29.71333N 101.49055W
The discrepency in the brightness values could be the 1 pixel offset
that I mentioned in my first note.
Tom