Google's GeoEye-1 Takes Its First Pictures 152
Kev92486 writes "I was scanning through my RSS feeds today and happened upon an article about Google's GeoEye-1 imaging satellite which launched on Sept 6. Intrigued as to what the quality of the image was like, I decided to check it out only to find that the first picture was actually of my college campus, Kutztown University (Pennsylvania).
I had to make sure I was reading the article correctly as Kutztown is not a very large or well known campus. I'm not sure as to why they chose Kutztown for their first pictures. I would be interested if anybody could provide some sort of insight as to what process was used to select the first test location. Was the satellite simply in a convenient orbit to snap pictures of Kutztown?" Update: 10/09 20:56 GMT by T : HotHardware has its own article up on GeoEye-1, if you'd like your words and pictures in the same place.
I had to make sure I was reading the article correctly as Kutztown is not a very large or well known campus. I'm not sure as to why they chose Kutztown for their first pictures. I would be interested if anybody could provide some sort of insight as to what process was used to select the first test location. Was the satellite simply in a convenient orbit to snap pictures of Kutztown?" Update: 10/09 20:56 GMT by T : HotHardware has its own article up on GeoEye-1, if you'd like your words and pictures in the same place.
I'll Tell You Why (Score:5, Funny)
I had to make sure I was reading the article correctly as Kutztown is not a very large or well known campus. I'm not sure as to why they chose Kutztown for their first pictures. I would be interested if anybody could provide some sort of insight as to what process was used to select the first test location. Was the satellite simply in a convenient orbit to snap pictures of Kutztown?
Maybe you could explain this close up image [pcworld.com] of your campus? (It's from the lower right of the article's image)
Don't be coy, we all saw the lead up to this in the papers earlier this year [imageshack.us]. Kutztown's had this coming--it was one thing to invite Putin to talk but when he left those trailers, that was too far.
On a serious note, I'm certain they picked Kutztown based on the following:
Let P denote the number of lawyers a university has on reserve.
Let Q denote the number of lawyers Google has on reserve.
Let R denote said university's reserve resources for emergencies.
Let L be a function such that L(x) = the number of lawyers one can immediately hire with x dollars.
Is P + L(R) Q? Then I think we have a candidate! I found it on Google Scholar.
Re:I'll Tell You Why (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you could explain this close up image [pcworld.com] of your campus? (It's from the lower right of the article's image)
For anybody interested in the close up image, wondering where it *actually* is (because it ain't in the article's image), take a gander here:
Google Maps (pops) [google.com]
The plane's actually sitting in a carpark in the western suburbs of Paris, France.
That's no moon... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe you could explain this close up image of your campus? (It's from the lower right of the article's image)
That's just a Mirage.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder how many readers here actually get the joke [wikipedia.org]? The thing is, it looks more like an F-102 Delta Dart/Dagger [strategic-...ommand.com] to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Those Fokkers were flying Messerschmitts. [criticalmiss.com]
Re: (Score:1)
No, it appears to be F-106. Look at the "coke bottle" shape body which the F-102 doesn't. Mirage III and 5 has a parallel body like the F-102. Mirage 2000 has a "coke bottle" shape.
I don't know when this image was taken but when I was at Maxwell Air Force Base at the Air University in the late 1980's there was a section that looked like that area for doing "emergency dispersal" in case of base attack and dispersing aircraft to different locations. I don't remember having an F-106 for this class but we did h
I thought that pic was one of the tanks! (Score:3, Informative)
I had the feeling someone was watching me today... (Score:3, Funny)
..
Kutztown? (Score:5, Funny)
Gesundheit!
Summary of the Submission (Score:2)
Kutztown Kutztown Kutztown. Kutztown? Kutztown Kutztown Kutztown Kutztown, Kutztown Kutztown! Kutztown, Kutztown Kutztown: Kutztown.
Kutztown?
Lameness filter encountered.
Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
mirror (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't people use nyud.net anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't rhyme well enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for the mirror!
Picture is quite clear, can't wait for Google Earth to be refreshed.
Nice Football Field (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nice Football Field (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Can't tell you, season starts Saturday.
http://www.kutztown.edu/goldenbearnetwork/
Re: (Score:2)
I could only locate a rugby-or-something-alike field.
Tennis courts (Score:5, Funny)
It bothers me that the tennis courts are not equally spaced. Can they fix that and take another picture?
Here's why... (Score:5, Funny)
I think they were aiming for the First United Church of Kutztown, but the coordinates were off. Rumor has it the abbreviation is written on the roof.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think they were aiming for the First United Church of Kutztown, but the coordinates were off. Rumor has it the abbreviation is written on the roof.
Abbreviation? So Fstuntdchurkutz? Confusing but thank god they didn't put their acronym on the roof though!
Friends University... (Score:5, Funny)
My father-in-law got his undergrad education at Friends University of Central Kansas. No joke. I'd even just settle for a sweatshirt with the big "F.U." in the middle.
(It's even funnier in some respects when you know that "Friends" here refers to the Quakers. :)
Cheers,
Re: (Score:2)
My Cousins went to Ball State University.
http://cms.bsu.edu/
My Father in Law loves the BSU hat we got him.
Waiting for Green Bay (Score:3, Insightful)
Even more curious to me is why Google Earth still has such a low-res image of Green Bay, WI (Packers!!), but I can see Cochranton, PA (population: a few dozen or so) clear as crystal. Go figure.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Even more curious to me is why Google Earth still has such a low-res image of Green Bay, WI (Packers!!), but I can see Cochranton, PA (population: a few dozen or so) clear as crystal. Go figure.
Note: Resolution is directly proportionate to intelligence per capita. Having worked "Packers!" into every single one of your discussions your entire life has left you devoid of intelligence and full of beer & cheese, hasn't it? However I'm sure you've managed to mate with another manatee and spread your seed to annoy the hell out of other states with your dumbass unfounded allegiance to one of football's most mediocre teams.
How's Brett?
Re:Waiting for Green Bay (Score:5, Informative)
Could be any number of things. My farm in rural Iowa is at such a low resolution that it's difficult to make out large buildings. (And it's obviously reconstructed form false color images. Probably less than 30m resolution.
However a mile to the west there's a huge strip of very high resolution images. ~0.5m resolution. Why? It just so happens that there is a large wind farm going up in that strip of land. It seems that the wind farm company paid for a high resolution survey of the area and that just got added to the data pile. Until someone wants to see what yet another soybean farm looks like, I'm SOL. (Which is too bad because I'd really like to see how the crops are doing from a few thousand miles away.)
Re: (Score:2)
They used what was available and cheap. (Score:2)
As I understand it, Google used what was available (and cheap) when they were starting up the service. If something had been of interest to someone ELSE there'd be higher resolution imagery available.
For quite a while my rural retirement house in Nevada had a very low resolution picture of the construction site from years before. Then Steve Fossett disappeared after taking off from a place a half-hour's drive away and google upgraded the imagery of the area to help with the search. The new pics are not a
Mirror (Score:2)
don't ask slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
go outside, write your question and your email address on a poster, and point it skyward
then go inside and wait for a reply in your inbox
if you don't like google's answer, go outside, and stick your middle finger up to the sky
Re: (Score:2)
not impressed with orbit (Score:5, Informative)
Re:not impressed with orbit (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
From my reading of the Wikipedia article (and this is my introduction to sun-synchronous orbit, so I could be wrong), the neat part is that wherever the satellite is overhead, it's at the same point in time.
Again from Wikipedia, GeoEye-1's orbit is 10:30 am sun-synchronous...I think those shadows look like about 10:30 AM in the autumn.
Re: (Score:1)
Congratulations, Sherlock. It is Autumn. FTA:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Just because it is sun synchronus doesn't mean it is directly below the sun. It could be sun synchronus with an off set angle.
If it was directly in line with the sun, the glare from bodies of water would be pretty intense.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, imaging satellites are closer to the subject for photos directly downward, so they end up being more common in practice than oblique angles. However, taking pictures of t
Re: (Score:2)
1. Choose an overcast day. A flat layer of clouds will not have perceptible shadows.
2. Take the pictures at night. There won't be any local shadows from the sun, but there will, of course, be the shadow of the Earth itself. Remember to adjust accordingly for moon-induced shadows.
So does this mean full satellite coverage... (Score:1, Interesting)
... on google maps and if so how long will it take?
Fairly Random (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual image collected was a 16 km wide swath cut through PA and part of New York. The swath was chosen based on timing and that it would be fairly close to nadir. As for why Kutztown in particular, I'll ask around, but I think it was basically just something interesting to look at(read:not trees). The calibration and focus were probably pretty good at that point in the image too. Keep in mind this is literally the very first image from the satellite, using preliminary calibration and focus, with the color bands aligned by hand. The imagery from this satellite is going to be exceptional once everything is said and done.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fairly Random (Score:5, Informative)
The swath was chosen based on timing and that it would be fairly close to nadir.
I think you mean perigee [wikipedia.org] not nadir [wikipedia.org].
-jcr
Nope I meant nadir
The nadir angle is basically how far to the side the satellite is pointing from its ground track. The farther off nadir the more you're looking at the sides of buildings and trees vs. the top. You're generally off a bit, but anything above 30 starts to get useless for most things.
More info on the sat (Score:4, Interesting)
Since there's nothing interesting in TFA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoEye_1#GeoEye-1 [wikipedia.org]
*end oblig wikipedia karma-whoring*
Re: (Score:2)
Man if they can do 41cm for $200M, imagine what the expensive ones can do.
Wonder if that multispectral imagery is available? (Score:2)
Wikipedia says the satellite also produces 1.65 meter multispectral imagery. I wonder if that is available publicly (without space-high fees) and how to go about getting hold of it?
(Back in the late '60s and early '70s I was working on multispectral recognition and mapping programs to process aircraft, Skylab, and ERTS/Landsat data. Missed renewing my ham license due to a rush project hacking up a "clustering" algorithm to come up with a recognition map for a hunk of Italy for which we had data but no "gr
Playing catch up... (Score:3, Interesting)
This was the one feature that maps.live.com had over google maps - they had this clarity before Google did, and they also offer the birds eye view which gives you an angled perspective rather than straight down.
I'm glad Google now offers something similar as I like their service much better. In all fairness however, it should be acknowledged that Google was beat to the punch by Microsoft on this.
You read the subject! (Score:2)
I'll second that, I first encountered bird's eye view while in London last summer and it's an order of magnitude better than plain-old top-down view because when (for example) you exit a tube station and are trying to find the large Forbidden Planet shop you tracked down on the map can you see:
a) The roofs of all the buildings around you?
b) The sides of all the buildings around you?
The answer (unless you've gotten off at Lilliput and Castle) is b).
I think the next evolution of this tech woul
Go Bills! (Score:2)
Lot of Andre Reed fans out there at Google, I guess.
Chromatic abberation (Score:1)
Does anyone else notice that the colors (of say vegetation) bleed from one shape to the other? I might be deceiving myself, since I know the color and contrast images were taken at different resolutions.
It kinda reminds me of Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky's pseudo-color photos [wikipedia.org] of Imperial Russia.
Kutztown Golden Bears? (Score:2)
Talk about a specific fetish.
WHere is the business value? (Score:2)
Owning a satellite to take images that are already available through other sources seems a tad wasteful.
What else are they going to do? Are they positioning themselves to sell the images to other people/governments?
Where indeed? (Score:2)
I'd say RTFA, except neither the submitter nor the editor bothered either. Google doesn't own GeoEye-1. It belongs to a company called (wait for it) GeoEye. Google only figures in the article because they're a big purveyor of sat photos.
Why are the parking lot lines visible? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
0.41 m B&W vs 1.65 m colour resolution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
The 16x factor in the article is correct if you consider a square area (4 x 4) instead of a single row of pixels.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I assumed it was just another Bayer grid and that therefore it should be 4x rather than 16x.
By the way, if it's anything vaguely like a Bayer grid, except a 4x4 one, shouldn't it allow us to obtain a better resolution than the 1.64m by using the same sort of technique as used to turn RAW digital images into the full resolution RGB pictures we see?
Mmmh.. (Score:2)
I say bogus (Score:2)
This is not a satellite photo -- it is an aerial photo. 1m resolution just wouldn't show the detail that we see here. The ballfield (100 m long) is about 135 pixels long, less than 1 m/pixel.
How can this be a satellite photo?
Thad
Re: (Score:1)
First Imaging Target Choices (Score:1)
I know why the picture showed your campus (Score:2)
""" I decided to check it out only to find that the first picture was actually of my college campus, Kutztown University """
So, this is the new quantum-photographic tecnology in Google's Geo's Eye: They had a picture that was potentially from anywhere on Earth. In the moment the first observed downloaded it, it immediately collapsed to your location.
I know why! (Score:2)
It's the only place I've smoked opium, they're on to me!!!
Re:What a letdown (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, but the high resolution imagery currently on Google maps typically comes from areal photos, not from satellite imagery. The news here is that the images were taken from a satellite in orbit, not from a plane.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
aerial
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What a letdown (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it's not really news. If you understand the different data sources, it should come as no surprise that these images are not as good as the high-resolution aerial photos and as good as good satellite photos (think of the before/after tsunami photos)
Good aerial photos have a pixel resolution of 6 inches. Decent ones are 12 inches. GeoEye-1's resolution is 50 cm, or about 19 inches. 19 inches is good for working with large objects, but not useful for fine-grained measurements. (it will be fine for 99.9% of the apps Googlers develop)
For a good example of 6 and 12 inch data, look at the state of Indiana (in the US) in Google Earth. In 2005/6, Indiana re-imaged the entire state with aerial photos. The whole state is at least 12 inches and all metro areas are 6 inches.
I'll be really excited when we can get continually updated 6 inch data... My only concern is that with Google's dominance, we'll be stalled at 19 inches for a long time and people will start to think that's the best we can do.
-Chris
Re:What a letdown (Score:5, Informative)
Why would Google's dominance have anything to do with the 50cm limit? That's a government restriction on what's available for civilian use. The wired article says that it actually is capable of ~40cm but NGA degrades the resolution before releasing it to Google or anyone else. I know of another spacecraft that had to be placed in a higher orbit in order to keep the resolution below the limits.
Since the US commercial space industry is effectively isolated by ITAR restrictions, but is still dominant overall for now, a US restriction basically leads to a world-wide restriction for everyone but other governments. A loosening of US regulation is the only real way to improve commercial space imagery in the short term, although if ITAR isn't loosened soon, the world's going to catch up and surpass the US anyway. But of course, saying you want to stop fighting international arms trade is about as easy as saying you want to make life easier for pedophiles or terrorists, and I can't see it passing anytime soon.
Re: (Score:2)
My point has nothing to do with government limits or anything like that.
What I mean is that by Google using this as their primary data source and with 50 cm being "good-enough" for a lot of applications, there will be less incentive to invest the better aerial data. It's just the simple fact that once the market is flooded with 50 cm data, most people won't know that there are better resolutions available and most consumer applications will be built around 50 cm as the standard.
If Google used 40 cm or 6 in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bottom line: there are good practical reasons why you won't see 6-inch imagery of the whole planet any time soon.
What a secret. (Score:2)
"Since the US commercial space industry is effectively isolated by ITAR restrictions, but is still dominant overall for now, a US restriction basically leads to a world-wide restriction for everyone but other governments. A loosening of US regulation is the only real way to improve commercial space imagery in the short term, although if ITAR isn't loosened soon, the world's going to catch up and surpass the US anyway."
Well except for one thing. Other governments are likely to place restrictions on their sat
Re:What a letdown (Score:5, Interesting)
Good aerial photos have a pixel resolution of 6 inches.
Do you mean 6 inches per pixel? This [192.com] might impress you. I think it's 4cm per pixel but only available over central London for the time being.
Re: (Score:2)
just one word: wow
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty damned good. Unfortunately the London road crews can't paint parallel lines all to well.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Good aerial photos have a pixel resolution of 6 inches. Decent ones are 12 inches. GeoEye-1's resolution is 50 cm, or about 19 inches. 19 inches is good for working with large objects, but not useful for fine-grained measurements. (it will be fine for 99.9% of the apps Googlers develop)
I dunno, the average nipple is what? One inch across maybe? The Internet demands higher resolution.
Re: (Score:1)
I'll be really excited when we can get continually updated 6 inch data
I'm pretty sure there is a joke in there somewhere...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For a good example of 6 and 12 inch data, look at the state of Indiana (in the US) in Google Earth. In 2005/6, Indiana re-imaged the entire state with aerial photos. The whole state is at least 12 inches and all metro areas are 6 inches.
Also see the entire country of Denmark. And it has better color correction than the state of Indiana. For example, Tivoli Gardens [google.com] and these strange neighborhoods [google.com].
Re: (Score:2)
True. A lot of people miss that - the really good resolution pictures on G are typically taken from aeroplanes or (more rarely) helicopters. Who knows what military/intel sats can do - for sure they'll never share. One thing they have in common with commercial sats tho' is problems with clouds and other stuff (moving fast high in sky, extreme angles of incidence, blah blah. The bs about being able to read your newpaper is just that...bs).
Still, pretty damn good picture.
As to why this place? Probably the
Re: (Score:1)
Would these [google.com] be areal photos (NSFW)? Or at least areol photos?
Re: (Score:2)
Not so sure it is satellite. I would have thought that the perspective would be straight down. In the picture you can see the sides of buildings as if it ware taken with a wider angle lens such as used on aerial photography.
I think that with the extreme telelens required for satellites you would not see sides of buildings.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, if you're able to take high resolution areola photographs from an aeroplane you are doing very well.
Re:What a letdown (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone with a wiener big enough to be seen from space I am concerned by this.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
...because they can.
and now you have complained on a public website they will watch you good.. mwuahahahah.
Have you looked at the car parked across the street, watching?
Sleep tight.
OH NOES (Score:2)
*Waits for Google employees to T.P. his house and egg his car*
Re: (Score:2)
Smile!
Re: (Score:2)
But what I was trying to ask is what is the point. What value does having pictures of everything in the world have? I think it detracts from the world rather than enhances anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Because when you take someone's photograph you steal their soul.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, there are clouds and a quit a bit of haze in the image shown in your link -- this lowers the apparent image quality quite a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real strength of this website is predicting visually detectable satellite passes for a user-defined point on Earth. Tell it where you are, and it will tell you when to